You mention Reid and Bennett, but let's also look at Feingold, and the fact that Obama's Senate seat - in blue Illinois, went to a Republican.  Let's also look at Scott Brown in MA.

Let's also look that the Dems are defending 23 Senate seats in 2012 (as well as the WH), while the Republicans are defending only 9 (which should be relatively safe).

I would say Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Michigan are going Obama though.  Why?

Black voters made of 20% of Virginia voters in 2008, and the white voters who supported Obama tended to be latte-imported-progressives.  Those voters are going to stick with Obama in 2012. Obama won by 6% point in 2008.  So I would say Obama wins in Virginia even if it's narrowly.

Penn will also go Obama in 2012.  Sestek only lost by 2% point in 2010, and if you look at the exit polls, it says only 8% of the 2010 voters were black while 13% of the voters were black in 2008.  Those extra black voters will give Obama the win in 2010.

But I suspect that Obama still has the inside track. Virginia, Colordao, and Nevada look good, but New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Michigan are of some concern.

That's why I always look to the polls before I make pronouncements based on my sense of the political environment. The head-to-head polling shows that Obama is in an arguably precarious position right now, but far from dead.  

And reading through the thread, I see that we are in for two years of handicapping a horse race where no matter who wins, we're all going to lose - well, except for those top 2-per centers, who will land softly on their massive piles of cash no matter who is elected in 2012.

How can anyone even work up a frisson of excitement or interest in re-electing a president who has failed to deliver on just about every truly Democratic issue there is - who has, on issue after issue, with the able assistance of the Congressional Democrats, stripped out most of the progressive elements, built in Republican-friendly components, and then announced his triumphant victories and accomplishments like he was Moses come down from the mountain.

He's turned on women, he's abandoned gays, he's strengthened Bush policies on torture and surveillance and detention, he's made a mockery of the meaning of democracy and justice, he's failed on economics, he's failed on jobs - he still thinks he has a messaging problem, and not a policy problem - he's failed on health care.  But, oh, what a good job he's done for banks and insurance companies.  I can't wait for the bonus announcements.

How do you root for someone like this to win?  Because the other guy might be marginally worse?  "The Supreme Court?"  Because we can trust an Obama with a Republican Congress - which he might have - not to cater to them in a show of bipartisan faith?  "Roe v. Wade?"  Because we can trust Obama to stand up for women's reproductive rights?

A year from now, if things are not better, if they are worse, if there is more betrayal and more abandonment of progressive policy and embrace of conservatism, what then?  In my opinion, the GOP might not be able to lose even if they run the devil herself.

The saddest thing I've read here is "I will vote for Obama in 2012 no matter what;" wow, what an incentive that gives for quality representation.

I think it's a no brainer.  Of course they can win.  Obama is not electable right now.  And given the course of action he's indicating, he's going to be less electable in 2012.

It's amazing how the geniuses in the Democratic advisor/consultant class don't realize that the conditions in this country and this world are entirely different than they were in 1994-96.  They're  much closer to the 1940s than the 1990s.  The dumba$$e$ think it's a good idea to move to the right to get those votes in the mythical center, and that austerity is going to get them votes.  Mindblowingly stupid.

But then again, it's all about the BIGs anyway, not the people.

With PA & MI faltering, that makes it really hard for Obama to win reelection.

Romney could take MI from Obama and I'm sure the GOP is well aware of that hence their pushing of Romney.

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn't be about winning states. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.

Now 2/3rds of the states and voters are ignored -- 19 of the 22 smallest and medium-small states, and big states like California, Georgia, New York, and Texas.  The current winner-take-all laws (i.e., awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) used by 48 of the 50 states, and not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution, ensure that the candidates do not reach out to all of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.  Voter turnout in the "battleground" states has been 67%, while turnout in the "spectator" states was 61%. Policies important to the citizens of `flyover' states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to `battleground' states when it comes to governing.

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president.

The bill has been endorsed or voted for by 1,922 state legislators (in 50 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: CO-- 68%, IA --75%, MI-- 73%, MO-- 70%, NH-- 69%, NV-- 72%, NM-- 76%, NC-- 74%, OH-- 70%, PA -- 78%, VA -- 74%, and WI -- 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK - 70%, DC - 76%, DE --75%, ME -- 77%, NE -- 74%, NH --69%, NV -- 72%, NM -- 76%, RI -- 74%, and VT -- 75%; in Southern and border states: AR --80%, KY -- 80%, MS --77%, MO -- 70%, NC -- 74%, and VA -- 74%; and in other states polled: CA -- 70%, CT -- 74% , MA -- 73%, MN - 75%, NY -- 79%, WA -- 77%, and WV- 81%.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR (6), CT (7), DE (3), DC (3), ME (4), MI (17), NV (5), NM (5), NY (31), NC (15), and OR (7), and both houses in CA (55), CO (9), HI (4), IL (21), NJ (15), MD (10), MA(12), RI (4), VT (3), and WA (11). The bill has been enacted by DC, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington. These seven states possess 76 electoral votes -- 28% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.