The down-ballot race going on right now isn't getting the attention it deserves. Not good, because the stakes are very, very high. So unless voters want the next four years to look like the last eight, they better show up at voting booths and pay as much attention to the bottom of the ballot as they do to the top.
One implication of my predictions would be Ohio losing its status as a predictor of Presidential election victories. More importantly, this would be the first election in recent history where the winner of the election will not win two out of the three "big swing states." This seems to be indicative of a shift, where future swing states will be comprised of a collective of smaller states with rapidly rising populations, such as Nevada. As opposed to the past rigidity of the "big three" swing states, this will lead to future Presidential candidates having to chase after electoral votes in a more decentralized manner.
Is the U.S. election really a neck-and-neck race, like the pollsters in the mainstream media keep reporting? Not really. It would be close, if the popular vote indeed decided the Presidency, but it's the Electoral College that determines who wins. That's why Obama and Romney don't bother to campaign in California, New York, or Texas; the outcomes there are "givens." The swing-states are where the action is -- and this time around, Ohio is the "swingyest" of them all.