Insiders predict that Hilary Clinton will crush Donald Trump in the all important swing states.

Courtesy of Politico:

In the swing states that matter most in the presidential race, Donald Trump doesn’t have a prayer against Hillary Clinton in the general election. 

That’s according to top operatives, strategists and activists in 10 battleground states who participated in this week’sa POLITICO Caucus. Nearly 90 percent of them said Clinton would defeat Trump in their home states in a November matchup. 

Republicans are only slightly more bullish on Trump’s prospects than Democrats: More than three-quarters of GOP insiders expect Clinton to best the Republican front-runner in a general-election contest in their respective states. Among Democrats, the belief is nearly universal: 99 percent of surveyed said will Clinton will beat Trump. 

In three of the biggest swing states — Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida — Republicans were particularly downbeat about the prospect of a Trump-Clinton contest. 

“There is positively no way for Trump to win in Pennsylvania,” said a Republican from that state. 

“Trump cannot and will not carry Ohio,” a Republican from that state insisted. “He will do well in Appalachia and in the Mahoning Valley, but he will get killed in the rest of the state. The danger for the GOP is losing Rob Portman, which is a very real possibility under this matchup.” 

Added a Florida Republican, who like all participants was granted anonymity in order to speak freely, “Trump is grinding the GOP to a stub. He couldn't find enough xenophobic, angry white Floridians to beat Hillary in Florida if he tried.” 

Once again in no way should this make us cocky.

There is still millions of dollars in Anti-Hillary propaganda, voter suppression, and hacked voting machines to contend with.

This is by no means over.

But it does mean that the wind is at the back of Democrats and as long as they make sure it blows them to a polling place in November this thing should be a lock.

However in my opinion it is not enough that Democrats win this election, we need to run up the damn scoreboard and send a message to the Republicans that the country is tired of their racist misogynistic attitudes and if they don't fundamentally change everything about themselves that the only way they will ever see the inside of the White House again is by climbing over the fence and outrunning the Secret Service.

New Politico poll shows bipartisan support for gun control.

Courtesy of Politico:  

A majority of likely voters in swing congressional districts and states this year support stricter background checks on gun purchasers, and the support spans both parties, a new POLITICO poll finds. 

Seventy-nine percent of those surveyed would support tougher measures while 21 percent are opposed. 

Ninety percent of Democrats support stricter checks —as do 71 percent of Republicans and 77 percent of independents, the survey found. Three-quarters of the overall survey respondents said the issue was “important” in evaluating candidates in the midterm elections, including 68 percent of Republicans, 87 percent of Democrats and 71 percent of independents.

So does this mean that a Democrat in a swing state could attract support if they were to take a definitive position on background checks and enforcing gun registration?

Or by doing so would they only attract the attention of the NRA who would then spend millions supporting their candidate and taking out attack ads against them?

And the next question would be, if the NRA DID attack them, would that necessarily hurt them? Or could it be seen as a net positive since it would energize voters who are worried about all of the gun violence?

Hmm, definitely something to think about.

If Hillary runs in 2016 she could turn Texas into a swing state. That's right, Texas!

What do you say Texas?

Courtesy of Real Clear Politics:  

“I think that in 2016 it will absolutely be considered a swing state in the sense that presidential candidates will have to campaign here, which they haven’t been doing for a long time,” Allison said. “If Hillary Clinton does run, she does really well in Texas.” 

Such an optimistic vision of the former secretary of state’s chances was fueled in part by a survey conducted last month by the Democratic-affiliated Public Policy Polling, which showed Clinton besting three hypothetical Republican opponents in Texas -- including Perry (by a margin of eight points). 

While the knee-jerk reaction among many Republicans would be to dismiss the idea that the state could be competitive in 2016 -- just four years after Mitt Romney carried it by 16 points over President Obama -- Texas GOP Chairman Steve Munisteri is in no mood to sneer. 

In an interview with RCP, Munisteri said that he has long taken seriously the possibility that Texas could become a battleground as early as 2016, particularly if Clinton becomes the Democratic standard-bearer. 

“If she’s the nominee, I would say that this is a ‘lean Republican’ state but not a ‘solid Republican’ state,” he said. “I don’t know anyone nationally who’s scoffing at this. The national party leadership is aware and tells me they’re taking it seriously.”

Okay not that I need any more reason to support Hillary in 2016, but if I did this alone would probably be more than enough reason to throw my support behind her candidacy.

Could you imagine if the Democrats won George Bush's home state?

It would be epic!

Could Alaska become a swing state? Nate Silver thinks it's a possibility.

Source

Courtesy of FiveThirtyEight:  

The state where Barack Obama most improved his performance from 2008 was Alaska. He lost it by “only” 14 percentage points this year, considerably less than his 22-point margin of defeat in 2008. 

Part of the reason is that the former governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, was on the Republican ticket in 2008 but was not this year. That probably doesn’t explain all of the shift, however. 

Consider that in 2000 — also without Ms. Palin on the ballot — the Democratic nominee, Al Gore, lost Alaska by 31 points. 

There are reasons to think that Alaska could continue to become more competitive in the coming years. 

One factor is that Alaska’s vote is quite elastic, meaning that it can shift quite a bit from year to year. In 2008, 43 percent of voters in Alaska identified themselves as independents on the exit poll, among the highest percentages in the country. (There was no exit polling in Alaska in 2012.) 

Of the remaining voters in the state, far more were Republicans (37 percent) than Democrats (20 percent), meaning that a Republican candidate will ordinarily have a clear advantage if the independent vote is split about evenly. But the right sort of Democrat, who wins the majority of independents, can be competitive there, and indeed some Democrats (like Alaska’s Democratic senator, Mark Begich) can win statewide office there under the right conditions. 

Alaska’s population is also changing; between 2010 and 2011, Alaska had the third-highest population growth rate in the country, trailing only Texas and Utah. 

Where are those new Alaskans coming from? Many are from liberal states on the West Coast. Between 2005 and 2009, about 4,300 Californians moved to Alaska per year, making it the top state for domestic emigration to Alaska. So did 4,200 residents per year from Washington and 2,200 from Oregon. 

Texas, where about 2,700 people emigrated to Alaska each year, also ranked high on the list, perhaps in part because of each state’s ties to the fossil fuels industry (along with Texas’ large population). But the new residents of Alaska are most likely considerably more liberal than the rest of the state’s population, over all.

And here I thought I couldn't like Nate Silver any more than I already do. This is just about the nicest thing that anybody has ever said about my state, that we could actually break the conservative bonds that bind us.

A couple of things to note.

One is that Alaska once WAS a bastion of liberalism, and had some of the most progressive laws on the books. Of course that was before we became slaves to big oil, and were inundated with the conservative minded parasites that attach themselves to fossil fuel production.

The other is that our elections are not exactly trustworthy. We have long struggled with corruption, election fraud, and a virtually useless local media.

Personally I think we are still far more liberal than our elections indicate. However since there is fraud, and voter apathy due to that whole "Alaska always votes Republican" thing, we do not yet have a clear idea of just how the demographics break down.

The other thing to consider is that we only have three piddly electoral points to contribute to a Presidential election. So any hope of outside media attention helping to clean up our politics is iffy at best.

However having said all of that. I would LOVE the opportunity for Alaska to shake off its conservative constraints and actually become a state where the outcome of a election was not predetermined and the people could once again become excited with the opportunity to fully participate in the future of our country.

Besides does anybody think our process is any more corrupt than Ohio or Florida? Probably not, so if THEY can become more competitive, than so can we!

Rachel Maddow reveals that the Republican party will no longer be registering voters in a few key swing states due to fraud on THEIR behalf.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

You know the most interesting and compelling part of watching this Republican party train wreck this elections cycle is trying to determine which one of the cars will fly off the rails next.

This is amazing! I have to imagine that within the Romney campaign there must be an incredible amount of stress and nail biting going on.

I can hardly wait for the John Heilemann and Mark Halperin book about THIS giant flame out!

More good news as President Obama extends his advantage over Mitt Romney.

Courtesy of Five Thirty Eight:  

Barack Obama’s standing in the FiveThirtyEight forecast reached its strongest position to date on Tuesday as a result of favorable polls in a set of swing states. The forecast model now gives Mr. Obama a 70.8 percent chance of winning the Electoral College, up from 69.0 percent on Monday and from 65.0 percent last Tuesday. 

Three of the polls were conducted by Quinnipiac University in conjunction with The New York Times and CBS News. The polls gave Mr. Obama leads of 6 points in each of Ohio and Florida, and an 11-point lead in Pennsylvania. 

In each state, the polls are at the high end of the range of numbers produced by other polling firms. As we frequently advise, no one set of polls — no matter how reputable the pollster — should be read as gospel. Differences in the numbers from survey firm to survey firm often reflect sampling error or methodological differences rather than any fundamental change in the condition of the race.

Now remember this is Nate Silver, the guru of election predictions, if he thinks that Obama is pulling significantly ahead of Romney, and that his chances for winning are promising, then you can take THAT to the bank.

Now all we have to do is keep the GOP from using Diebold machines, the Right Wing SuperPACs, or the fucking Supreme Court from stealing this election, and we should be home free.

Let me tell you right now, if Romney wins this election, we will know with absolute certainty that it was stolen. And THIS time we will NOT sit quietly by and let it happen!