No, It’s Not Astonishing that Trump Is Running a Tight Race

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

Rich Lowry:

Hillary’s lead in the RCP average is down to 2.7. Assuming Trump can deliver a good speech on Thursday night, he should be tied or ahead as Hillary goes into her convention. It’s an astonishing statement of Hillary’s weakness that Trump, running an amateurish campaign on so many levels, is competitive.

I don’t want to be an endless Pollyanna about this stuff, but Lowry is just wrong. Trump is running a different campaign, but that doesn’t mean it’s either bad or amateurish. After all, he blew away the cream of the Republican Party with his supposedly amateurish campaign. Were they all astonishingly weak too?

Beyond that, the increase in partisanship over the past couple of decades means that candidates of both parties are pretty much guaranteed 45 percent of the vote. As my father once told me about my grandmother, the Republican Party could nominate Mickey Mouse and she’d still vote for him. Well, now they have, and there are a lot more people like my grandmother than there used to be.

So it’s going to be a close election. And poll numbers bounce around. And convention bounces are normal. And sometimes all that bouncing will take Trump into positive territory.

Remember 2008? That was as Democratic a year as you could hope for. Republicans had been in power for two terms. People were tired of the war. The party was enmeshed in scandal. The economy was imploding. Everything pointed to an easy Democratic victory. And Barack Obama was nobody’s idea of a weak candidate. But take a look at the chart below. Do you remember that? In June McCain pulled to within a point of Obama. He did it again in August. And in September he spent nearly two weeks ahead of Obama. And then he lost by seven percentage points.

There’s no guarantee this will happen again. But the fact that Trump is running a tight race is nothing unusual. Quite the contrary: it would be surprising if it were any other way.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend