Stu Bykofsky: In race between Romney and Obama, not hard to be undecided

IN THIS PRESIDENTIAL election cycle, the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics estimates $2.5 billion will be spent convincing Americans who they should choose for the next commander in chief.

That's an obscene amount of money, and oodles of it will be spent in about a dozen battleground states - Nevada (6 electoral votes), Colorado (9), Iowa (6), Wisconsin (10), Ohio (18), Florida (29), North Carolina (15), Virginia (13), New Hampshire (4), Michigan (16), Connecticut (7), New Mexico (5) and Pennsylvania (20). The most populous ones get the most attention.

Americans within those states who say they are independent or undecided will get an unholy amount of attention, and some wonder why.

A recent New York Times story said the "undecideds" are mostly a myth, that half usually break in a predictable way. But that means half don't.

The Times says only 3 to 5 percent of voters are actually up for grabs. That may be true - but that is the margin of victory.

For now, I am undecided.

Most of my friends aren't. In this Deep Blue city, the embedded civic value is Vote Democratic No Matter What. So almost all the Dems have "decided," as have my Republican friends - they have "decided" on Romney (after previously liking someone else). They are for whoever opposes Obama.

Unlike average Americans, most of my friends care about politics, they enjoy gossiping about it and strategizing. It's like Fantasy Football for nerds. We immerse ourselves in political minutiae even though most Americans find primaries as interesting as water polo.

Political pros say Americans don't start paying attention to politics until September - or later. A huge number don't give a damn, period.

Four years ago, I endorsed Obama and voted for him. I was an early decider - he had me after his speech on race - but many people were not. Why?

One-time druggie vs. war hero. Harvard Law vs. Annapolis. Young vs. old. Community organizer vs. big-business sympathizer. White vs. (half) black.

The real game-changer is not the undecided, but the unvoting. Turnout in the landmark 2008 presidential election was a miserable 56.8 percent, and a candidate who could energize a portion of the stay-at-home 43.2 percent would win in a crushing landslide.

Here's why I'm frozen on the diving board: Unemployment remains above 8 percent, the recovery is weak and I don't think Obama really understands business. He hasn't delivered what he promised, but my doubts about Romney's plans keep me from falling into his arms.

Under Obama, the national debt zoomed by almost $5 trillion. You and I should pay that off, not saddle our children with it. We must increase taxes, lower expenditures or both. Obama walked away from the sensible Simpson-Bowles financial plan that he himself commissioned. Romney wants to cut - taxes for the rich, social programs for the poor. That stinks.

I choke on Obama's failure to call our enemy by name, radical Islam, even while our enemies practice it. Romney will call them out but opposes relief to innocent children of illegal immigrants, while Obama supports it (as do I).

They each seem like a bad date - Obama lectures, Romney sermonizes. I am in no rush to decide right now because they may change some positions in the days ahead (like Obama's recent switch to OK gay marriage).

It's OK to be "undecided" when neither guy gives you what you want.