Replies

I'm not a "believer", but Trump has run his campaign very well since he wrapped things up after Indiana.

I am most amused by the idea that HRC spending $1 billion or $2 billion on the General Election will make a difference against a guy who will get $1 billion in coverage pointing out all the money crooked Hilary is spending. Take John Ellis Bush's spending in New Hampshire, at least $30 million, among a small subset of the electorate, and expand it nationwide, and you get those kinds of numbers ($1 to $2 billion). That was good for 14% or something.

If we 've learned nothing from Michael Huffington, Meg Whitman and Linda McMahon, we have learned that spending money can only do so much, and that diminishing returns set in, and even negative returns for McMahon.

People think they KNOW Hillary Clinton, and they mostly don't like her and can't name a thing she will do other than be female. People think they KNOW Donald Trump, and they expect him to upend a lot of things that need upending, largely negating his personal unpopularity in some circles.

Trump loses the 2% of George Wills, Bill Kristols and high-brows at the Witherspoon Institute. He gains 6% from "Trump Democrats" (our price is that we ought not expect much in the way of entitlement reform, it ain't on the table), especially men who normally vote Union Dem but hate HRC and like the idea of a trade policy that results in a larger industrial base. The minority community doesn't have a personal interest in the outcome, and where they come strongest for HRC (the south east) is where she is least likely to get electoral votes.

Trump just has to do what he can to keep the down-ticket Republicans on the same page in the hymnal to the degree possible so that the down ticket does well enough that he gets the Congress on his side.