>>
>>No, I'm not. But if part of your self-described qualification for the office is your leadership experience and quality, then the inability to run a good campaign is a campaign issue.
>>
>
>Until people vote, a "good compaign" exists in the eye of the pundit.

See my reply to Marcia about this.

>We'll find out on election day who did run a good campaign.
>As Nate now sees it, Hillary is doing a lot better and that's a pretty powerful indicator.
>However, at about this point in 1976, Gerald Ford had a large lead over Jimmy Carter.
>When in a debate Ford said that the Soviet Union had no influence over Eastern Europe, things flipped and Ford never recovered.
>People liked Gerald Ford.

FWIW, I'm not sure Ford ever had a real chance once he'd pardoned Nixon. In fact, I'm not sure he ever had a real chance at all because of Nixon.

>Imagine what would happen if she gaffed.

Yeah, it's still early and she could make a big mistake. OTOH, the numbers I'm seeing seem to show so many people who would never vote for Trump under any circumstance. Nate tweeted out some interesting numbers yesterday, showing that for the last weeks, Trump's support has been essentially stable (maybe a 1-point shift) while Hillary's have moved around. Suggests that Trump may have finally really hit a ceiling. Already, something like 5% of those saying they'll vote for him also say they think he's unqualified. Not sure how much farther that needle can move.

I think this election will be decided on turnout. The Ds have had the advantage in GOTV operation for the last two elections. Based on what I'm seeing in my local campaign office, I suspect that's still true. What I also see is that a heck of a lot of women of my generation and the next above me are really energized and willing to work really hard to get her elected.

OTOH, Trump seems uninterested in and unwilling to actually set up the machinery that gets people elected.

Tamar