Forgivable hyperbole.
Best lines from Al Smith dinner. Hillary and Trump got through it ok. Both had some funny bits prepared.
No, they’re mixing their references. The image is based on a picture from the second Ali/Liston fight in 1965. The text is probably inspired by Howard Cosell’s famous call “down goes Frazier” from the Joe Frazier vs. George Foreman fight in 1973.
Honestly, does no one even try to get these things right anymore?
There’s a whole thread devoted to it here: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=808044
Trump got some laughs, but also got booed several times when he went too mean-spirited (and unfunny).
Clinton took a few cheap shots, too, but overall had a lighter, funnier set of jokes.
The real star of the evening, though, was Maria Bartiromo’s cleavage.
Actually many do not check the cites anymore… 
The reference was made by the article title*, but not the cartoon from The New Yorker.
And the expresion may not had been a reference to Fraiser, it is common on fights and in captions of photos from other fights, it can be a riff, but not quite as IMHO it was needed to be repeated to be it.
- I also just remember that on many times editors do put a tittle to articles that the original writers had not thought about it.
I dunno; when I hear “down goes…” in a boxing context I immediately think of Frazier, and I’m not even a boxing fan. Others may have used the phrase, but Cosell’s call of that moment is iconic.
Trump is more likely than not to win at least one of those. 538’s own models currently say Trump has a 60% chance of winning a state Obama won in 2012. Ohio, Iowa, and Maine CD2 just happen to be the most likely to flip, but one of them is probably going to flip.
Not sure why 538 has Ohio light blue, Trump has a very slight lead:
Hillary had an advantage over Trump’s GOP rivals: a broader, more sane base of voters to work with. She had the ability to expand without upsetting her core base of supporters, which is something GOP competitors couldn’t accomplish. It really underscores the fact that the general election is different than the primaries.
This is exactly why I believed she was truly a better candidate than Bernie Sanders. For all the talk about how flawed Hillary has been – and I agree that she is flawed – I don’t buy into the idea that Bernie Sanders would have been a better choice against Trump. Yes, he would have been immunized against the skeletons in the closet lines of attack against Hillary, but she was well prepared for that assault.
On the other hand, I think Bernie Sanders would have had a general election problem in the same way that Donald Trump has. He would have been labeled a dangerous communist. Obamacare’s problems, which have received relatively scant attention thanks to Trump’s decision to turn the race into a reality TV show, would have been held up as an example of why Sanders would be wrong for the country. The business community, which has been supportive of Clinton’s campaign and quietly helping her beat Trump, would have joined in attacking Sanders. In some ways, Sanders would have made it much easier for Trump to be a mainstream candidate and to make the pivot he kept talking about.
Trump made the egregious error of miscalculating his ability to attack the Clintons. I think he salivated at facing Clinton because he thought it would be easy to take this race into the sewer, which is where he likes to fight his opponents. Instead of winning the battle, however, he’s literally drowning himself in his own filth. All of his attacks have opened up the attacks on his own character. He wanted a reality TV show in this race – he just didn’t expect to be the leading character.
My guess is that this is based on various data such as past results. Another thing to consider is that if this race is truly a statistical tie going into election day, Clinton would have the advantage of the ground game, which Trump has essentially sabotaged with his recent antics. Portman and Kasich are still relatively popular figures in Ohio politics and are all but abandoning Trump. I think these are the little details that get factored into the 538 analysis.
538 uses national polls and trends, and adjusts for biases in states polls, in addition to state polling averages.
She’s turned the bigotry and sexism of his opponent into one of her biggest weapons.
When I was a child, I hated Miss Piggy, Tweety Bird, and any other character who used “feminine wiles”. My favorite approach is head-on, they got on my nerves. But eventually I realized that some people will underestimate me no matter what, and what the heck, since they won’t listen to the head-on approach but will let me grab them and use them as if they were guignol dolls, it’s guignol time!
That’s some fine guignol she’s been playing.
And past correlations between particular sets of states.
Whether or not all that complexity adds much value to a simpler model is discussed elsewhere but it does differ slightly from the 538 rolling average and the Wang median (tied) approaches.
Yikes. I hope Pope Francis has a list of potential replacements handy…
Tweety Bird is a boy.
The dinner was yesterday. Do you think they used slow acting poison or that Trump is literally radioactive in addition to figuratively? 
Very well-said overall. Good one.
FWIW, the fundraising emails I’ve been getting from Clinton have recently been referring to Trump’s statements about not accepting the outcome of the election. The past few emails have been exhorting me to give more money to help her “win by a mile” so that the outcome is in no doubt.
Agreed.
And here’s The Boss on The Donald: Bruce Springsteen: Donald Trump is a “Flagrant, Toxic Narcissist” | Democracy Now!
I think that just to be on the safe side, only Canadians should be allowed to host reality shows in future…
You forgot the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences.
And I suppose now Trump might want to add the attendees of the Al Smith Dinner.