Well, since one Republican poll makes MO safe R, I suppose one uni poll can make NC likely D. 
I'll take it!
IceSpear, the point with Missouri (which you don't seem to get) is that this is what it's voting has looked like over the last few presidential elections (in terms of the margin between the first and second place finisher):
1992: 4.7% to the left of the nation
1996: 2.2% to the right of the nation
2000: 2.8% to the right of the nation
2004: 4.8% to the right of the nation
2008: 7.3% to the right of the nation
2012: 13.3% to the right of the nation
That's a consistent 20 years of trending republican, without any backtracking at all. Sure, it accelerated under Obama, and Hillary will improve over Obama in MO, but this idea that Hillary can singlehandely reverse the trend enough (from 2012) to actually carry MO in anything short of a massive wave that also involves her carrying NC, GA, and probably AZ is just ridiculous. And as far as your "Crossover voting in 2012 means everything" argument, I'll point out the massive amount of Romney/McCaskill Voters was only due to Akin's rape comments (it wouldn't have happened without those comments) - take away the comments, and McCaskill probably would have lost, and even if she still won somehow, it would be only a 1 or 2 point margin. As for Romney/Nixon voting, comparing presidential elections to gubernatorial elections is so absurd it's not even funny. In any case, outside of republican wave years, conservative states have a pretty good track record of being willing to elect the right sort of democrat to be governor on an occasional basis (Sebelius, Frudenthal, Henry, Bredesen, etc. etc.).
If Hillary wins MO, she will also win NC and GA. That's a prediction, yes. Write it down.
...and AZ. And IN.
I have yet to see any conclusive evidence that the extreme electoral polarization that existed in 2008 and 2012 will not continue in 2016. Barack Obama himself is one of the most polarizing Presidents ever. It may be culture (his cosmopolitanism) more than race... arch-conservative Tim Scott could be elected to the US Senate from South Carolina, and Barack Obama couldn't make the state closer than 9% at any time.
Due to the quirks of one pollster, we are going to see a huge number of polls from North Carolina. Quinnipiac and Marist poll a limited number of states. Few pollsters will give us any indication of what is going on in the Mountain and Deep South or the Great Plains (unless you call Iowa part of the Great Plains).
If you want to see what an election with little regional polarization looks like, then here it is:
https://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/pe1980.pngSixteen states were decided by 5% or less; six were decided by 5% to 8%. Reagan defeated Carter by 9%.
Contrast this one:
https://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/pe2008.pngIt was much closer (less than 4% nationwide) than the election of 1980 -- but statewide elections were rarely close. Only six states were decided by 5% or less, and two others by 5% to 8%.
(An aside: Reagan in 1980 and Obama in 2008 won almost all the close statewide elections).
