What’s Trump going to do? Stage another convention? That’s the only time in months his numbers have matched Clinton’s. His convention bump was his peak and now he’s lost it.
I’m not saying it’s impossible for Trump to get back on top - but it’s becoming increasingly unlikely.
The intent is the exact opposite. An ongoing call for apologies is intended to keep memories of the gaffe alive.
He doesn’t need another convention; he just needs to get within striking distance in time for the debates. Hillary’s not necessarily more popular; Donald is simply more unpopular.
I don’t disagree that Trump is on the ropes right now. This week and next will be critical for his chances. And the worst part about it is he is now competing for attention against the now almost daily defections from people in his own party. Now I’m not sure how much these defections actually matter to independent undecided voters, who really don’t identify with the establishment in either party. But at minimum, every new report of a GOP rep or senator either defecting or refusing to endorse eats into Trump’s attention and the Trump news cycle, which he has been able to control pretty well for much of this election.
Striking distance is a relative thing. As we get further from the conventions it’s clear that Trump is in real honest-to-God trouble.
In this morning’s Polls-only update - not the Now cast, mind you - he’s losing GA and AZ and NC is darkening blue.
As of this morning:
Polls-Plus: Hillary 79.2, Trump 20.8
Polls-Only: Hillary 87.5, Trump 12.5
Now-Cast: Hillary 95.5, Trump 4.5
What are the chances of Utah going not blue, but to one of the 3rd party candidates?
Mormons really don’t like Trump. An article I read this morning said it was partially because they feel Trump’s demonizing against Islam, with his loyalty tests and bans remind many Mormons when they were the minority party being persecuted. Plus, in general, Mormons are a lot more welcoming of different immigrants because of all the missionary work they do, and overall nicer than the Southern Baptist, fire and brimstone type Christianity that make up much of the GOP base. But Utah’s really red, I think Clinton winning is a long shot. But now we have Gary Johnson and this new guy who’s entering the race and he’s a Mormon! What’s the 4-way polling look like in Utah right now?
Trump +12 in Utah but Johnson getting a respectable 16%. New Mormon guy is unlikely to be even a blip even if he does manage to get himself on the ballot by next Monday’s deadline.
About no chance. Zero, zilch, nada.
Trump’s only hope is a strong performance at the debates. Now, Hillary is a policy expert and should in theory easily prevail, but Trump does have one advantage: In the same way that school teachers give the bad kid more credit than the good kid for behaving well, Trump will score more points for appearing calm, reasonable, thoughtful, rational and well-argued than Hillary will - *if *Trump can or will do that, which he probably won’t.
He also has directness on his side. It’s how Bush beat Gore, or at least stayed with him.
Currently the Nowcast is getting near 90% for a Clinton win. I can only conclude that the polls must be skewed.
And I don’t think those women are likely to shift much.
Those women are the ones most likely to be actually excited about Hillary. Woman president. Most of them older than 35 or so probably recognize what she’s put up with (younger Bernie supporters really didn’t ‘get’ the inherent sexism in society - I don’t think because its gone, I think because they haven’t watched the less qualified guy take their promotion yet - although I hope because its gone). They’ve gone through the women’s issues struggles - at least some of them - paying for daycare, stupid maternity leave policies, equal pay, reproductive rights. Many of them get that for a woman to get things done - likeable isn’t necessarily an asset.
They are also a contingent that Trump tends to offend (by no means the only, but the media has given a lot of attention to his racism and recently to the lack of respect he gives the military - their really hasn’t been too much about his sexism - but a lot of women have noticed).
Do you mean polls-only? Nowcast has been over 90% for several days.
Yeah, I’m seeing 94.9 to 5.1 right now.
As of this moment:
Nowcast 94.9 ; 5.1
Polls only 87.1 ; 12.9
Polls plus 78.6 ; 21.4
He might well go into that first debate armed with some gift from his fan Julian Assange–a “revelation” that may or may not have any basis in fact. (Since Assange won’t reveal his sources, the material needn’t be genuine).
Trump would have the largest possible audience for the Shocking News. The more outrageous the better, as Hillary will be standing there with her mouth agape–giving Trump the “statesman” position to play. He will be just so sad to have to announce that Hillary’s child-porn ring has been exposed (or whatever the hell they might come up with–let the creativity soar!)
If I were advising a candidate with no principles or scruples or sense of decency (and lacked all those things myself, of course), that’s what I’d advise.
It was 96.4 yesterday. (Fake Fox News Headline; “Hillary slumping in 538 polls”)
The series of Ipsos tracking polls show Clinton with a respectable not not shockingly large lead, so the projection becomes a bit more modest than when it was tilted up by polls that suggested a landslide.
[QUOTE=Sherrerd]
He might well go into that first debate armed with some gift from his fan Julian Assange–a “revelation” that may or may not have any basis in fact. (Since Assange won’t reveal his sources, the material needn’t be genuine).
[/QUOTE]
There being little to stop Assange and Trump from doing precisely this, I fully expect they will. There’s no reason to limit the “leaks” to things that are actually authentic, if your objective is to prevent Clinton’s election. The “leaks” are just text. You can type of anything you want and call it a “leak.” What Assange has, that differs from you or I, is an audience.
So what’s to stop Assange from just making shit up and calling it a “leak”? Well, nothing except ensuring the “emails” look genuine. In terms of formatting and tone, that’s not terribly hard; with a little practice I could start pumping out emails that look just like the ones Hillary Clinton sent.
But you’d need budget for good writers and editors to not only ensure the emails looked real, but to prevent any giveaway errors, like a timestamp that has Hillary Clinton sending someone an email about nuking Luxembourg at a time when she was right in the middle of a public appearance. You’d need a budget for some staff. I wonder who’d have reason to pay Assange for that sort of thing?
I guess there’s nothing to stop him but since he’s never done it before in the ten years he’s been on the scene, why would you spin this Assange future conspiracy theory story?
If our Vlad can pay rooms full of people to search (apparently) EVERY freakin’ website, worldwide, for conversations that might be pertinent to Russia and its interests, and to then take the time and trouble to make up accounts and post voluminously to support of those interests…then I’m sure he can find a few rubles in the budget to help out ol’ Julian.
So your theory is that the timing of the WikiLeaks email dump, and the fact that Assange will be parceling out the ‘revelations’ instead of making them all available immediately, is…pure coincidence? Nothing to do with the US Presidential election?