I'm waiting for Limeygent's 'friend' (and indeed him also) to express outrage at a Presidential candidate openly encouraging Russia to spy on his political opponents and provide the emails to the media for financial reward. As Limeygent would say: "Incredible."
I think that jumping on every wind-up remark of Trump's will backfire - it's what he wants and it will enable him to portray his opponents as biased and over-sensitive. Occasionally i think a "yeah, whatever" response is better than any red-faced outrage. Don't let the bastards wind you up...
It is not as if more than a handful of posters here are even allowed to vote in the US election anyway so I am puzzled as to why so many posters here are quick to give Hillary the same treatment the likes of Miliband got (i.e. can do no wrong, greatest thing since sliced bread, anyone who criticises them must be a troll/right-wing loony etc.).
Is Clinton preferable to Trump? Obviously. But that does not preclude her from an academic analysis of her flaws. The expression 'shit attracts flies' comes to mind; she has been associated with scandal after scandal and those who claim that because she has never been jailed means she must be completely innocent, you only have to look at our own politicians and authority figures (Blair, Mandelson, the police involved in covering up Hillsborough, Fox, Johnson) that just because you have never done porridge does not mean it cannot be reasonably inferred that wrongdoing has taken place, but unfortunately due to serial corruption and nepotism the extent of it will never come to light. Not sure how the fact that she failed to rig the 2008 primaries exonerates her from all previous allegations of wrongdoing.
I post this with the caveat that I have no objection to Clinton becoming President - you would have to go a long way in US politics to find someone with a career as long as hers who hasn't become embroiled in some kind of scandal and who has the ambition to become President - and that seriously, her over Trump or any other Republican, please, but let's not get carried away. She is an experienced and effective political operator and her role in the current administration will hopefully ensure a smooth transition and continuation.
Besides, if she wins, then it would give rise to a great new pub quiz question: "Name 2 US Presidents that have had sex with each other"
Besides, if she wins, then it would give rise to a great new pub quiz question: "Name 2 US Presidents that have had sex with each other" Is Monica Lewinsky the next contender then?
It is not as if more than a handful of posters here are even allowed to vote in the US election anyway so I am puzzled as to why so many posters here are quick to give Hillary the same treatment the likes of Miliband got (i.e. can do no wrong, greatest thing since sliced bread, anyone who criticises them must be a troll/right-wing loony etc.).
Is Clinton preferable to Trump? Obviously. But that does not preclude her from an academic analysis of her flaws. The expression 'shit attracts flies' comes to mind; she has been associated with scandal after scandal and those who claim that because she has never been jailed means she must be completely innocent, you only have to look at our own politicians and authority figures (Blair, Mandelson, the police involved in covering up Hillsborough, Fox, Johnson) that just because you have never done porridge does not mean it cannot be reasonably inferred that wrongdoing has taken place, but unfortunately due to serial corruption and nepotism the extent of it will never come to light. Not sure how the fact that she failed to rig the 2008 primaries exonerates her from all previous allegations of wrongdoing.
I post this with the caveat that I have no objection to Clinton becoming President - you would have to go a long way in US politics to find someone with a career as long as hers who hasn't become embroiled in some kind of scandal and who has the ambition to become President - and that seriously, her over Trump or any other Republican, please, but let's not get carried away. She is an experienced and effective political operator and her role in the current administration will hopefully ensure a smooth transition and continuation.
Besides, if she wins, then it would give rise to a great new pub quiz question: "Name 2 US Presidents that have had sex with each other"
It is not as if more than a handful of posters here are even allowed to vote in the US election anyway so I am puzzled as to why so many posters here are quick to give Hillary the same treatment the likes of Miliband got (i.e. can do no wrong, greatest thing since sliced bread, anyone who criticises them must be a troll/right-wing loony etc.).
Is Clinton preferable to Trump? Obviously. But that does not preclude her from an academic analysis of her flaws. The expression 'shit attracts flies' comes to mind; she has been associated with scandal after scandal and those who claim that because she has never been jailed means she must be completely innocent, you only have to look at our own politicians and authority figures (Blair, Mandelson, the police involved in covering up Hillsborough, Fox, Johnson) that just because you have never done porridge does not mean it cannot be reasonably inferred that wrongdoing has taken place, but unfortunately due to serial corruption and nepotism the extent of it will never come to light. Not sure how the fact that she failed to rig the 2008 primaries exonerates her from all previous allegations of wrongdoing.
I post this with the caveat that I have no objection to Clinton becoming President - you would have to go a long way in US politics to find someone with a career as long as hers who hasn't become embroiled in some kind of scandal and who has the ambition to become President - and that seriously, her over Trump or any other Republican, please, but let's not get carried away. She is an experienced and effective political operator and her role in the current administration will hopefully ensure a smooth transition and continuation.
Besides, if she wins, then it would give rise to a great new pub quiz question: "Name 2 US Presidents that have had sex with each other"
What allegations of wrongdoing do you think are true? And, who are the people who have conspired to keep her out of jail?
I am genuinely interested. You list them and I will research them to satisfy myself as to whether or not there is any truth to any of the endless accusations that have been made against her.
But please don't include any reference to Benghazi. Or any other nonsense peddled by Fox News.
It is not as if more than a handful of posters here are even allowed to vote in the US election anyway so I am puzzled as to why so many posters here are quick to give Hillary the same treatment the likes of Miliband got (i.e. can do no wrong, greatest thing since sliced bread, anyone who criticises them must be a troll/right-wing loony etc.).
Is Clinton preferable to Trump? Obviously. But that does not preclude her from an academic analysis of her flaws. The expression 'shit attracts flies' comes to mind; she has been associated with scandal after scandal and those who claim that because she has never been jailed means she must be completely innocent, you only have to look at our own politicians and authority figures (Blair, Mandelson, the police involved in covering up Hillsborough, Fox, Johnson) that just because you have never done porridge does not mean it cannot be reasonably inferred that wrongdoing has taken place, but unfortunately due to serial corruption and nepotism the extent of it will never come to light. Not sure how the fact that she failed to rig the 2008 primaries exonerates her from all previous allegations of wrongdoing.
I post this with the caveat that I have no objection to Clinton becoming President - you would have to go a long way in US politics to find someone with a career as long as hers who hasn't become embroiled in some kind of scandal and who has the ambition to become President - and that seriously, her over Trump or any other Republican, please, but let's not get carried away. She is an experienced and effective political operator and her role in the current administration will hopefully ensure a smooth transition and continuation.
Besides, if she wins, then it would give rise to a great new pub quiz question: "Name 2 US Presidents that have had sex with each other"
Did Teddy ever take FDR camping when he was a boy?
It is not as if more than a handful of posters here are even allowed to vote in the US election anyway so I am puzzled as to why so many posters here are quick to give Hillary the same treatment the likes of Miliband got (i.e. can do no wrong, greatest thing since sliced bread, anyone who criticises them must be a troll/right-wing loony etc.).
Is Clinton preferable to Trump? Obviously. But that does not preclude her from an academic analysis of her flaws. The expression 'shit attracts flies' comes to mind; she has been associated with scandal after scandal and those who claim that because she has never been jailed means she must be completely innocent, you only have to look at our own politicians and authority figures (Blair, Mandelson, the police involved in covering up Hillsborough, Fox, Johnson) that just because you have never done porridge does not mean it cannot be reasonably inferred that wrongdoing has taken place, but unfortunately due to serial corruption and nepotism the extent of it will never come to light. Not sure how the fact that she failed to rig the 2008 primaries exonerates her from all previous allegations of wrongdoing.
I post this with the caveat that I have no objection to Clinton becoming President - you would have to go a long way in US politics to find someone with a career as long as hers who hasn't become embroiled in some kind of scandal and who has the ambition to become President - and that seriously, her over Trump or any other Republican, please, but let's not get carried away. She is an experienced and effective political operator and her role in the current administration will hopefully ensure a smooth transition and continuation.
Besides, if she wins, then it would give rise to a great new pub quiz question: "Name 2 US Presidents that have had sex with each other"
What allegations of wrongdoing do you think are true? And, who are the people who have conspired to keep her out of jail?
I am genuinely interested. You list them and I will research them to satisfy myself as to whether or not there is any truth to any of the endless accusations that have been made against her.
But please don't include any reference to Benghazi. Or any other nonsense peddled by Fox News.
I never said that Hillary should be in prison, or has done anything to warrant being in prison. My point was that just because she has never been in prison doesn't mean she has never been involved in any wrongdoing. Call me cynical but I do believe there is a culture of backscratching and covering up for each other amongst the most powerful.
Look at the link above your post, plenty of evidence there to get started on. No smoke without fire is another expression that comes to mind. Don't worry, Clinton would hardly be the first President to enter office with skeletons in their closet. But if your minimum criterion for accepting someone is guilty of wrongdoing/corruption/immorality is a criminal conviction then I hope you apply these standards to all the Tories who have faced similar allegations that have never been 100% proven true.
It is not as if more than a handful of posters here are even allowed to vote in the US election anyway so I am puzzled as to why so many posters here are quick to give Hillary the same treatment the likes of Miliband got (i.e. can do no wrong, greatest thing since sliced bread, anyone who criticises them must be a troll/right-wing loony etc.).
Is Clinton preferable to Trump? Obviously. But that does not preclude her from an academic analysis of her flaws. The expression 'shit attracts flies' comes to mind; she has been associated with scandal after scandal and those who claim that because she has never been jailed means she must be completely innocent, you only have to look at our own politicians and authority figures (Blair, Mandelson, the police involved in covering up Hillsborough, Fox, Johnson) that just because you have never done porridge does not mean it cannot be reasonably inferred that wrongdoing has taken place, but unfortunately due to serial corruption and nepotism the extent of it will never come to light. Not sure how the fact that she failed to rig the 2008 primaries exonerates her from all previous allegations of wrongdoing.
I post this with the caveat that I have no objection to Clinton becoming President - you would have to go a long way in US politics to find someone with a career as long as hers who hasn't become embroiled in some kind of scandal and who has the ambition to become President - and that seriously, her over Trump or any other Republican, please, but let's not get carried away. She is an experienced and effective political operator and her role in the current administration will hopefully ensure a smooth transition and continuation.
Besides, if she wins, then it would give rise to a great new pub quiz question: "Name 2 US Presidents that have had sex with each other"
Did Teddy ever take FDR camping when he was a boy?
It is not as if more than a handful of posters here are even allowed to vote in the US election anyway so I am puzzled as to why so many posters here are quick to give Hillary the same treatment the likes of Miliband got (i.e. can do no wrong, greatest thing since sliced bread, anyone who criticises them must be a troll/right-wing loony etc.).
Is Clinton preferable to Trump? Obviously. But that does not preclude her from an academic analysis of her flaws. The expression 'shit attracts flies' comes to mind; she has been associated with scandal after scandal and those who claim that because she has never been jailed means she must be completely innocent, you only have to look at our own politicians and authority figures (Blair, Mandelson, the police involved in covering up Hillsborough, Fox, Johnson) that just because you have never done porridge does not mean it cannot be reasonably inferred that wrongdoing has taken place, but unfortunately due to serial corruption and nepotism the extent of it will never come to light. Not sure how the fact that she failed to rig the 2008 primaries exonerates her from all previous allegations of wrongdoing.
I post this with the caveat that I have no objection to Clinton becoming President - you would have to go a long way in US politics to find someone with a career as long as hers who hasn't become embroiled in some kind of scandal and who has the ambition to become President - and that seriously, her over Trump or any other Republican, please, but let's not get carried away. She is an experienced and effective political operator and her role in the current administration will hopefully ensure a smooth transition and continuation.
Besides, if she wins, then it would give rise to a great new pub quiz question: "Name 2 US Presidents that have had sex with each other"
Did Teddy ever take FDR camping when he was a boy?
They were pretty distant cousins
I hate it when facts get in the way of salacious unsubstantiated speculation
This is maddeningly and willfully taken out of context: 1) in his speech today, Trump said he hoped that the Russians had hacked the DNC emails (which are discussed a couple pages back on this thread) and the 33k emails which she deleted from the servers (there are two sets of emails here).
2) The press release is referring to both of these sets of emails.
3) REGARDLESS of the content of the emails, a foreign government hacking emails is, UNTO ITSELF, a national security issue, particularly when it's in an attempt to sway an election. This is what the statement refers to. This applies to both the DNC and local server hosted emails. We know, we literally do it all the time. Go back to the Manning WikiLeaks, we're awesome at spying on everyone. And that rightfully pissed them off.
If the people at the Conservative "The Federalist" don't understand that it's a national security issue for someone to be hacking the emails of a presidential candidate, then they shouldn't be writing about politics. If they do, it's willful manipulation.
@Stu_of_Kunming this is the "Truthiness" I spoke of in my response to your post. It's not facts that matter, it's not context. It's perception and feeling and spinning a narrative. By no means is this unique at all, either to Trump in this election or in this election period. But we're getting into some grown up shit here and playing with fire when we talk about cybersecurity integrity being compromised by foreign agents.
The fact that we have a presidential candidate saying he hopes the Russians, a contentious international country at the best of times, hacks his opponents emails is stupid and appalling. And I am on the record all over this thread of not being appalled or surprised by this man.
So betraying ones country is not deemed a big deal by Trump? Has the balls to tell people that Bowe Bergdahl should be shot for going a.w.o.l in Afghanistan but says it's ok for Russia to hack networks inside his own country? What a charming fella.
I'm waiting for Limeygent's 'friend' (and indeed him also) to express outrage at a Presidential candidate openly encouraging Russia to spy on his political opponents and provide the emails to the media for financial reward. As Limeygent would say: "Incredible."
I think that jumping on every wind-up remark of Trump's will backfire - it's what he wants and it will enable him to portray his opponents as biased and over-sensitive. Occasionally i think a "yeah, whatever" response is better than any red-faced outrage. Don't let the bastards wind you up...
Pretty much most of what he says is a wind up because he doesn't have a clue on any of the policies he tries to blind Americans with.
The second USA President was John Adams (1797-81) followed by his son, John Quincy Adams in (1825-29) as the 6th USA President.
I'm not alluding to any Incest, but their off spring Sweet Fanny Adams did tarnish the family name with her inertia.
And John Adams died on the same day as Thomas Jefferson, the 3rd president of the USA, which was the 50th anniversary of independence day. Perhaps that should be on the useless fact thread?
Someone should probably mention to HC about her capaign slogan 'Stronger Together' didn't work out too well for the remain campaign leading up to the brexit vote.
Trump will win, and it's largely due to the condescending attitudes present on here, the same ones that were present in the brexit referendum. People hate being spoken down to and made to be belittled for their beliefs. I say this as someone who voted remain and would want Clinton to win on balance. Treat people like idiots (even if they are) at your own peril.
Trump will win, and it's largely due to the condescending attitudes present on here, the same ones that were present in the brexit referendum. People hate being spoken down to and made to be belittled for their beliefs. I say this as someone who voted remain and would want Clinton to win on balance. Treat people like idiots (even if they are) at your own peril.
I think you'll find the word you're looking for is patronised, actually.
Trump will win, and it's largely due to the condescending attitudes present on here, the same ones that were present in the brexit referendum. People hate being spoken down to and made to be belittled for their beliefs. I say this as someone who voted remain and would want Clinton to win on balance. Treat people like idiots (even if they are) at your own peril.
Never completely understood this. So just because eg President Obama, The BoE, IMF, CBI etc had the temerity to say voting "out" was the wrong thing to do some people cop the hump and vote against their best interests just because they don't like being spoken down to.
Trump will win, and it's largely due to the condescending attitudes present on here, the same ones that were present in the brexit referendum. People hate being spoken down to and made to be belittled for their beliefs. I say this as someone who voted remain and would want Clinton to win on balance. Treat people like idiots (even if they are) at your own peril.
Never completely understood this. So just because eg President Obama, The BoE, IMF, CBI etc had the temerity to say voting "out" was the wrong thing to do some people cop the hump and vote against their best interests just because they don't like being spoken down to.
I'm beginning to understand where we went wrong.
I think it's because a lot of them fundamentally are probably a bit on the fence, and they are being told by people who are successes (when a lot of them aren't themselves, a lot of them haven't done too well the past 10-15 years, or ever, and now view the EU as being a part of that) to vote to remain. Don't get me wrong a lot of people don't get into it for that reason but a lot of this was a rebellion against the "elite." Someone like farage (and again, I know, rich ex city worker from private school etc) perfectly embodied that. That's a key part of why we are at brexit, and what now needs to be seen is if the Brexit camp's fundamental ideas of what will solve these peoples issues is a good one or not.
Trump will win, and it's largely due to the condescending attitudes present on here, the same ones that were present in the brexit referendum. People hate being spoken down to and made to be belittled for their beliefs. I say this as someone who voted remain and would want Clinton to win on balance. Treat people like idiots (even if they are) at your own peril.
Never completely understood this. So just because eg President Obama, The BoE, IMF, CBI etc had the temerity to say voting "out" was the wrong thing to do some people cop the hump and vote against their best interests just because they don't like being spoken down to.
I'm beginning to understand where we went wrong.
I think it's because a lot of them fundamentally are probably a bit on the fence, and they are being told by people who are successes (when a lot of them aren't themselves, a lot of them haven't done too well the past 10-15 years, or ever, and now view the EU as being a part of that) to vote to remain. Don't get me wrong a lot of people don't get into it for that reason but a lot of this was a rebellion against the "elite." Someone like farage (and again, I know, rich ex city worker from private school etc) perfectly embodied that. That's a key part of why we are at brexit, and what now needs to be seen is if the Brexit camp's fundamental ideas of what will solve these peoples issues is a good one or not.
I try to be hesitant when it comes to the Brexit analogies for many reasons. I think Brexit was an amalgamation of a lot of things, coupled with an election with unclear outcomes (as in ramifications) and a very easy way to say "we reject the city and the politicians who have overseen an eight year recession/failure of growth, we want out country back."
All that said, everything I've just written above would describe the last 15 years (at least) of American politics. One of the reasons why I am also hesitant to compare Brexit to Trump is because Brexit was really a move toward American politics for Britain, not some sort of new reality or the warning thereof here in the States. This goes back to George W. Bush, a man born in Connecticut, educate at Yale as a "Legacy" (his father went there), son of an oil tycoon and grandson of a very wealthy banker (Prescott Bush, who had ties to the Nazi). His father had ties with the CIA as far back as the Bay of Pigs, and in the '70s spent four years as the head of the CIA, then eight years as VP and four years as President. George W. Bush ran a series of business with limited to no success, set up by his father. He failed his way into the Governor's seat of Texas. And he then ran as "The common man, the guy you'd like to have a beer with" when he ran for president. And did so again in 2004, where it was described as "the election about who you'd want to have a beer with (him or Kerry)." And of course in that you have excellent analogies to Farage and Boris.
And now we have Trump. And the popularity of George Bush should be more than warning enough that if you play to nativism and fear, fear, fear, fear, fear of immigrants, fear of terrorism, fear of job losses (spoiler, they're already gone), and fear of the status quo that has taken your jobs/guns/freedom/etc (even if said candidate has been at the heart of outsourcing), you can win on that narrative.
Party conventions don't win elections, but they can lose them. I think that if the Democrats are able to continue their message of hope, it could see them pull away. Trump does well to stir up fear, but much of it is his own doing. He doesn't have a 9/11 event to fall back on like Bush did in 2004. His scare mongering is far more ethereal, and really about what side of the bed he wakes up on. I think that with a decently run campaign by the Democrats, if they have the audacity to say things like "we are concerned about all Americans, not just blue states" (or even, there are no red states and blue states--to coin a phrase), I think Hillary, with all her flaws, will slowly pull away.
I expect her convention bounce to be much higher than Trump's. And while I agree that Trump should not be underestimated, keep in mind that Hillary can spend the next 4-5 months sending Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden to the rust Belt, Corey Booker to states like North Carolina and Missouri, states with large African American populations that might be capable of being turned blue, and FLOTUS and POTUS to just about anywhere. Her bench is deep, and even if it doesn't feel like it as outsiders (and I am an outsider on this since I don't live in a swing state), it's been shown time and again that endorsements from popular politicians really help candidates.
Lastly, it's a strange twist of fate that at their convention the Democrats fell so well in line, while the Republicans looked an utter shambles. Something the Republicans have always been excellent at is falling lock (goose) step (I kid) behind their candidates. This past week the Democrats were excellently on narrative, while the Republicans were all over the shop (including Ted Cruz just flicking V signs like the petty little shit he is).
Lastly, on the theme of Trump's fear machine slowly beginning to run out of steam, this will not play well with his base, desecrating a military family who lost their son in combat--even if they are Muslim "and talk with a funny accent." Him claiming to make the same sacrifices as Military families is both incredibly, incredibly disgusting, and also something that will drive people away from him.
Mr Khan spoke about the sacrifice his son made in dying while in the service of his country. Trump said he also had made sacrifices. This is true. He sacrificed the jobs of many Americans to line his own pockets.
Comments
Is Clinton preferable to Trump? Obviously. But that does not preclude her from an academic analysis of her flaws. The expression 'shit attracts flies' comes to mind; she has been associated with scandal after scandal and those who claim that because she has never been jailed means she must be completely innocent, you only have to look at our own politicians and authority figures (Blair, Mandelson, the police involved in covering up Hillsborough, Fox, Johnson) that just because you have never done porridge does not mean it cannot be reasonably inferred that wrongdoing has taken place, but unfortunately due to serial corruption and nepotism the extent of it will never come to light. Not sure how the fact that she failed to rig the 2008 primaries exonerates her from all previous allegations of wrongdoing.
I post this with the caveat that I have no objection to Clinton becoming President - you would have to go a long way in US politics to find someone with a career as long as hers who hasn't become embroiled in some kind of scandal and who has the ambition to become President - and that seriously, her over Trump or any other Republican, please, but let's not get carried away. She is an experienced and effective political operator and her role in the current administration will hopefully ensure a smooth transition and continuation.
Besides, if she wins, then it would give rise to a great new pub quiz question: "Name 2 US Presidents that have had sex with each other"
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/tracking-the-clinton-controversies-from-whitewater-to-benghazi/396182/
I am genuinely interested. You list them and I will research them to satisfy myself as to whether or not there is any truth to any of the endless accusations that have been made against her.
But please don't include any reference to Benghazi. Or any other nonsense peddled by Fox News.
Look at the link above your post, plenty of evidence there to get started on. No smoke without fire is another expression that comes to mind. Don't worry, Clinton would hardly be the first President to enter office with skeletons in their closet. But if your minimum criterion for accepting someone is guilty of wrongdoing/corruption/immorality is a criminal conviction then I hope you apply these standards to all the Tories who have faced similar allegations that have never been 100% proven true.
followed by his son, John Quincy Adams in (1825-29) as the 6th USA President.
I'm not alluding to any Incest, but their off spring Sweet Fanny Adams
did tarnish the family name with her inertia.
http://huffingtonpost.com/entry/ann-coulter-khizr-khan-fareed-zakaria_us_579ab9c2e4b08a8e8b5d7bdf
And a tweet from earlier this month also mocking the thick Indian accent of Fareed Zacaria. Oh dear.....
Also, Fareed Zaccaria is incredibly articulate.
I'm beginning to understand where we went wrong.
All that said, everything I've just written above would describe the last 15 years (at least) of American politics. One of the reasons why I am also hesitant to compare Brexit to Trump is because Brexit was really a move toward American politics for Britain, not some sort of new reality or the warning thereof here in the States. This goes back to George W. Bush, a man born in Connecticut, educate at Yale as a "Legacy" (his father went there), son of an oil tycoon and grandson of a very wealthy banker (Prescott Bush, who had ties to the Nazi). His father had ties with the CIA as far back as the Bay of Pigs, and in the '70s spent four years as the head of the CIA, then eight years as VP and four years as President. George W. Bush ran a series of business with limited to no success, set up by his father. He failed his way into the Governor's seat of Texas. And he then ran as "The common man, the guy you'd like to have a beer with" when he ran for president. And did so again in 2004, where it was described as "the election about who you'd want to have a beer with (him or Kerry)." And of course in that you have excellent analogies to Farage and Boris.
And now we have Trump. And the popularity of George Bush should be more than warning enough that if you play to nativism and fear, fear, fear, fear, fear of immigrants, fear of terrorism, fear of job losses (spoiler, they're already gone), and fear of the status quo that has taken your jobs/guns/freedom/etc (even if said candidate has been at the heart of outsourcing), you can win on that narrative.
Party conventions don't win elections, but they can lose them. I think that if the Democrats are able to continue their message of hope, it could see them pull away. Trump does well to stir up fear, but much of it is his own doing. He doesn't have a 9/11 event to fall back on like Bush did in 2004. His scare mongering is far more ethereal, and really about what side of the bed he wakes up on. I think that with a decently run campaign by the Democrats, if they have the audacity to say things like "we are concerned about all Americans, not just blue states" (or even, there are no red states and blue states--to coin a phrase), I think Hillary, with all her flaws, will slowly pull away.
I expect her convention bounce to be much higher than Trump's. And while I agree that Trump should not be underestimated, keep in mind that Hillary can spend the next 4-5 months sending Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden to the rust Belt, Corey Booker to states like North Carolina and Missouri, states with large African American populations that might be capable of being turned blue, and FLOTUS and POTUS to just about anywhere. Her bench is deep, and even if it doesn't feel like it as outsiders (and I am an outsider on this since I don't live in a swing state), it's been shown time and again that endorsements from popular politicians really help candidates.
Lastly, it's a strange twist of fate that at their convention the Democrats fell so well in line, while the Republicans looked an utter shambles. Something the Republicans have always been excellent at is falling lock (goose) step (I kid) behind their candidates. This past week the Democrats were excellently on narrative, while the Republicans were all over the shop (including Ted Cruz just flicking V signs like the petty little shit he is).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/30/donald-trump-responds-to-the-khan-family-maybe-she-wasnt-allowed-to-have-anything-to-say/