Well yeah. They say so as much in the blog post of the day (before indulging in some what-if play about Johnson winning NM):
Predictwise is an aggregator of prediction markets and social media (?) data, and it’s at almost its highest point its ever been at for Hillary (79% chance of victory). Predictit is the market that I occasionally play around in, and it has Hillary at 72%.
Again today, Trump’s taxes are dominating online media news. Chances are, he’ll say something batshit crazy and attack individuals to boost his self esteem, which will itself turn into another news cycle. By next Sunday, we will have had 2 weeks of almost completely negative news cycles for Trump. Not “OMG she’s sick!” news, but “OMG, this guy’s a billion dollar loser and a nut job” news cycle. I don’t think Hillary’s positives will increase that much and she’ll be lucky to get near 50%, but Donald is going to struggle to get above 40% for the rest of the race. I suspect some people might attack Hillary publicly but privately will decide not to vote or vote for Johnson.
I’ve been on social media and some other websites the last 24 hours and while I admit my anecdotes are completely unscientific, I’ve already sensed a change in mood. I think conservatives are now sensing that this might be Trump’s Waterloo and they’re having a harder time keeping a straight face with their debates. I also sense that there’s going to be extreme bitterness if Trump loses. I honestly think this is going to be a nasty final stretch and the months after the election are almost guaranteed to be toxic.
[QUOTE=Mitch Hedberg]
I played in a death metal band. People either loved us or they hated us… or they thought we were OK.
[/quote]
…
I miss Hedberg’s comedy. 
[Hedberg]Trump used to do coke. He still does, but he “used to”, too.[/Hedberg]
Latest 538:
Polls-plus ↑ 1.6% (65.4%-34.6%)
Polls-only ↑ 1.0% (67.7%-32.3%)
Now-cast ↑ 2.5% (75.3%-24.7%)
Bumps due to a +6 national poll and a +7 VA poll. Yay!
There were tons of ominous rumblings that Wikileaks was going to do a massive data dump on Wednesday that would ruin Clinton. Assange himself was going to announce it from the balcony of the embassy where he was holed up. Then it was cancelled due to security concerns. I’m not quite sure why he couldn’t release it anyway without all of the fucking grandstanding.
Probably because the security concerns are bullshit and he canceled for another reason. 7
Much of Trump’s base will simply assume the revelations came out anyway, and will assign to it whatever value their own conspiracy take is; Clinton cheated on her husband, Clinton insulted Rosie O’Donnell, she’s a space alien, whatever.
Introducing the topic instantly creates a reality in the Trumpist mind.
This is a Trumpist; you has to feel sorry for her, because she’s psychologically weak and deranged. But that’s who Trump (and his employee, Assange) are speaking to. You don’t need to make a logical argument; you need to just plant a seed, and it grows into a delusion.
Oh. My. God.
That is actually pretty scary.
It was exploitative of the Washington Post to print that story; they took advantage of a mentally ill woman. They should have anonymized her details at the very least.
It’s exploitative that the Trump campaign takes advantaged of the mentally ill.
Latest 538 update, all from a very good CO poll (+10 HRC):
Polls-plus ↑ 1.4% (66.6%-33.4%)
Polls-only ↑ 1.4% (69.8%-30.2%)
Now-cast ↑ 1.1% (76.7%-23.3%)
You are totally right.
The woman in the story is really, really sick, and is being used by the Post as a sort of freak show. I feel bad for participating in it.
How is she different than any other Trump voter? Rudy and Christie are just as deranged. (or are pretending to be)
That’s pretty shady. Mental illness shouldn’t be ridiculed. Body shaming is not cool and the brain is an organ and she can’t help having the one she has. I’m sure Hillary has plenty of sub 100 IQ people voting for her. The whole of the 47%'ers that the dems have locked up can’t be all potential rocket scientists.
Agreed with the condemnation of WaPo on this one.
Procustus there is a difference between true mental illness and having POVs that I consider sick and exploiting someone with a true mental illness for a rhetorical point is scuzzy at best.
So, to be clear, one shouldn’t criticize someone’s politics simply because they’re based on delusions, that because being delusional is a sign of mental illness we should respect the politics that result from delusion?
I’d say that’s rich, except I don’t want to be accused of wealth-shaming.