Pennsylvania moves to ‘toss-up’ in our new 2016 ratings! (From "Leans Democrat")

+2.

And get the hell off your "smarter than thou" position .

Okay, done your way but there is one small problem. Since I am no longer authorized by you to exercise any independent thinking I need to be told what to believe and when. My problem is that nobody tells me which polls I am required to believe and when I may believe a poll by the same outlet source that I previously had to disbelieve. For example only a couple of replies away mad_as_he$$ tells us that things are improving in Pennsylvania for Trump, am I supposed to believe that now?

Life is so much simpler this way, I can rely on you for everything but wouldn't it be much easier on all of us if you would just tell us now who is going to win the election in November?

Barry took it by 5.5 or so in 12. Any poll showing Hillary performing as well let alone better than O did in 12 is flat out laughable.

Okay, done your way but there is one small problem. Since I am no longer authorized by you to exercise any independent thinking I need to be told what to believe and when.

You are one arrogant sonofacamel. Having a bitch for a mother would be a step up for you, and yes, this is a personal attack on you and your arrogance.

I actually thought more along your lines—until I watched the debate. I can’t help but notice the reason people respond to certain things often has nothing to do with reason and facts or what most people might think is the key factor at play. I think the only way that Hillary (who was horrible on several fronts that I won’t bother going into) won was because she took control of the debate and made herself appear to be the one who was strong and dominant. This is also how Trump “won” the primary debates (and he did) even when his actual answers were poor.

The country is coming apart at the seems with riots, terrorism, growing divisions; whether they know it or not, most Americans want someone they can feel will be a strong leader who will hold the country together by force of will if need be and who will crush our enemies. Trump used to project that strength and dominance, and it helped take him much further than many thought he could go (how many of his supporters have I heard preface their comments with, “I don’t agree with such and such policies of his, but…” somehow there was still an excuse to vote for him). During the debate, it was Hillary who appeared as the dominant leader always on offense, however, and that hurt Trump badly by taking away his most visceral appeal.

I think it could potentially be disastrous for Trump if he gets up there and acts very “presidential” and pleasantly sticks to the issues, if Hillary comes after him again like she did in the first debate with even more fodder at her disposal. She will eat him alive in that case. That is a good prescription on how to lose with dignity like Mitt Romney. He was considerably calmer for the most part during this debate than in some of the primary ones where he was literally screaming at his opponents at length. He was also easily more detailed and focused on policy than in any of his previous debates. If you didn’t notice that, it’s because it doesn’t matter once someone is perceived to have beaten him in a fight. I don’t know for sure, of course, but I think he needs to get back his old winning drive and aggression (but without the defensiveness of the last debate) and crush Hillary next time. All the ones who won’t vote for him if he isn’t nice to a woman, already won’t vote for him. He needs to get back those who are afraid and want a strong leader who will always fight on their behalf. I may be way off base and I’m still unsure about it all, but I shudder at the idea of all the advice he’s getting online, in person, and on TV to essentially pull a Romney, McCain, Bush, Cruz, Kasich, etc.

Just a couple more things. He gave a teleprompter speech detailing Hillary’s crimes and failings very much like you described a couple of months ago. It made such a huge impact that you apparently didn’t even hear about it. And he’s already given around two dozen teleprompter policy speeches in a very “moderated tone of voice” too. I can’t help but suppect you’re kidding yourself if you think yet another poorly covered, fairly boring speech like that will help Trump move the dial even half a percentage point (although it could hurt). He’s already shown he can do that many times. I don’t know what showing he can read a teleprompter calmly yet again will show this time around, and he eviscerates Hillary in each of his rally speeches already.

Lastly, a grand total of three tweets in a short period of time is hardly a “twitter rant”; you are merely repeating the Dem talking points on that. If the situation were reversed and Trump were promoting a woman with Machado’s past like Hillary did, it would be a two-week scandal in the media; instead it’s a scandal that he criticized a woman who refused to deny to Anderson Cooper on camera that she was the get-away driver at a murder! Sure, he should have skipped any discussion of Machado, but only because the “press” has gotten to dangerous levels of manipulation and 2+2=5 type thinking. If he were the D and Hillary were the R, the Machado thing would have blown up in her face badly.

In my last post, I meant, “it *couldn’t* hurt.” I think it would be great if he gave another speech like you described. I just don’t think it would change much.

But don't you see is not my arrogance but your arrogance that is showing? You criticize my tone of voice and call me arrogant, you insult my mother, and you would humiliate me if you could and that is bad enough but the fact that you would silence me because you don't like my point of view is arrogance of extreme sort and terribly, terribly dangerous. What could be more arrogant than to deprive someone of speech and freedom of conscience -depriving him of life itself?

Battle me on the merits if you like, shows some courage man by conceding another man's dignity.

Since we are giving our takes on different states, let me say that here in Illinois West Suburban Chicago (DuPage County) I don’t see any Trump signs on my block BUT I don’t see any Hillary signs either. Does that say there is no enthusiasm for either one? Maybe, won’t know until Nov 8th. It could also mean folks just don’t want to show who they support because they are afraid. GO TRUMP!

It seems than me that we're at a crossroads, Trump must continue doing what he has been doing for the most part or he must try something new. I take your point concerning the futility of slipping into passive victimhood in the debate, nothing is worse in a candidate, even to women who want us all to get along, than to appear pathetic and ineffectual. I get that.

But did Trump not appear defensive? And is that not a real problem for him? In the next debate Trump must take a lesson from Ronald Reagan which you can hear by going to Mark Levin's last podcast which is free in which he played Reagan in debate and you will see how deftly he pivots from a criticism to a devastating attack but an attack that left no one feeling that he was a bully.

I take issue with your assumption that Trump's careful speeches on issues did not have effect, the pundits in the media thought it had affect and his poll numbers arose congruently. I say that is so because he dropped the belligerent tone and acted presidential. I am trying to find a way for him to repair his damaged image and I do not believe he can do that with more belligerence.

As to the tweet, it was devastating because the media picked up on it and because it confirmed the narrative just as his behavior in the debate confirmed the narrative and when that narrative is confirmed by a gaffe it is truly devastating.

We can bitch about the media and we can lament how unfair they are and how the facts are on Trump's side even as we watch the poll numbers slip.

I am not convinced either, PA is a pipe dream. If he did on election night, then its all over for cankles.

PA is like Lucy and Charlie Brown. We keep confusing that we have a chance and then Philly ‘votes’.

We cannot win there

To date, I have seen exactly one pro-Hitlery sign, two Hitlary for prison signs, and quite a few Trump signs.

Yes, I think Trump did appear defensive. That’s why I want him to be more aggressive in the future (but preferably in a more dominant and focused manner). I think you have a good point, though, that it would be best if he could do this in a way that does deliver “a devastating attack” but somehow still doesn’t make him look like a bully. I think that will be hard to do simply because she is a woman and has the moderators and narrative makers (press) on her side. There are, of course, limits to how far he should go, but I just think he needs to worry less about seeming unkind to her and make sure that he crushes her instead, while not appearing weak or whiny himself.

Hillary’s lapdogs (the press) have been murdering him with a new hit piece story almost every day (I suspect the newest “bombshell” is supposed to be the virulent speculation—with no concrete evidence—about using his Foundation for his campaign). I think it’s safe to assume that Hillary has this co-ordinated with the “press” to happen non-stop until election day. I do think his teleprompter speeches helped him during a bad period for Hillary, but just acting presidential isn’t going to do it for Trump under this new level of onslaught. He has to slime her just as badly as she’s doing to him, if he wants to survive, while still reminding people of the affirmative reasons they should vote *for* him.

Too many Republicans have lost when they refused to fight fire with fire. He needs to start following her lead and co-ordinate his attack ads (which he needs to rapidly increase in number) with his speeches and with the conservative media to keep hitting her in a clear, concise, and convincing manner on one sketchy thing she’s done after another until the election. Why do a lot of politicians keep using negative ads and vicious attacks? Because studies show they’re effective. I wish this weren’t how things work, but it is. I don’t think his latest drop has anything to do with him not being “presidential” enough at this point. I think he’s already shown most convincible people that he can act presidential when it’s really called for. Hillary and her media pets’ non-stop brutal attacks are why he’s starting to go down in the polls.

I think it is important how one sees the state of the race. Context is everything.

If you see it as I do, Trump has to go into election night (and in some states we are already in election night) with a substantial lead because the reality of the electoral college requires him to virtually run the table of the battleground states. If he goes in behind or even just tied he is in deep trouble because he has to win virtually every state and the odds are he will simply misfire here or there.

But with a substantial lead he will probably pick off insurance states like Colorado or Wisconsin but if he is fighting for his life as he is now in Florida and North Carolina the odds are high that he will drop a critical state somewhere.

Therefore I see the debate as a serious setback because Trump lost the momentum that would carry him into the world of insurance states and set him back into scratching to win every battleground state.

Other posters are not at all bashful about telling me that there are two polls that show him ahead and the damage is not so bad because he is tied or within the margin of error in the battleground states. I like to think I'm looking at the forest and they're looking at the trees.

If you are looking at the trees you are likely to be complacent, if you're looking at the forest you are likely to be very concerned. If you are concerned, you ask what is it that he has done wrong and how can it be fixed? I Identify temperament as the problem, whether real or not it is perceived and so it must be dealt with.

I conclude that temperament is the problem because while he was sticking to the script, reading from a Teleprompter in a modulated voice, refraining from tweaking, avoiding hostile reporters one-on-one, his poll numbers climbed to the point where he was truly moving into the lead. But all of that changed in the debate and what changed in the debate was he reverted to the old temperament.

If you don't think there is a problem or if you don't think temperament is the problem, you are likely to recommend Trump double down on what got him nominated.

You’re acting as if it’s only Trump running, and only what he does matters. Hillary and her surrogates have been pounding him into the ground this past week. You left that out of your equation, as you left out negative stories about Hillary and her collapse on the side of the road in your analysis of why Trump rose so much in the polls.

I like the idea of him avoiding hostile reporters one-on-one, but I thought he was still doing that. I agree that he should give the dishonest “press” less ammo to whack him with, but they will find something regardless of what he does. They’ve almost lost sight of reason in their hatred of him—although, yes, maybe his tweets should be vetted by Conway or someone for how they’ll “play.”

He is not going to be able to present himself as a good, respectable candidate at this point with the level of asinine, largely baseless but effective non-stop attacks against him, geared to make him look like one of the worst human beings in the world. At best, in my opinion, he can try to make Hillary look as questionable in that regard, while putting forward his common sense, pro-America agenda that will hopefully appeal to more people than her Marxist-lite solutions. If he doesn’t fight back as hard, though, she’s going to make him look like Al Capone and herself like Joan of Arc—and then their policies won’t even matter.

You are quite right, I did not attribute any part of the decline to Clinton's physical decline and I should have. I shudder to think where we would be today if that had not occurred.

But you are right, I cannot fairly attribute the whole decline to Trump's change of tactics, that was a horrible week or 10 days for Hillary and it included the "deplorables" revelations as well.