Michigan going Republican is about as likely as me crapping out a brick of solid gold. If you check the polling data for MI, you'll find that the last poll had Obama by 15. That's the sort of accuracy you can expect when you blindly take every poll result no matter how unlikely.

I didn't think there was any way that Scott Walker could keep his job either, but he's still there.

Hopefully whatever poll they were using that shows the President losing in MI is an anomaly.

The latest poll in Minnesota has the President up by 15, but the latest Michigan poll has him down by 1.

Lots of time to go, but it really shouldn't be close at all.

Average of polls is Obama by six. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/mi/michigan_romney_vs_obama-1811.html

These numbers are not current or accurate.

I don't like the numbers either, but I'm not sure it serves Democrats well to assume anything.

These numbers may be way off, but they do appear to be the most current (except for polls run by the parties themselves).

Ive read about a dozen of your recent posts on other threads and its clear to me that your name would be more accurate if it said "sickofthe99pct".

There are some issues that IMO, are party neutral. You're welcome to your own opinion, and are free to disagree with me, as I am with you.

That doesn't mean that I'm not a loyal Democrat who wants to see President Obama re-elected. And I do become concerned when I see many people taking it for granted that his re-election will be a cakewalk. Many of us, me included, thought that Scott Walker's recall would be hands down, foregone conclusion. We were wrong.

If the fact that I don't agree with every person on this board on every single issue doesn't meet with your approval, too bad. We're not automatons.

all you need to do is look at the threads from last Tuesday before about 9:30 pm ET on the WI recall. Full of chest puffing and fist bumping. The election is a lot closer (popular vote, we are looking a bit better EC wise) than many here would like to believe and breeds complacency.

I havent noticed one yet.

On electing Democrats, especially the President, on women's rights, on gay rights, on unions, on taxing the rich, on public education, on Social Security, on Medicare, need I go on?

If that's not enough for you, again, too bad.

A lot of wishful thinking in both instances.

is that he seems to assign each state based on most recent state poll. He doesn't evaluate the polls or average the last few. So an outlier poll, or a biased one, can flip a state.

I think they only average polls for the states that don't have one on the day a poll comes out for another state (does that make sense?) I would think averaging all of the polls would be more accurate, especially in close states that might go back and forth every day or so.

I know there was the one EPIC poll that had Romney up 1, but that's an outlier. Most polls have shown Obama up by an average of roughly 8 points. Their polls have consistently been better for Romney in Michigan than other pollsters.

Also, I'd have Ohio a lean Obama state. Again, most polls there show an Obama lead, albeit a small one that could flip the other way easily.

If you switch those two over to the Obama column as you should, you'd see Obama with a 297-206 advantage.

Nate Silver's map (not the New York Times' political desk's map) is the most accurate one, I believe.

For Michigan that would be the EPIC poll.

A much better map would be Pollsters or RCP as they use aggregates.