This is the type of lukewarm analysis that Reason and Cato have fallen into, pretending an objectivity that doesn't exist. If writers like Gillespie were really objective, they'd look at an Obama second term as a total failure for the nation.
Gillespie looks at independents and states how they will determine the election, then he "even-handedly" assesses Obama's and Romney's flaws and what they're missing, then says at the end that if they do three things, even a little, they will get the independent vote.
What damn good will it do anyone but Obama and the misguided Left for him to fool the nation into thinking he's focusing on the three things Gillespie lists and get re-elected? If Gillespie abided by objectivity, he'd realize that an Obama second term will be characterized by a double-down on statist intervention. Gillespie states it will be easier for Obama to stand against his base and get re-elected. Isn't this convenient? What Gillespie doesn't make clear is that Obama's posturing to get re-elected will be temporary. Obama didn't create the monster Healthcare plan and support the economy-killing Dodd-Frank because he was pressured by the Left, and he didn't pay off the union in mad rush of cronyism because his kneecaps were threatened. Obama is a progressive, and his policies are antithetical to limits on government power and a free market. Gillespie can claim he's merely looking at the politics of the situation, and what it will take to get elected for either Romney or Obama, but who cares what dishonest tactics will work to get elected? If Reason and Cato can't objectively wave the warning flag and committ to liberty and anti-statism, or at least reject illiberal policies and regulations and all forms of statist inteventions with terrible consequences, then they're just a bunch of pundits piled on top of the idiots already blathering about politics on cable news.
Maybe Romney will be bad too, but I don't see any way he can be as bad for the nation as Obama -- and, man, that's as objective as it gets.