THE LEFT's kinder, gentler approach to Donald John Trump is brilliant. Ms. Clinton, President Obama -- all spoke well of him yesterday. Today's he's having coffee with the president of the United States, who smiles, gazes raptly into his eyes, gently touches his arm, and treats him with respect.
Many on the left are still working through their grief. See, for example, today's sneering editorial . . .
The sun rises today on an Electoral College map virtually tied at 273-265. Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton is still on top, but barely. As recently as early October she led by 42 points (Real Clear Politics, "No Toss Up States").
Donald John Trump picked up 21 electoral votes overnight . . .
For the first time, Donald John Trump has reached 45 points in the polls and held it for a second day. His usual practice when things are going well for him is to tweet something stupid or scary and drive his number back down.
WILLIAM McGURN on how the big winner, no matter how the election turns out, is . . .
. . . William Jefferson Clinton (nee Blythe):
Yet Mr. Clinton wins even if his wife loses. Because the Trump victory would mean the American people have bought the argument Bill Clinton has been selling ever since that first bimbo eruption: So long as a man has never pretended he is a choirboy, his sexual life has nothing to do with his fitness for office.
. . . .
[In 1998] Americans learned President Clinton had had a sexual relationship with an intern. Once again Mr. Clinton's initial instinct was to lie about it, publicly and defiantly. The dominant mood was he would have to resign.
But he didn't resign. Instead, he fought back. And he won, largely because he and his wife refused to abide by norms about the decent thing to do in such a circumstance.
In this sense, Donald Trump is the new Bill Clinton. And if he does pull of a win in November, it will be in good part because of a culture that Hillary Clinton did much to create.
("And the Winner Is . . . Bill Clinton," The Wall Street Journal, October 11, 2016)
. . . by Sunday night's presidential debate. The lede is a hoot. Its tone, typically, is pompous. Its figurative language is gloriously incomprehensible: how exactly can a spectacle ("a visually striking performance or display") slouch? And the sophomoric misuse . . .
. . . uphold the rule of law, says constitutional law professor John O. McGinnis.
We are left with the choice of a candidate who will be inclined to lawlessness by temperament [referring here to Mr. Trump] and one who will be inclined to lawlessness by ideology and circumstance [Ms. Clinton]. This unhappy dilemma is more evidence that we face . . .