I seem to have a contrary and somewhat alarmist reaction to Donald Trump’s Big Day, yesterday. Taken by itself, independent of the press coverage and the substance, and the political fallout in the Latino community, I think it was clearly Trump’s best day as a candidate going all the way back to his now infamous announcement speech.
While Josh Marshall saw echoes of Hitler in Trump’s ability to shape-shift between calm statesman in Mexico City and heliotrope demagogue in Arizona, I saw that Trump was finally able to demonstrate how he might be able to negotiate the world stage.
While right-leaning political analyst Stuart Rothenberg went ape on Twitter while watching the Arizona immigration speech, and essentially threw up his hands in frustration, I saw Trump at his most effective at making the case for a merciless and cruel policy.
I am waiting for the "softening."
— Stuart Rothenberg (@StuPolitics) September 1, 2016
The man is extreme.
— Stuart Rothenberg (@StuPolitics) September 1, 2016
Well, there goes the black vote, the Latino vote, the college educated vote, the Romney-Bush vote. But he's keeping the Paul LePage vote.
— Stuart Rothenberg (@StuPolitics) September 1, 2016
Trump's bottom line, apparently: Mexicans are tremendous…when they are not raping or killing people.
— Stuart Rothenberg (@StuPolitics) September 1, 2016
After the speech, I found myself much more in agreement with Hugh Hewitt and Sean Hannity that Trump had performed at a high level than I was with folks who said that Trump had irretrievably screwed the pooch.
But here’s what I really think.
I don’t think there was much of an audience for any of yesterday’s events, as folks are more focused on the beginning of school and preparations for a holiday weekend. Therefore, what Trump did in both Mexico and Arizona will be filtered through the media before most people become aware of it at all. And, overall, the media hated it. Therefore, despite demonstrating that he’s capable of standing on a stage with a foreign head of state without being an imbecile, and despite crafting his immigration speech in a very effective way, few people will experience those accomplishments. Instead, they’ll hear how he wimped out in Mexico and lied about whether he discussed who will pay for the wall. They’ll hear that he’s reverted to a hardline (and unpopular) immigration stance. They’ll see his speech compared to a Klan rally or Hitler speech. They’ll read about Latino Trump-supporters jumping ship. And the folks who get positive reviews will be the folks who only consume right-wing media, and those folks are mostly in Trump’s corner anyway.
I think he’ll succeed in shoring up his support from the right, which is important for him and will help in the polls at least to the extent that it compensates for possible losses elsewhere. As Nate Silver points out, the polls have been tightening and the trends are in Trump’s favor. If they tighten as much as Silver’s model expect them to, we could have an actual contest on our hands.
But, Trump’s rise in the polls seems to have coincided with his retooling his campaign staff, and part of that has been a “softening” of his edges. The Mexican portion of his day helped in that regard, while the Arizona portion clearly did not.
The question is which piece will have more preponderance in the mind of the public?
My suspicion is that once we factor in the media coverage and the fallout, Trump will come out worse because the progress he was making was tied to him seeming more reasonable and moderate.
However, I still think he made a compelling case for his hardline on immigration yesterday, especially in his use of the families who have had loved ones murdered or killed by undocumented immigrants. Like it or not, a lot of America was nodding in agreement to most of his Arizona speech, including a lot of people who see him as temperamentally unfit for the office of the presidency.
Though I don’t predict it, I will not be shocked to see the next round of polls showing a much tighter race.
I agree with you that the visual of Trump standing on the stage with a foreign leader is a huge win for him. On the unconscious level, this will allow some voters to “see” him as President.
Of course, these voters are most likely Republicans anyway, but just getting from 79% to (say) 84% of Republican support will be enough to tighten the race. (At which point every progressive on my facebook feed will freak out….not looking forward to that.)
Remember our bet: I am expecting that Clinton will not win any of the Romney states, with the possible exception of North Carolina. In the end, this comes down to the same polarized election as the last two, which gives the D candidate a definite but not overwhelming 2-4 point advantage. As candidates, both Clinton and Trump have shortcomings, but they seem to at least approximately cancel each other out.
Well, also remember how much ammunition that Clinton has lying around waiting to put in her mortars and cannons.
Think about the dozens of Republican economists, military, diplomats, etc., who are waiting to come out and blast Trump to smithereens.
When she gets around to making him unthinkable for real, it’s going to make the Battle of Verdun look like a cakewalk.
So, there’s still plenty of room for the bottom to fall out.
That’s a deeply unappreciated point. Clinton’s a pro, running against an amateur.
She’s a neo-pro, tho.
Are you quite sure you don’t mean Neoprene?
Think about the dozens of Republican economists, military, diplomats, etc., who are waiting to come out and blast Trump to smithereens.
That’s not going to work well with a polarized electorate. After all, what’s the GOP’s first order of business? Trump supports will tar them as traitors anyway. And if I’m a Democrat, I don’t want Mankiw’s endorsement. And his endorsement is going to change how many minds?
The media seems to split the difference and legitimise Trump no matter what awful things he drags in to the mainstream. Our media can’t see beyond the broadcaster’s value proposition of, say, professional wrestling. It is profitable. Period.
That, unlike wrestling, it is probably causing considerable, perhaps irreparable, harm is an intangible cost, so reflexively discounted. Lean integrity is smothered unnoticed by fat prosperity rolling over in its sleep.
Martin, I know you said you’re not predicting it, but do you really think this one day could lead to a tightening of the race? It seems to me that would be unlikely for most events this close to the Labor Day weekend, but this one is particularly strange. Trump had a restrained meeting with ENP, then a batshit, blood and soil speech in AZ. How does a swing voter interpret those two different events?
Points for cutting to the heart of the Trump platform and all it portends.
The race was tightening significantly before this.
Well, I hope you are right!
On the other hand, the Battle of Verdun might turn out to be a very apt analogy. Bloody beyond belief, and no decisive breakthrough, but in the end one side wins by attrition.
oops…meant this in reply to Booman’s comment above
It already tightened.
State Polls (21-31): now at 4.97 was 7.73 (11-2)
National Polls: not at 5.21 was at 6.13
Fox has it +6, and Suffolk +7. The state numbers in the last few days show a closer race, but she is still ahead.
But what the fuck are they thinking. IN 1988 Dukakis went on a Natucket vacation in August and his numbers declined (though some was predictable)
SO Hillary is doing fundraisers to raise money for commercials that DO NOT MATTER and make it easier to make the elite argument against her.
She ran a bad campaign in ’08, not a great one this primary, and has done little right since the Convention (which went well)
And then we get this:
Billmon @billmon1 2h2 hours ago
“This election shouldn’t be about ideology” – HRC 8/31/16
“This election isn’t about ideology; it’s about competence.” – M. Dukakis 7/22/88
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IWl01Ik9A2EyaRAgrd0jFBUPMjZS7QCoUYZyhd7C4ns/edit#gid=1134050
562
This election should damn well be about ideology and the fact that 52 years after Goldwater the modern conservative movement has produced Donald Trump as the conservative candidate.
If the Clinton campaign doesn’t want my vote, I surely can oblige them and vote just for the down-ticket.
Non-ideological politics always means business-as-usual with the current default ideology, which currently is neoconservative foreign policy, neoliberal economic policy, liberal social policy and what’s left of a secular, scientific, and urbane culture. In other words, the consensus ideology of the elites.
You expected something different from HRC? “business-as-usual …” and push further on that privatization, off-shoring, more for Wall St, more military solutions, etc. is her whole raison d’etre, and ever so much easier to accomplish with the power of the WH.
Hey, Marie? Hillary is without question the most progressive Democratic nominee in four decades. That’s just a fact.
Here’s an idea: instead of screaming “OMFG –NEOLIBERAL,” why don’t you actually read her platform?
https:/www.hillaryclinton.com/issues
You might find that the actual Hillary is different from the one you’ve invented.
You might take the time to look at her record instead of trumpeting some words on a piece of paper that were in part put there by her primary opponent and in part put there to make her look good to liberals. Deeds are real and words — well, they’re easy and cheap for most politicians.
I’m glad you have a psychic ability that allows you to know what Clinton will do.
Snark aside, let’s look at her deeds: “Clinton was one of the most liberal members during her time in the Senate. According to an analysis of roll call votes by Voteview, Clinton’s record was more liberal than 70 percent of Democrats in her final term in the Senate. She was more liberal than 85 percent of all members. Her 2008 rival in the Democratic presidential primary, Barack Obama, was nearby with a record more liberal than 82 percent of all members — he was not more liberal than Clinton.”
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hillary-clinton-was-liberal-hillary-clinton-is-liberal/
If that’s the case, why did she need to approvingly quote that 5th rate actor yesterday?
A fig leaf for a war of regime change against Syria.
Arm-twist Apple into providing a backdoor into iPhones.
Fat paydays for contractors.
Owned by AIPAC.
Cold War II
Military pork
That’s derp. Seriously.
Well, somebody thinks that happy times are here and the checkbook will be out again…
Air Force Report Warns of Air Superiority Loss
http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/air-force-report-warns-of-air-superiority-loss/
Her platform? Holy moly. You thinking of investing in real estate? I know this bridge… A smart pool of investors could really make a killing.
More this from Billmon:
Yeah, that “shining city of the hill” gave me the heebie-jeebies. And sadly not the first time in her campaign.
http://time.com/4474619/read-hillary-clinton-american-legion-speech/
Here’s another subculture, and one that I just don’t “get” at all: writing, repeating, and quoting one-liners on Twitter.
The Clinton campaign is going to have to do something more than harping about Trump’s ties with Putin in order to argue he is unfit to be commander in chief. His reaction to Gold Star parents after they spoke at the Democratic national convention drove his probability of winning down to 20%-30% and down 8 points. Those figures have now returned in the direction of a close race just as voter will begin paying attention.
That’s the sentiment piece. The other one is turnout, which requires solid GOTV activities in lots of places.
I don’t know that Trump looked as good as Nieto Pena was confused about how to handle Trump and wound up doing the diplomatic thing. That sort of even-handedness is what Trump knows how to exploit because it gives the illusion that Trump is not that bad.
When the Clinton campaign has credible sources say that the boss from hell really is that bad, it begins to move polls. Anyone who has the self-confident to stand side-by-side with a foreign head-of-state without deference can do what Trump did. If that’s what “looking Presidential” means, any sap who is full of himself and restrained tactically to observe form (I was about to say “be polite”) can do what Trump did. Those who can look Presidential then are a dime a dozen and tend to be institutional CEOs, which Trump is.
What Trump did was not allow his lack of deference cause controversy. He did that by not being honest about the chat he had with Pena.
Was Pena shaken by his encounter with a guy who could be sheer trouble for him? Or did he retreat into a Chamberlain-frame that Trump could be dealt with? Wonder if there will be some Mexican coverage of Pena’s observations?
Billmon:
Doesn’t seem to get that whole internet, including twitter, thing. What’s said in Philadelphia, MS no longer stays there. And as Romney discovered, what’s said in private, closed door events can’t be guaranteed to stay there either. Although to her credit, there have been no leaks from HRC’s private “chats.”
The shapeshifter which is housed within Trump packed so much mileage into yesterday and today that it’s impossible for him not to have exhausted what little wisdom he might have. He’s becoming more and more reactionary, which is translating into sharper sound bites.
He better hope his doctor friend was at least a little bit right about his health because he’s racing towards a breakdown. He simply doesn’t have a clue about pacing himself and his message for the public to consume.
That his Hispanic surrogates heard differing points in his speech yesterday pretty much summed up Trump supporters’ selective hearing. I saw 2 this morning side by side, one claiming the AZ speech was full of compassion and another claiming he was deeply disappointed and felt he had been lied to.
Trump may feel he’s found the balance and is hitting his stride, but looks more like he’s just moved into the mania stage.
I agree with a tightening of the polls, I don’t agree with the reasoning of why. The tightening will be due to the falling apart of the 3rd party campaigns.
Trump did nothing yesterday that was distinct from pretty much everything he’s done before. He said nothing the right wing would be particularly upset about. He said nothing the “unconvinced” would be particularly upset about. His campaign stop in AZ was nothing more or less than any of a dozen other stops.
However, it IS time for the hangers on in the 3rd parties to begin to realize that Johnson and Stein are losers of the first water.
Right, wrong, or otherwise the Libertarians are more closely aligned with R than with D. Movement by the Libertarian “I got mine” crowd will be mostly toward Trump. Conversly, the Greens, are constitutionally disinclined to vote for climate change deniers. Any movement from Green will be towards HRC.
Actual vote results for Libertarians show that 1980 was the high water mark: 1.06%. 2012 (with Gary Johnson): .99%
Actual vote results for Greens: high point 2000 with 2.74%. Other wise? < .75%
Current polling: (L/G) 9/4, 7/3, 6/2, and so forth.
I expect the the Libertarians to go over the 1% mark. They have an R candidate who sucks, they have had plenty of exposure in the horserace media, and their candidate (Senator Aqua Budha) got shafted.
I don’t expect the Greens to do any better now than they have in the past 5 years. Their press has not been as extensive nor as admiring as the L’s and Jill Stein has been pandering to the anti-vax crowd.
We’ll see in a few weeks.
Tightening comes from the undecided, regardless of what they have told pollsters in previous polls.
I do wish you saw what is going on in the third parties instead of what the CLinton campaign tells you is going on there. In both cases, they are hampered geographically not from popular sentiment. Johnson gets tracking in the polls, Stein not. Johnson is running around 9%, Stein just made 3%. The overall proportion of the vote in the end is not as important to them as the locations of their strongest votes. And whether thy made the state vote sufficient to gain automatic ballot access in the next cycle. On those, I think that both will make a couple or so gains. Their support is likely more solid as the race tightens. And most of the voters have decided that there is little downside regardless of whether Trump or Clinton wins.
You and I disagree with them. But we should not allow our preferences to blind us to the facts that they will not be persuaded to vote R or D and will not really matter unless the major parties make states close enough for 3%, 4%, 5% proportion of the vote to matter.
Democrats would be better off getting already decided Clinton voters to the polls during early voting than wasting time trying to convert Greens, Libertarians, or any other third party.
The Putin fixation and the anti-vax charge are two of the silliest negative attacks that the Clinton Campaign has launched, almost ranking with Bernie Bros.
What the first two actually say is that Clinton intends to be confrontational with Russia in a way that disappeared with the Cold War and has reappeared with Victoria Nuland; that Clinton will not work to tighten regulations of the pharmaceutical industry and deal with the pharmaceutical industry’s reluctance to deliver vaccines because they cannot be money-makers through repetitive sales.
What the last said was that it was standard practice to attribute any misogynist speech by anyone to claimed to support Bernie Sanders to being a part of the Sanders campaign. That is so open to being played. I bet the Breitbart Twitterers had a lot of fun playing Bernie Bros.
Third parties are not going away; Democrats must get used to the idea of earning the votes of the people they currently have instead of thinking the other parties are easy pickings.
Both of those third parties have the same problem of focus. Libertarians are too eager to raid Republicans to build a party. Greens are too eager to raid Democrats to build a party. Both appear every four years like the cicadas (just more frequently).
Tarheel, this is a bullshit comment: “I do wish you saw what is going on in the third parties instead of what the Clinton campaign tells you is going on there.
Like it or not, DerFarm’s comment was careful and empirically based, but you immediately accused him of parroting the Clinton line — although I never heard anyone from her camp say that.
The rest of your comment ignores what DerFarm said.
God forbid we look at data:
Post labor day 68
Humphrey 31, Nixon 43, Wallace 19
Wallace finished with 15, lost 4 points
1980
Post labor day
Carter 38, Reagan 39, Anderson 14
Anderson finished with 6
1992
Perot re-entered on Sept 30
First poll:
Clinton 52, Bush 35 Perot 7
Perot finished with 19.
2000
Nader’s post labor day average was 3.2. he got 2.7
Anderson faded badly, Wallace faded some, Perot increased and nader decline marginally.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TA4NktYbU_qtvRKnIaacJOYDIoidLZTabKW5wobUTT0/edit#gid=0
I will bet though, that the libs and greens don’t take 5 percent between them.
Get real, FlaDem. You’re comparing apples and tennis shoes.
Wallace, Anderson and Perot ran campaigns based primarily on personality. As far as that goes, NADER was running in 2000 as a personality. He got his 2+% because fools like me agreed to trade votes from red America (I was in Alabama at the time) to purple America. It was an attempt to garner the 5% needed for federal funding. He then screwed us by campaigning in NH and FL. That shit won’t fly anymore.
Johnson and Stein are running campaigns based on political philosophy with a set party structure.
It wouldn’t surprise me to see the Libertarians go over 1%. It would surprise me to see them go over 2%. I will shocked if the Greens go over 1%.
My opinion, based on COMPARABLE DATA from the past 16 years.
George Wallace was about personality?
REALLY?
Respectfully I suggest you do not know what 1968 was about.
Perot and Andersen was about the angry middle.
People at this point in the cycle knew far more about Andersen, Perot and Wallace than about Stein and Johnson.
Nader ran on the left. Stein is the same, running on a brand that may have name recognition.
SO, there’s no discernable pattern at all to those data.
My conclusion would be:
Tightening indeed.
Fox News/Anderson Robbins Research/Shaw & Company Research (538.com rating: A), August 28-30, 1011 registered voters, 3% margin of error:
Clinton 41
Trump 39
Johnson 9
Stein 4
Booman writes:
But Booman…that is exactly what has been happening in modern elections since…oh, I don’t know, since JFK/Nixon when you get right down to it. That is the fix, or at least the primary fixing mechanism, and with the possible exception of the Jimmy Carter/Gerald Ford campaign it has worked very well.
Until now.
It has not worked on Trump and I do not believe that it will work. Why? Because the information revolution has had one primary result…many, many voters no longer trust the media, on plentiful evidence. In fact, many voters actively distrust it. Ditto government in general, starting with the Feds and going right on down to as local as you want to go.
The media will report that he did things. It’s the job that they do and they cannot afford to stop doing it. But…their opinions about it? Whether expressed straight on (as straight as the media get, anyway) or subliminally…headlines, images, etc…whatever they say is not only effectively ignored, but for many people it is seen as something to be disbelieved. Actively disbelieved, as in taking action in whatever directions the media say that they should not act. This is the real secret of Trump’s success, and it will quite likely be the reason for Clinton’s defeat if it happens.
A large group of Americans now believe that:
1-The mass media are owned lock, stock and barrel by Big Corp.
2-On huge amounts of evidence it is becoming more and more clear that said Big Corp not only does not have the interests of the American people in mind, it is in truth a totally unelected, internationalist group that does not put the welfare of the U.S. or any other nation before that of its own members.
Enter Trump; enter HRC. Trump understands this set of public opinion movements bone deep, and his astounding success so far is due to his success in expressing that idea publicly. HRC is stuck…she cannot unload her corporate baggage no matter what she says or does. She is stuck with it. Thus the popular vote outcome of this election…again, barring unforeseeable events including electronic vote fraud… will hinge on a three-part question.
Combine those questions with the electoral vote savvy of the Clinton campaign and you have a horserace right to the finish line.
Bet on it.
AG
P.S. Plus or course the following ever-present and rarely publicly discussed wild card. From a good-sized outlier to the mainstream media, U.S. News and World Report
OOOOOOOOoooo…!!!!
I repeat:
The question remains…helpful to whom?
There are trillions…more…at stake.
If the Controllers really begin to believe that they have totally lost control of this (
s)election?All bets are off.
Bet on that as well.
Watch.
Now a standalone post.
Trump’s Ongoing Success Despite Almost Total Media Disapproval
Please comment there if you are interested in doing so.
Thank you…
AG
Well tell us, AG, helpful to whom?
I dunno for sure, JDW. There are many subfactions of controllers, just as there are many families in a mafia system.
William Burroughs knew.
From thed book “Ah Pook Is Here.”
So..JDW…answer your own question.
To which controllers are you sucking up?
On the evidence of your many posts on this blog?
The PermaGov controllers.
Have a nice lunch.
AG
“Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.”
Further:
You want to know how this controller thing works? The nuts and bloody bolts of it?I doubt that you have either the intelligence nor the self-respect to do what I am about to recommend, but on the off chance that you or someone else reads this and does have the wherewithal to understand, I am going to post it anyway.
Read the book and/or watch the movie…both if you can handle it…named “The Constant Gardener.” The book was originally written by John LeCarre, an obviously repentant once-upon-a-time spook for the British intelligence services, and it was turned into a brilliant film by Fernando Meirelles and Jeffrey Caine.
You want to know the depths to which the controllers sink to implement their own interests? Go there to feel it…if you still have some remnant of a heart…up close and personal.
Or of course…continue stumbling around aimlessly on this blog in service to the controllers..
As you must, and so it goes.
AG
Hm.
There are people who write here trying to persuade or inform their readership. Then there are people who don’t care about persuasion or informing anyone and instead concentrate on insulting their readership: “I doubt you have either the intelligence nor [sic] the self-respect to do what I am about to recommend….”
Anyway, AG, we know you get a bang out of insulting people, and I should not be so naive as to think that I could ask you a simple question and get a simple answer free of insults.
So sorry to have bothered you, and buh bye. I have to go now and get my orders from “the controllers”.
You write:
Oh.
You mean you’re going to go read WAPO and the NY Times?
Great.
Enjoy.
AG
P.S. I have quite civil relations w/a number of people here, JDW. You are not one of them because…to put it country simple…I do not suffer fools gladly.
So it goes.
I certainly will not go looking for your posts, but I damned well will answer them if they are applied to my posts.
Deal wid it.
I give up. I asked a simple question and the response is one insult after another. Really, AG, you are the poster child for what is wrong with social media.
Well…at least one of us is.
AG
For Trump to succeed the media must fail. The best we can probably hope for at this point is an Obama-Romney margin. Our media has legitimised Trump and is inviting future rematches with equally implausible and repellent candidates. This seems to be the reality TV age of politics. Sooner or later we will elect one of these nincompoops.
As an American Indian, I only wish my ancestors had had a better immigration policy.
make that “perfect”!
My thoughts on Trump and this speech…as a person of color (African American) my first thought…after the immigrants who’ll be next scapegoats…Blacks and down the color line.
As usual the last to feel the pain at the neck will be the same White folks who think Trump is their way back to when America was “great” for them…
Trump’s speech spoke of immigrants (and by immigrants, ya know he doesn’t mean “the good ones” like his wife and those of lighter hue), particularly Mexicans, like the were varmints and diseased ridden cockroaches to stump with his feet…
It was disgusting…but hey, I’m not the community he’s trying to speak too though am I.
And from the polling and some commentary I’ve seen he’s obviously got some folks listening…
Citizens of color in US are eventually gonna be the “majority”, sure, but that’s not gonna be happening in less than a generation or two…until then… if past is prologue, we are the ones who’ll be getting the brunt of the disaster that will be a Trump Presidency…eventually it’ll trickle down to the white majority, but in the immediate case…it’ll be my community and other communities of color who will be taking the blows…
“to” your community?
Well, ok, in fact to a mostly white audience, nominally addressed (insultingly and condescendingly) “to” you, there in that post-apocalyptic hellscape you all inhabit, but actually painting a fiction about you for the purpose of pandering to his white supremacist core supporters.
What’s not to like in any of that for you?
Why is Trump at 0% with Black people?
Black people aren’t generous because we’re so generous..
It’s because WE KNOW THE HISTORY OF AMERICA.
And, ANYTHING that starts with OTHERS..
ALWAYS…
ALWAYS…
ALWAYS….
Winds up at OUR DOOR.
So, why even go down that road?
We are smart enough to know that. Cut this shyt off at the path.
SO, whatever happened to the seemingly confident posts you were writing two weeks ago, Booman, about the impending collapse of the GOP and landslide victory by Clinton?
Not criticizing, just wondering what has actually changed.
What has actuallky changed?
He’s beginning to wake the fuck up.
He has a conscience.
He is conscious…a rough fate, in many respects.
You?
AG
Sorry. Cannot answer yet. Still trying to decipher orders from my controllers. I’ve been spinning old Beatles LPs backwards on my turntable all morning, trying to extract the secret messages that the controllers placed there 40+ years ago. You know, “turn me on, dead man,” stuff like that. Also, scrutinizing the album cover of Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band with a magnifying glass. And you think I’d go looking for my orders from the New York fucking Times? The Washington fucking Post? WTFU, man.
Another thing: I’ve also been going through my carefully cataloged and curated collection of The Weekly World News from the 1990s. Remember all those stories about Bill Clinton holding secret meetings with space aliens on the dark side of the moon? The WWN had it nailed, man. They knew that Bill Clinton was receiving his orders from those space aliens, who were really just relaying messages from The Controllers. WTFU, man.
You remain committed to HRC?
No more need be said.
AG
Yeah, things sure do look terrible.
Latest Nebraska Reuters/Ipsos poll:
Clinton 45
Trump 42
Yes friggin NEBRASKA. The whole state.
And Clinton just made a major ad buy for Arizona. Obviously they feel they can take it.
And Telemundo and Univision this morning was an anti Trump orgy. Yes thing certainly look grim for Clinton.
I’m wondering, and I mean this sincerely, not as snark, if there is a correlation between “Hillary is imploding” claims and “Bernie wuz robbed” claims. In other words, are these coming from the same people?