Today's Washington Post pretty much calls the election for Clinton. The lead story describes continuing divisiveness within the Repbulican Party and Trump's campaign. This is followed by Senator Susan Collins refusting to endorse Trump and a serious discussion of Trump's non-existent get out the vote operation. Finally, Stuart Rothenberg makes a convincing argument based that Trump is unlikely to halt his downward spiral.
All of which is music to my ears. I can only hope that all this will prove true. I know that Donald Trump has survived as a candidate against all expectations but I think that most Americans are begining to tire of his bluster, lies and ignorance. Of the only two people who have a chance of serving as president beginning January 20, 2017 I prefer Hillary Clinton. Seeing a blowhard bully like Donald Trump crash and burn in November would be a bonus.
This all reminds me of the Goldwater-McGovern treatment. Both candidates were regarded as hapless losers from the moment of their nomination. Barry Goldwater was widely described as a dangerous (the infamous daisy ad) and was reported to be psychologically unfit to be president. McGovern was derided as the candidate of "acid, amnesty and abortion". He was ridiculed for dumping his VP candidate after backing him "1000 percent". Both McGovern and Goldwater were written off by the press early on. Neither succeeded in turning things around.
I hesitate to compareDonald Trump to either George McGovern or Barry Goldwater. The latter both demonstrated a demonstrated a serious commitment to public service and were decent human beings. Donald Trump shares none of these traits. But one comparison is appropriate: both McGovern and Goldwater lost their elections. I look forward to Trump joining them in the loser column.
A follow up question for extra credit.
If Trump is Goldwater/McGovern, is Hillary Clinton Lyndon Johnson (remember how that worked out) or Richard Nixon (even worse)?