your initial first post in the thread is he is not likely to win due to rcp polling averages and to suggest rasmussen is biased. i used the same argument that you used that rasmussen is biased to apply to bloomberg also being biased. if we just remove the rasmussen and bloomberg polls out of the equation trump is now ahead and has over 270 because he has the slimmest possible lead in pa. if you accept that polling is is even slightly off, the idea would be that we would use the historical inaccuracies in previous elections and we would see that the inaccuracies in polling and real world electoral results tend to benefit trump more than they hurt him and that would mean that he is not likely with current polling numbers to lose any states, however he becomes likely to pick up wisconsin which also gives him a win. you would have to hope that the polls are more accurate than ever before, or that if trump wins either pa or wisconsin that he winds up underperforming more than ever before in a state like nc, or az or georgia.
United States