The only unknowns are whether: Hillary Clinton can break 50 percent of the popular vote, Gary Johnson can break 5 percent, Evan McMullin can win Utah’s 6 electoral votes, Democrats can claim the Senate or even the House.
On last Friday's Rick Smith Show, I discuss why we should not expect a white "silent majority" will propel Donald Trump, and whether Trump might drag down the down-ballot Republicans.
We're at the stage of the election where obsession with the latest polls reaches its peak. Yet it is also the stage when polls can stop informing about the electorate and start warping the electorate.
Republicans lacked foresight in 2004 on gay marriage. Today, they lack foresight on climate. And because of it, they risk losing even more voters, but this time, the wayward voters had long been part of the Republican base.
When Hillary Clinton said, "Donald thinks that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese. I think it's real," Trump immediately interjected, "I did not. I did not. I do not say that."
Twenty-one of the the 27 states suing the EPA to prevent implementation of its Clean Power Plan, requiring cuts in carbon emissions, are already on track to meet the plan's requirements.
President George W. Bush tried to grow the economy by giving corporations and the wealthy lower taxes and less regulation, and sparked a global economic meltdown. Trump would do it all over again.
President Barack Obama notes that he was able to cut greenhouse gas emissions without legislation from Congress establishing a carbon cap. This is true, but not it's not the full story.
We cannot easily compare the policy visions of the two major party candidates, because only one candidate is bothering to offer a comprehensive set of policy proposals.
We are still struggling to fund some of our most basic needs, including how to keep our communities from literally drowning. Instead of raising more revenue, our government held a contest.
Donald J. Trump said LyndonB. Johnson "wanted to silence the church" because "he was having a problem with either one or more churches." It's not true. Here are the facts.
Eighty-one years ago, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act, and the program has a wonderful birthday present. Neither presidential candidate is running on Social Security privatization or benefit cuts.
No one expects newly declared independent candidate Evan McMullin to become president, let alone get on many ballots or crack one percent in the total vote. Yet his candidacy may still perform below expectations.
Why is Donald Trump pandering so hard to "the Second Amendment people"? Possibly because the National Rifle Association is the biggest financial backer of his campaign.
The Trump campaign has been a test to see if the Republican Party can still win as an essentially all-white party with a platform rooted in racial grievance. All the evidence says it cannot.
If Trump is more associated with populism than Clinton, and then loses decisively in November, populism could be tainted by Trumpism, weakening the left’s leverage over Clinton.
Clinton is not selling herself as an agent of abrupt change. She is positioning herself as a conduit of steady change, in contrast to, Donald Trump, who might bring change like a tornado, leveling all in its wake.
Republicans, trapped in denial, wondering how they fell so far, might look toward the Democratic National Convention's capacity to manage the intra-party tension.
As some declare Democrats disunited after the first night of boisterous disruptions from some Bernie Sanders delegates, 1992 is a reminder that even a somewhat fractious convention can still end on a high note.
America saw a divided party last night, though what it was divided over wasn't evident if you haven't been paying close attention. They are mainly divided over whether the party should accept America's multiculturalism or fight it.
The rate of violent crime is at a 45-year low. The murder rate is the lowest since 1957. Let's not allow the Donald Trumps of the world peddle excuses for bad police behavior on the grounds that crime is out of control, when it's not.
A new The Economist/YouGov poll asked "Are you confident or uneasy about the following presidential candidates’ ability to deal wisely with international trade?" The numbers might surprise you.
A Senate committee approves money for a climate fund. Deep down, Republicans seem to know that it is a political loser with the broad middle of the country to sabotage the president from acting on climate change.
Now Hillary Clinton knows what message a Sen. Tim Kaine nomination will send to Bernie Sanders voters; the question remains if that's the message she wants to send.
Donald Trump is not a Bernie Sanders populist. He cares not a whit about raising labor, health, human rights and environmental standards at home or abroad. His trade vision turns the clock back to the Gilded Age.
Time and time again, tax cuts for the wealthy have proved ineffectual at sparking robust growth, while responsible budgeting that includes tax increases on the wealthy has repeatedly contributed to economic progress.
Ryan has served up cold conservative porridge. Nothing that showed any lessons learned from the failed conservatism of the past. Nothing that went beyond hack anti-Obama talking points.
Ryan new anti-regulatory package willfully ignores that the planet "has been made considerably worse by the addition of global warming," requiring action to make the planet better. But what do you expect? He's voting for Donald Trump.
Even if you are convinced that Clinton's climate platform is insufficient, the logical course of action is not to let the Oval Office become occupied by someone who calls global warming a "hoax."
Naysayers on the right complained that Democrats were letting China and India off the hook. Now that Obama has forged climate deals with both China and India, the naysayers have been proven wrong.
Donald Trump's brazen racism, in addition to being immoral and appalling, is political malpractice. He is so consumed by racism that he can't contain it. He is blinded by it, and is incapable of rational political decision-making.
Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders both accept climate science and propose policies based on science that would cut carbon pollution. Donald Trump, on the other hand, is pure poison for the planet. Period.
Trump brags about sucking the wealth from the lower-income to line his own pockets, and nothing in his stated policies suggests a Trump administration would be any different.
If he's willing to lower the corporate tax rate to strengthen our negotiating position, what's stopping him from lowering the federal minimum wage as well? Why assume his version of a "good deal" would try to lift wages worldwide?
For a guy who claims he can win the votes of Bernie Sanders' supporters, he has an odd way of going about it. Going backwards on Wall Street reform is hardly the best approach to win over Bernie's populist following.
You can say this for Donald Trump; he doesn't delegate the job of attack dog. He likes to scorch his own earth. His campaign strategy is to regurgitate the greatest anti-Hillary hits from the right-wing fever swamp.
The only uncertainty would be how the billions in tax giveaways to billionaires would be delivered: hand-delivered and wrapped in gold-plated bows, or directly wired from government coffers to their offshore accounts.
Democrats should not be complacent about the threat of Donald Trump, but neither should they revert to panic at the sight of a single poll. Always beware of outliers.
"I think I'll get a lot of his supporters" Donald Trump said on CNN of Bernie Sanders voters. A few seconds earlier, Trump smeared Sanders, saying he "could be beyond a socialist." That sums up his problem.
Donald Trump has a trick he likes to use when he wants to communicate two different messages to two different constituencies: incoherence. It doesn't take much to expose incoherence, yet it seems to flummox media headline writers.