PA Senate Race: In Their Last Debate, Toomey Realizes Why McGinty Overlooks Clinton's Lies

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) had a light bulb moment during the final Pennsylvania Senate debate with his Democratic challenger Katie McGinty.

Toomey brought up an embarrassing moment on the campaign trail when McGinty claimed she was the first member in her family to go to college. It was soon discovered her brother had graduated from college years ago.

"Maybe it's Katie McGinty's problem with the truth that allows her to overlook Hillary Clinton's chronic lies," Toomey concluded.

In other words, they're two peas in a pod.

Yet, Toomey didn't exactly properly defend the Republican nominee, either. When asked if he was going to vote for Donald Trump, Toomey deferred.

"I don't think my constituents care that much how one person is going to vote." 

Toomey and McGinty also sparred over the Iran Deal, gun control, health care, abortion, and negative campaign ads. They failed to find common ground on anything. 

RealClearPolitics has Toomey with just a 2-point advantage.

Techie Proves Donna Brazile's Emails Weren't Doctored, Despite Claims

When Fox News’ Megyn Kelly confronted Donna Brazile over a Wikileaks email that shows the interim DNC chair giving Hillary Clinton the exact wording to a question before a town hall event, Brazile claimed the emails were doctored. But now, one tech blogger says it’s quite easy to prove they weren’t.

Tech blog Errata Security took up the challenge, finding the email Brazile sent to campaign adviser Jennifer Palmieri and ran it through a verification program.

DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) is a system employed by many email servers, including, to verify emails to recipients and avoid spam filters. The system sends a DKIM "key" to the receiver to verify the sender and confirm the email hasn’t been tampered with.

Consequently, bloggers ran the DKIM keys included in this and other emails through verification software, which in turn validated the Palmieri email as both real and undoctored. 

Cybersecurity expert Robert Graham detailed the process in his post for Errata Security and told Fox News the validation “took less than five minutes.”

 Graham is so confident the verification program is accurate that he’s offering a $600 BitCoin challenge to anyone who can doctor an email and still have it show as verified after running through DKIM software.

Undercover Video Shows Dem Operative Saying Clinton Wanted Trump Trolled By Donald Duck

In the third undercover video released by James O’Keefe and Project Veritas on Monday, Democratic operative Robert Creamer revealed a plan to troll Donald Trump that could put Hillary Clinton in hot water.

According to Creamer, Clinton personally approved a plan to have a nonprofit group use Donald Duck mascots to troll Trump at his rallies over his refusal to release his tax returns.

“In the end, it was the candidate, Hillary Clinton, the future president of the United States, who wanted ducks on the ground, so by God we would get ducks on the ground,” Democracy Partners’ Creamer says in the video. “Don’t repeat that to anybody.”

In the video Creamer said the group originally planned to use mascots of Uncle Sam, but it was Clinton who wanted Donald Duck—a messaged relayed to him by Hillary For America Deputy Communications Director Christina Reynolds.

“Christina Reynolds calls,” he says, “saying, ‘I have good news and bad news. The good news is the candidate would like to have a mascot following around ... Trump. But the bad news is she wants it to be Donald Duck.’ “My answer is, ‘Christine, if the future president wants ducks, we will put ducks on the ground,” he says boastfully.

If Clinton and the DNC did coordinate with the group Americans United for Change, it constitutes ‘illegally coordinated campaign expenditures,’ according to Project Veritas.

AUFC is tax-exempt under Section 501(c)(4) of the federal tax code, allowing it to conduct limited amounts of electioneering as long as it doesn't directly advocate voting for or against candidates.

It also doesn't have to publicly identify its donors, distinguishing it from super PACs which must disclose their income sources but can electioneer more aggressively.

The Federal Election Commission prohibits campaigns from working with outside groups where a tangible dollar amount is tied to back-and-forth communications.

Money spent to buy the duck costume, pay staff to wear it, and publicize each campaign stunt would be considered an illegal campaign contribution to Hillary For America.

“The connection between Creamer, President Obama and Hillary Clinton is undeniable as are the campaign law violations,” O’Keefe said. “If it looks like a duck, if it talks like a duck, and if it walks like a duck, then it’s probably a duck. They broke the law.”

Why Sanders Hopes WikiLeaks Doesn't Hack His Staff's Emails

Bernie Sanders said he has no right to criticize Hillary Clinton's campaign for mocking him in newly released WikiLeaks emails. Why? Because his staff's emails are probably just as bad.

“Trust me, if they went into our emails — I suppose which may happen, who knows — I’m sure there would be statements that would be less than flattering about, you know, the Clinton staff,” Sanders told The Washington Post in an interview published Monday.

In WikiLeaks' newest email dump, the media discovered that Clinton staffers called Sanders a "doofus" in the midst of their Democratic primary fight. Clinton campaign chair John Podesta also dismissed Sanders' health care plan, arguing it was authored in a "leftie alternative universe." 

Oh, and that it "sucks."

Clinton herself has been caught writing off Sanders followers as basement dwellers who were easily brainwashed by Sanders' lofty proposals.

The Vermont senator is turning his cheek to these revelations, simply noting, "that's what happens in campaigns." Yet, the months long fight against Clinton in the Democratic primary proves the animosity between the two camps goes beyond the campaign trail. The election has exposed Sanders and Clinton's major differences, for instance, on war and Wall Street. The Vermont senator hammered Clinton repeatedly for her vote for the war in Iraq, often using it to question her judgment. He also, as we've highlighted several times on Monday after she received praise from Goldman Sachs, criticized her for her cozy connection with Wall Street. You can see why his eventual endorsement of Clinton confused his progressive followers. 

One thing's for sure: WikiLeaks has made those joint Clinton-Sanders bus rides a whole lot more awkward.

Stronger Together.

Watch: Legendary Florida State Coach Bobby Bowden Joins Trump

Republican nominee Donald Trump has gained the support of yet another legendary college sports figure.  

Bobby Bowden, coach of the  Florida State Seminoles football team from the 1976 to 2009, is a two-time national champion and 12-time ACC champion.

 "I love his slogan ... I love what he said about making America great again," said Bowden, who rallied supporters in Tampa, Florida. Bowden said his wife had already voted for Trump and that his daughters will, too.

Bowden is not the only legend in college sports to have endorsed Trump. Coach Bobby Knight of the Indiana Hoosiers basketball program endorsed the candidate just days before the Indiana primary, a move in which many said influenced the election results.  Two weeks before hand, Ted Cruz led Donald Trump by 16 points in the state.  

Trump Campaign Launches Nightly Facebook Show

The Donald Trump campaign launched a nightly Facebook Live show Monday night which will provide campaign footage for his supporters, and feature interviews with his campaign surrogates. It will go live every night until November 8.

The campaign will air the program at 6:30 p.m. from Trump Tower in New York City. The half-hour coverage will go live right before Trump’s 7 p.m. rallies, Trump’s advisers Boris Epshteyn and Cliff Sims told Politico. The show will also include conservative pundit from The Blaze Tomi Lahren.

“This is a HISTORIC movement. Together, we will once again make a government by, for, and of the people! Help us close out the final weeks of this campaign strong and WIN,” Trump wrote in a Facebook post that also include a link to a fundraising page.

His campaign has denied this new Facebook telecast is a preview of the rumored "Trump TV" should he lose the election.

The first Facebook video follows Trump during his campaign rally in Tampa, Florida and features interviews with campaign manager Kellyanne Conway and the RNC's Sean Spicer. Watch below.

Virginia Man Pleads Guilty To Helping Friend Attempt To Join ISIS

A Virginia cab driver has pled guilty to helping his friend join ISIS back in January.

Mahmoud Elhassan, 26, drove Joseph Farrokh, 29, to a rest stop prior to his flight to Syria, before driving back to northern Virginia. Elhassan was arrested at a mall after Farrokh was arrested at the airport, and he was charged with attempting to help a terrorist group as well as giving false statements to the FBI. The pair was arrested after an FBI informant alerted authorities about Farrokh's plans to join ISIS.

Elhassan insists that he himself was not planning on traveling abroad and joining ISIS.

From the Washington Post:

Elhassan, 26, pleaded guilty Monday morning to attempting to help a terrorist group and giving false statements to the FBI. He admitted that he introduced Farrokh to the informant at Farrokh’s wedding last fall and spoke numerous times about ways to get to Syria. He also lied to investigators, claiming that his friend had flown out of Dulles International Airport to attend a funeral in California.

He may yet go to trial on a charge of conspiracy to provide material support. He says that he himself never tried to go abroad.

Farrokh was sentenced to eight and a half years in prison earlier this year. He was reportedly obsessed with the idea of being a martyr in Syria, and turned to Islam while recovering from an opioid addiction.

Five other people in Northern Virginia have been charged with attempting to aid or join ISIS.

Watch Live: Trump Campaigns in Tampa

GOP Lawmakers Slam Pentagon For Demanding Soldiers Repay Bonuses

Two California lawmakers had harsh words for the Pentagon Monday over the effort to recoup bonuses that were improperly given to soldiers to reenlist a decade ago.

The bonuses, which were supposed to be for soldiers in high-demand assignments, were given during the height of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to more than 10,000 servicemen in order to meet recruitment goals.

But lawmakers say the Pentagon’s move to recover roughly $20 million is “disgraceful” and “insulting.”

In a letter written to Defense Secretary Ash Carter on Monday, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), a former Marine and member of the House Armed Services Committee, said “even the simple request of asking soldiers to repay money contingent on reenlistment is disgraceful and insulting." 

"In fact, I find it difficult to believe that either you or your leadership team was aware that such a boneheaded decision was made to demand repayment — and I ask that you utilize your authority to influence a solution, including a possible legislative fix if determined necessary, that's in the best interest of the individuals and families impacted," he added.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) echoed his remarks, saying the effort to make soldiers pay back the bonuses is both “immoral” and “extremely troubling.”

"The Department of Defense should immediately halt the retrieval of these debts, and when Congress returns in November, I will insist this issue be permanently resolved with language in the National Defense Authorization Act awaiting final passage in both Chambers," Issa wrote in a letter to Carter on Monday. 

"It is unconscionable that the burden of bureaucratic malfeasance and corruption over a decade ago is being borne by heroes who stepped forward, put themselves in harm’s way and fought to keep our nation safe. Please immediately inform our offices, in addition to the appropriate Congressional committees of jurisdiction, of the steps you will be taking to promptly fix this problem -- and in a way that makes whole every one of these veterans," he wrote.

Issa also asked the chairmen of the Armed Services Committees to include a provision in the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act to put a stop to the effort to recoup the money.

Here's People's Best Efforts To #DescribeTheElectionInAGif

Over the weekend, the hashtag #DescribeTheElectionInAGif trended as people sought to condense the 20-month campaign into a short animated image. 

Here are some of the best, funniest, and most accurate examples:

And, of course:

Days After Obama's Glowing Review, Obamacare Premiums to Rise Almost 25 Percent

Some lovely news on a Monday afternoon. The damage done by Obamacare is about to get 25 percent worse. New government data released on Monday shows that customers under the silver plan, the most popular plan under the Affordable Care Act, are going to suffer financially.

The benchmark silver plan -- upon which federal subsidies are based -- will cost an average of $296 a month next year. That figure is based on prices for a 27-year-old enrollee in the 39 states that use the federal exchange, plus the four states and Washington D.C. that have their own exchanges.

Guy previewed this expensive outcome last week.

As CNN Money notes, insurers are also running away from ACA as fast as they can, with a handful of states only offering one insurer in the federal exchange.

The number of carriers will drop to 228 next year in the federal exchange and selected states, down from 298 in 2016. Some 21% of consumers returning to the exchanges will only have one carrier to chose from, though that insurer will likely offer multiple plan choices.

This unfortunate news comes just a few days after Obama's A+ review of his signature legislation on Friday. Obamacare was so great, he said, that many Americans don't even know they're benefitting from it.

He was more accurate when he made the following comparison.

New York Rejects Free Market Innovation, Passes Law Killing Airbnb

Governor Andrew Cuomo once again reminded us that liberal government means a government that rejects innovation in the marketplace. After complaints from union groups and hoteliers, the liberal governor signed a law placing a fine of up to $7,500 on anyone who uses a home sharing site to advertise a short-term rental apartment - essentially killing the operation of Airbnb.

The reasoning for the legislation is based on debunked myths purported by hotel groups. They claim Airbnb is fostering an environment where real estate owners can potentially buy up entire properties and then operate “illegal hotels” by using room-sharing services.

The problem with this argument is that it simply isn’t true - and couldn’t be according to Airbnb’s own concessions to New York legislators. Over 95 percent of New York Airbnb hosts sharing their whole home for rent advertise no more than one to share. On top of that, Airbnb agreed to enact a rule forcing hosts to advertise only one property for rent.

That wasn’t good enough for Democratic constituencies, thus it wasn’t enough for New York politicians.

Proponents of the legislation claim the law protects the “little guy” and will stop Airbnb from purportedly raising living costs. A large swath of Airbnb hosts are young professionals and millennials who use the sharing service to help them with rent and deal with the high costs of living that comes with residing in New York City. Go figure.

The past few years we have seen a wave of sharing services materialize onto the international stage. It’s been described as a new wave of market innovation the world sees every generation as capitalism continues to bring new ideas and products to the forefront.

The sharing economy is just another subset of our 21st century economy. Instead of embracing the benefits of new ideas, self-described “progressives” are once again showing they are far from heralding progress.

Airbnb isn’t sitting on its hands. They are already suing to block the new law.

Democratic Operative: I Didn't Watch The O'Keefe Tapes, But I'm Confident We Don't Have People Committing Illegal Acts

On Sunday’s broadcast of ABC’s This Week, host (and former Clinton operative) George Stephanopoulos brought up the latest investigation conducted by James O’ Keefe’s Project Veritas group that shows Democratic operatives plotting violence at Trump rallies, voter fraud schemes, and creating hubs of communication for pro-Clinton super PACs.

Clinton campaign pollster and adviser Joel Benenson was on the panel and admitted that he hasn’t seen the tapes of O’Keefe’s yearlong investigation into this dark web of operatives within the progressive Left, but he’s confident that their people aren’t doing anything illegal.

“Both of those operatives [Bob Creamer and Scott Foval] have now resigned, and they did receive money from the DNC; they were sub-contractors. Isn’t this exactly the kind of behavior you all have been complaining about?"

Benenson was ready for his talking points:

Well, it’s a video of somebody [O’Keefe] who has a track record of doctoring videos. These people have resigned, whether they were talking to him on camera, or whether there was some snippet there that’s been manipulated and taken out of context, I don’t know. It’s actually the first time I’ve seen the video, George.

Benenson then said it was an act of desperation for Republicans to focus on this and not the words of Donald Trump, who he noted has egged on violent acts at his rallies in the past. Well, so did Vice President Joe Biden, who said he wished he could go back to his high school days so he could beat up Trump for his lewd remarks about women. Ladies, where would you be without creepy Joe Biden wishing he could time travel and commit acts of violence on your behalf.

Yet, back to This Week, Stephanopoulos asked Benenson, “Are you confident that you don’t have other operatives out there doing exactly the same thing?”

“I’m pretty confident. I mean, I think as I said, we’re talking about a guy who has a track record of doctoring videos, these people resigned, as you said—and if this was happening day-in and day-out, we would know about it,” replied Benenson before reiterating how Trump incites violence at his rallies.

It’s clear that Benenson hasn’t seen the videos. Did you ever ask yourself why these two guys resigned, Benenson? If he had, he would know that Veritas caught how Clinton operatives plotted to shut down Trump’s Chicago rally, which was successful. He would see that Scott Foval and others plotted to instigate the violence at these rallies in order to put the Trump campaign in a negative light with the national media. And now, we have new footage showing that Hillary Clinton was directly involved in the Donald Duck operation, where activists dressed as a duck to prod Trump for not releasing his taxes at campaign events. It began at the DNC, but it was then handed over to Americans United For Change, which Foval and Creamer both work for, to get “ducks on the ground.” The expenditures were handled by AUFC, but they were getting their orders from the Clinton campaign. As O’Keefe noted, this is illegal coordination between a presidential campaign and a super PAC, Americans United For Change. But then, Benenson probably knew what was going on, as Lady Macbeth hatched this operation.

Sen. Crapo Says He's Voting for Trump After All

After first pulling his endorsement for the Republican nominee, Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo is now saying that he'll be voting for Donald Trump in the general election. Crapo rescinded his endorsement after audio of Trump making crude comments was released in mid-October.

According to Crapo, it is now necessary to vote for Trump to prevent Hillary Clinton from becoming president and appointing justices to the Supreme Court.

Crapo had previously called on Trump to drop out of the race and pass on the nomination to his running mate, Mike Pence.

No, That Podesta/Wikileaks Email Doesn't Prove Democrats Are Rigging Media Polls

This story started making the rounds on social media over the weekend, eventually catching fire due to Trumpworld's desperation to latch onto any piece of "evidence" -- no matter how embarrassingly ludicrous -- that the election is "rigged." (Reminder: The media turned exceedingly negative on Trump after the primaries, and the Clinton email investigation was highly questionable, but the electoral process itself is above-board and widely untainted). This latest conspiracy theory is that a Wikileaks-hacked email from John Podesta "proves" that Hillary's campaign is colluding with the mainstream media to rig the polls to make it appear as though Trump is losing. Trump himself appeared to amplify the bogus storyline on Twitter, because of course he did:

Here's what "the the Trump" is referring to:

See? They're deliberately oversampling Democrats to make it look like Trump is losing!  Or not.  The only thing that's remotely accurate about any of this is that Podesta used the word "oversamples," and mentioned "media polling" in the email.  But there's less to this supposed 'gotcha' than meets the eye.  Much less.  First of all, oversampling is an long-established polling practice with a very specific definition, described here by Pew Research (via Bradd Jaffy):

For some surveys, it is important to ensure that there are enough members of a certain subgroup in the population so that more reliable estimates can be reported for that group. To do this, we oversample members of the subgroup by selecting more people from this group than would typically be done if everyone in the sample had an equal chance of being selected. Because the margin of sampling error is related to the size of the sample, increasing the sample size for a particular subgroup through the use of oversampling allows for estimates to be made with a smaller margin of error. A survey that includes an oversample weights the results so that members in the oversampled group are weighted to their actual proportion in the population; this allows for the overall survey results to represent both the national population and the oversampled subgroup.

Click through for an explanation of how this methodology applies to African Americans, a subgroup Pew uses to illustrate how oversampling works. There is nothing controversial here. Oh, and Podesta's email was sent in January...of 2008. So his brief missive on polling comes from two presidential cycles ago, during the Democratic primary.  Bottom line: Even a cursory inspection reveals that this isn't what some people think it looks like.  If you're jonesing for a "the polls are wrong" argument, the Kentucky case study is probably your best bet at this stage.  I'll leave you with Trump's campaign manager conceding the obvious -- "we are behind:"

Watch Live: Trump Campaigns in St. Augustine

Hillary Thanks Warren For Reining in Wall Street After Goldman Sachs Basically Endorses Her

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) used Donald Trump's insults to her own advantage on Monday. At a Hillary Clinton campaign rally in New Hampshire, Warren introduced the Democratic nominee with a message: "Nasty women are tough. Nasty women are smart. And nasty women vote." Her remarks were a play on Trump's insult that Clinton was a "nasty woman" at their third presidential debate last week.

Clinton thanked Warren for the introduction, before acknowledging the Massachusetts senator's fight against powerful banks.

"She is going to make sure Wall Street never wrecks Main Street again," Clinton said.

Clinton's comments come a day after Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein said he "engages" with Clinton and is supportive of her in this year's election.

Yet, this cozy relationship with Goldman Sachs did not come up in conversation in New Hampshire. Clinton simply told the crowd she is dedicated to changing the economy to make it "fairer for everyone."

For Clinton to show her face with Warren, a progressive hero, while she receives praise from Wall Street and refuses to release her transcripts from her Wall Street speeches, is rich.

Will Bernie Fans Think Twice About Hillary After Goldman Sachs CEO Praise?

Former Bernie Sanders supporters who sold out for Hillary Clinton (harsh, I know, but true) may want to do some soul searching following a new revelation from Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein. While not outright announcing he's voting for her next month, the way he praised her on "Fareed Zakaria GPS" suggests he's with her.

“I’m supportive of Hillary Clinton,” Blankfein said, according to a transcript provided by the network. “Yes, so flat out, yes, I do. That doesn’t say that I agree with all of her policies. I don’t. And that doesn’t say that I adopt everything that she’s done in her political career or has suggested that she might do going forward.”

Blankfein also praised the Democratic nominee's apparent willingness to engage with those sitting across the political aisle.

Of course, Sanders fans should bristle at Blankfein's praise for Clinton. The Vermont senator's impassioned criticism of Wall Street has been one reason he has attracted so many progressive fans. During the Democratic primary, he hammered Clinton for her lucrative Wall Street speeches and her refusal to release the transcripts. When she tried to claim she has stood up to the big banks at one of their debates, he mocked her

“Secretary Clinton called them out,” countered Sanders. “Oh my gosh, they must have been really crushed by this. Was that before or after you received huge sums of money by giving speaking engagements?”

Additionally, new headlines reveal that donors are heavily financing Clinton's campaign. The Washington Times found that more than a fifth of the $1 billion donated to her was awarded by 100 well-to-do individuals and powerful labor unions.

Can progressive voters stomach the fact that people like Blankfein seem to want a Clinton win?

Frank Luntz On 2016: 'This Should’ve Been A Slam Dunk for the GOP'

As news organizations predict total Clinton victory, GOP pollster Frank Luntz isn’t one to offer such projections since there are enough undecideds across the country that can turn this election in Donald Trump’s favor. At the same time, Luntz did note on his appearance on CBS’ Face The Nation that he has never seen so many interparty battles raging at time when the party should be devoting all of their attention to defeating Hillary Clinton.

He added that there are Trump voters who will vote at the top of the ticket, but would refuse to vote down-ballot to send a message to the establishment, while you have independent voters who want to vote Republican down-ticket, but find that those candidates are too aligned with Trump.

Another criticism Luntz lobbed was that Trump’s Gettysburg speech this weekend, where he outlined his agenda for the first 100 days, should have been addressed weeks, or maybe months ago. He noted that when 70 million people watched the third and final debate last week, that’s when the agenda should have been articulated. After all, his own focus group showed that a) Trump dominates on trade; and b) even Hillary-leaning voters were more receptive to Trump’s language on the economy. But they all noted that they were thirsty for more details.

Trump has talked about how Romney lost a winnable election. This very well could be history repeating itself on November 8. Guy mentioned how the attacks on Clinton’s character are working, but it’s proven to be insufficient in terms of beating her. The latest CBS Florida Senate poll showed that 67 percent felt Clinton was dishonest, 56 percent feel she can’t relate to regular people, and a plurality said she served herself while being our top diplomat at the State Department. Maybe a little more detail from Trump and staying focused could have made all the difference and maybe reversed the media narrative we have right now.

Luntz noted that this campaign has prided itself in speaking for the workingman, the forgotten workers of this economy swallowed up by free trade and Obamanomics, but Trump’s attention has been on attacking the media, pushing back against the women accusing him of sexual misconduct (ineffectively), and the Republican Party (i.e. Paul Ryan). In that instance, the voice of the voters he claims to speak for is lost. While he does well about holding people accountable and on budgetary matters, he tanks when he lobs personal attacks on Clinton, especially Bill.

“I have never seen a campaign that has less discipline, less focus, less of an effective vision at a time when more Americans are demanding a change in how their government works. This should have been a slam dunk for the GOP,” said Luntz.

Reuters project Clinton to win 326 electoral votes, but Trump still has a slim path to 270. It is a grim picture. Even if Trump wins Ohio and Florida, he still short of 270. He needs to win Nevada and Colorado, which is a tall order this late in the game. If he loses Nevada and Colorado, he would need to win Pennsylvania, a state that hasn’t gone Republican since 1988, to win the election. Again, another steep hill to climb. ABC News noted other ways Trump could go to get to 270, which include winning New Hampshire. Another state that looks out of reach two weeks out from Election Day.

A perfect combination of states with fewer electoral votes could also place Trump in the White House. Victories in all of the small states in play -- including Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and the second Congressional district of Maine -- would give Trump exactly 270 electoral votes. And although Iowa and Nevada appear within reach, a WMUR/UNH poll shows New Hampshire is leaning toward Clinton -- she’s ahead by a whopping 15 percentage points.


The wildcard options include: 1) winning Wisconsin, the second Congressional district of Maine, plus either Nevada or Iowa 2) winning Virginia and either Nevada or Iowa or New Hampshire 3) winning Michigan and the second congressional district of Maine and 4) winning Colorado, Iowa and either Nevada or New Hampshire.

There's still a lot of time to go, folks. Trump has a tall hill to climb, but we'll just have to see what happens on November 8.

Landslide: Reuters Projects 326 Electoral Votes For Clinton

As we get closer to Election Day, there will be a new flurry of stories showing how Hillary has an 85+percent chance of winning—and that her Electoral College count is going to be a landslide. It’s over, basically—that’s the theme. For Reuters, they’re projecting Clinton to win 326 electoral votes, with a 95 percent chance of winning:

In the last week, there has been little movement. Clinton leads Donald Trump in most of the states that Trump would need should he have a chance to win the minimum 270 votes needed to win. According to the project, she has a better than 95 percent chance of winning, if the election was held this week. The mostly likely outcome would be 326 votes for Clinton to 212 for Trump.

Trump came off his best debate performance of the campaign Wednesday evening but the polling consensus still showed Clinton winning the third and final face-off on prime-time TV. Trump disputes those findings.

And some national polls had the race tightening a wee bit this week though others had Clinton maintaining her solid lead. But the project illustrates that the broader picture remains bleak for Trump with 17 days to go until the Nov. 8 election.

Trump did gain ground in South Carolina where his slim lead last week expanded to seven points, moving it into his column from a toss-up. Unfortunately for him, he lost ground in Arizona, which is now too close to call.

On one hand, some in the GOP will rejoice—this means the end of Trumpism, the ignominious defeat of the alt-right. Well, I’m not so sure these folks are leaving just yet. Second, Clinton would be president. Why is that a good thing? It’s a nightmare for the country. If this ends up being the end result on Election Day, it will not be without a sense of irony. When Mitt Romney decided to get on the Never Trump train, the billionaire lashed out at him, blaming him for losing a winnable election. In 2016, Reuters’ Electoral College map closely resembles that of 2012 (Romney got 206 electoral votes), and this was yet another winnable election for Republicans that we pissed away thanks for nominating flawed candidates, but I don’t want to get into “I told you so” games—though that’s a point of inevitability post-election I’m afraid.

Again, how many epitaphs have we written for this political campaign? Every time Trump looks like he’s about to collapse, he regroups. He survives. It very well could be a drumming by Clinton, but we shall reserve judgment until Election Day. We have polls showing him trailing by four, six, nine, and now twelve points. Some have it at a virtual dead heat (i.e. LA Times), while other have him leading by a point (Investors Business Daily). Now, that doesn’t mean that all is well either. Texas and Arizona are now in the toss-up column, Florida is moving to the Democrats—all of this spell disaster on November 8. If we lose Florida, forget everything else—the jig is up. Even Trump campaign manger Kellyanne Conway said that they’re behind. But the RNC seems to have delved into fantasyland to combat these developments, with Chairman Reince Priebus saying that Trump is going to do better with black voters this cycles than with McCain and Romney, with the added notion that Trump is going to win because “people have had enough.” Yeah, let’s not kid ourselves; Trump is going to do poorly with Hispanics and black voters—and we don’t know if he’s going to win the election. This spin makes the Right look desperate and embodies everything that liberals think about conservatives—that we’re detached from reality.

There is one theory that Trump’s campaign seems to be hedging on, which is that there’s a swath of voters who don’t like to be polled, and if a firm contacts them—these voters tell lies to protect themselves. It’s a fear Democratic pollsters have this cycle, that the people they poll, like the one’s saying they’re either voting for or leaning towards Hillary Clinton, are really voting for Trump. It’s our version of the shy Tory theory, in which the 1992 election in the U.K. projected a Labour win, only to end with the Conservatives winning the most votes ever cast in a British election. It’s impossible to gauge, but if this is the case, it shows how embarrassing these two candidates are for voters for either party. Right now, it’s all about stopping Clinton. And 45 percent of Republicans seem pretty dead set on making that happen, as this cohort has said they will not accept the election result that ends in a Trump defeat.

Hypocrisy is the Name of the Dems' Down-Ballot Game

The Clinton’s surrogate team is confident with their presidential prospects, and now are turning to down-ballot elections. There is the possibility for the Republicans to lose their advantage on the Hill, and the Democrats are capitalizing as much as they can on that. President Obama has made headlines the past week for his attacks on GOP House and Senate candidates.

On October 20th, the President went after Florida Senator Marco Rubio. Rubio, who is a staunchly pro-life conservative, is currently locked in a tight race with Patrick Murphy. RealClearPolitics is reporting that Rubio still has the edge, with an average 3.4 percent lead. Obama criticized Rubio for condemning certain actions and statements made by Donald Trump, while still casting his vote for the GOP nominee. The president suggested, “That’s a sign of somebody who will say anything, do anything, pretend to be anybody, just to get elected.”

Sunday, just three days after his Rubio rant, Obama slammed another GOP candidate, Darrell Issa, a representative from California. Darrell Issa’s main competition in California’s 49th District is Democrat Douglas Applegate. This time Obama cried foul on Issa for a mailing campaign and for being, as the president describes it, the “Trump before Trump.” The mailing campaign had a positive tone with Issa expressing that he was “very pleased” that Obama signed the Survivors’ Bill of Rights into law. Obama felt that the campaign was hypocritical of Issa, who constantly caused trouble for the administration when he chaired for the House Oversight Committee.

That last line of attack was rich, seeing as hypocritical is the only way to describe the Obama’s down-ballot strategy so far. Calling out Rubio for voting for Trump, despite condemning the candidate’s flaws? Bernie Sanders is doing that right now, with every message to his supporters to vote for the woman who he called corrupt and not a true progressive. Obama himself would be guilty of this after the hard fought democratic primary in 2008. That is what all politicians do after the primaries – they reevaluate their priorities based on who is left standing.

At least Rubio is still separating what he does and doesn’t agree with Trump over, while Sanders and Obama have completely moved to praising Clinton.

As for the Issa attack, Obama has no real ground to stand on. The Survivors’ Bill of Rights Act was always a bipartisan bill. Mimi Walter, a Republican representative from California, and Zoe Lofgren, a Democrat representative from California, introduced the bill. Issa cosponsored the bill, with the assertion that, “We have to overhaul the way our criminal justice system treats the victims of sexual assault. Too often, justice remains out of reach for who’ve already been victimized by this heinous crime.”

So, instead of appreciating one of the few times during his administration that both parties were able to accomplish something – Obama turns it into an attack.

Nice try Mr. President, but we see through that.

WSJ: Major Clinton Ally Funneled $675,000 to Wife of FBI Official Overseeing Email Probe

There is no "smoking gun" proof of an unethical quid pro quo arrangement in this Wall Street Journal report, but once again, voters are getting a distinct whiff of something that stinks. The key player here is Virginia's ethically-challenged Democratic Governor Terry McAulliffe, who is the target of a separate federal investigation over alleged illegal campaign donations -- and who, as a former DNC Chairman, is extremely close with the Clintons. He co-chaired Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign, and both Mr. and Mrs. Clinton were instrumental in securing his governorship.  Fast forward to 2015, when McAuliffe helped recruit and generously bankroll the (ultimately failed) State Senate campaign of a woman who is married to a member of the FBI's top brass -- who would eventually join a team that oversaw the Bureau's probe into Hillary's national security-endangering email scandal.  Details:

Campaign finance records show Mr. McAuliffe’s political-action committee donated $467,500 to the 2015 state Senate campaign of Dr. Jill McCabe, who is married to Andrew McCabe, now the deputy director of the FBI. The Virginia Democratic Party, over which Mr. McAuliffe exerts considerable control, donated an additional $207,788 worth of support to Dr. McCabe’s campaign in the form of mailers, according to the records. That adds up to slightly more than $675,000 to her candidacy from entities either directly under Mr. McAuliffe’s control or strongly influenced by him. The figure represents more than a third of all the campaign funds Dr. McCabe raised in the effort...The governor could recall only one meeting with Mr. McCabe—when he and other state Democrats met with the couple on March 7, 2015, to urge Dr. McCabe to run, according to the spokesman...Mr. McCabe’s supervision of the Clinton email case in 2016 wasn’t seen as a conflict or an ethics issue because his wife’s campaign was over by then and Mr. McAuliffe wasn’t part of the email probe, officials said...Dr. McCabe announced her candidacy in March 2015, the same month it was revealed that Mrs. Clinton had used a private server as secretary of state to send and receive government emails, a disclosure that prompted the FBI investigation. At the time the investigation was launched in July 2015, Mr. McCabe was running the FBI’s Washington, D.C., field office, which provided personnel and resources to the Clinton email probe.

Left-wing writer and fierce Clinton critic Michael Tracey notices something unusual about this timeline:

Hmm.  So Hillary's email scheme was revealed by the Times, then a few days later, McAuliffe importunes an FBI honcho's wife to run for a contested Virginia Senate seat, then sees to it that she receives well over a half-a-million dollars in payments from his PAC and the Democratic Party.  Months later, the candidate's husband was
"part of the executive leadership team overseeing the Clinton email investigation."  It does sound suspicious.  Let's run through the counter-points:  Even though Hillary's rogue, unsecure server was exposed in March of 2015, the FBI didn't launch its investigation into the matter until that July.  Dr. McCabe lost that fall, and Mr. McCabe wasn't promoted to Deputy Director until early 2016 (although it appears that he was connected to the investigation as early mid-2015, while the campaign was underway).  The Journal also reports that as soon as his wife took the political plunge, McCabe properly "sought ethics advice from the bureau and followed it."  Plus, it's not exactly surprising that a Democratic governor would maneuver to help elect Democrats to his state's legislature; McAuliffe's financial generosity to Dr. McCabe was noteworthy, but he sent even more aid to two other State Senate candidates that cycle.

That being said, I take issue with this line of justification, highlighted in the passage above: "Mr. McCabe’s supervision of the Clinton email case in 2016 wasn’t seen as a conflict or an ethics issue because his wife’s campaign was over by then and Mr. McAuliffe wasn’t part of the email probe."  In the summer of 2015, as his wife was actively campaigning and being boosted by McAuliffe, McCabe was running a key FBI office that was directly involved in the Clinton matter.  In early 2016, McCabe's wife was still licking her wounds from an election loss at the hands of Republicans.  She ran and lost as a liberal Democrat, and her campaign was championed by an exceptionally close friend of the Clintons.  Sure, McAuliffe "wasn't part of the email probe" -- he has his own probe to worry about, from which I trust (hope?) Mr. McCabe has recused himself -- but he had a very strong personal and partisan rooting interest in its outcome.  The notion that as soon as Dr. McCabe's campaign ended, those partisan ties and loyalties all simple disintegrated is naive.  On an issue this sensitive, both politically and from a national security perspective, everyone involved should have gone to great lengths to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

There are perfectly plausible explanations for why all of this is innocent and not at all nefarious.  But there are also entirely reasonable concerns that perhaps should have raised more red flags about Mr. McCabe's involvement in the Clinton case from the very beginning.  Couple this story with (a) the Attorney General's secretive tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton during the probe's final stages, (b) the bizarre and unusual grants of immunity and side deals dished out by investigators to key scandal players, and (c) James Comey's unconvincing "no intent" defense under tough questioning, and it isn't hard to understand why many Americans might draw the conclusion that Mrs. Clinton's non-indictment was, well...rigged.

Project Veritas: New Video Shows Direct (And Illegal) Coordination Between Clinton Campaign, Dem Operatives, And Trump Protests

James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas released their third investigative video exposing the dark web of Democratic operatives and consultants who are seen allegedly colluding to instigate violence at Trump rallies, take part in voter fraud schemes, and provide a hub from where pro-Clinton super PACs can establish lines of communication. In this third video, taken from a yearlong investigation into the Clinton campaign’s inner workings, we have allegations that Hillary Clinton herself is involved with some of the activities at Trump rallies.

“In the end, it was candidate Hillary Clinton, the future president of the United States who wanted ducks on the ground, so, by God, we will get ducks on the ground, said top Democratic operative Bob Creamer. “Don’t repeat that to anybody,” he added. The operations called for activists to shadow Trump/Pence events dressed as Donald Duck, a swipe at the Republican nominee’s refusal to release his tax returns. O’Keefe alleges that the Clinton campaign, working with the DNC, and the non-profit Americans United for Change is an illegal coordinated campaign activity.

Project Veritas contacted lawyers on the subject who told them, “The ducks on the ground are likely public communications for purposes of the law. It’s political activity opposing Trump, paid for by Americans United For Change funds but controlled by Clinton and her campaign.”

Creamer had daily conference calls with representatives from the Clinton campaign and AUFC’s web of operatives; Creamer also works for AUFC as well. The reason the Donald Duck operations went from DNC to AUFC was because there was some trademark issue that Donna Brazile, interim DNC chair, was worried about.

“The duck has to be an Americans United For Change entity. This had to do only with some problem between Donna Brazile and ABC, which is owned by Disney, because they were worried about a trademark issue. That’s why. It’s really sily,” said Creamer. He later says that Brazil didn’t want to get sued due to her contributor status with ABC.

“We originally launched this duck because Hillary wants the duck,” said Creamer. And even with the change in quarterbacks regarding this operation, O’Keefe says the DNC and the Clinton campaign were still “running the show.”

Bob Creamer and Scott Foval were two of the main principals featured in the first two videos. Creamer’s firm, Democracy Partners, has deep ties to the Clinton campaign and the Obama White House. Between November 21, 2011 and June 24, 2016, Creamer visited the White House 342 times, 47 of which were directly with the president. Creamer has gone to jail for tax violations and bank fraud, which landed him a five-month jail sentence with eleven months house arrest in 2006. The site WeaselZippers asked, “what was this ‘black hat’ guy, convicted felon, doing on such great terms with the White House?” Mr. Foval, who is captured talking about hiring the mentally ill and the homeless to carry out his objectives at rallies, was let go from his national field director position at Americans United From Change after O’Keefe’s videos were released. Mr. Creamer also resigned from his role with the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee as a result of Project Veritas’ investigation.

There was a bit of anxiety with this last video as it took an unusually long time for it to upload to YouTube.

Miley Cyrus Tells Non-Hillary Suppoters to Kiss Her Rear, Wants to Do Yoga With Hillary Clinton

Shortly after campaigning at George Mason University for Hillary Clinton, singer/actress Miley Cyrus posted an Instagram photo bent over with her behind to the camera, with a caption stating that anyone who isn't voting for Hillary Clinton to "Kiss [her] ashtanga a**." (Ashtanga is a form of yoga.)

Cyrus also said that it was a "dream" of hers to do yoga with Clinton.

Since the election began, Cyrus has stood firm against Trump, in part due to the fact that Trump's sons have hunted big game in the past. (Cyrus is a noted anti-hunting advocate and a devoted vegan.) Back in March, Cyrus threatened to leave the country if Trump were elected president.

Obamacare Architect: Yeah, Bill Clinton ‘Has A Point’ To Call Obamacare The Craziest Thing In The World

On October 21, Fox Business’ Maria Bartiromo had one of the main guys who crafted the Obamacare legislation, Dr. Zeke Emanuel, brother of former White House Chief of Staff and Mayor of Chicago Rahm Emanuel, to discuss the state of Obamacare and the public option that Obama and Clinton have floated this cycle.

For Clinton, that public option is to allow Americans who are 55 years of age or older to buy into Medicare and Medicaid at an affordable rate, a policy that’ll be dead on arrival should the GOP retain the House.

Dr. Emanuel conceded that the law is flawed, it could use some bipartisan tweaks, namely placing the onus on conservative Republicans to move on from their repeal position, which is when Bartiromo rehashed when former President Bill Clinton called Obamacare “the craziest thing in the world” earlier this month. Emanuel said that Bill “had a point,” but added that subsidies should be increased for Americans between 250 percent of the poverty line and 400 percent of the poverty line, roughly those earning $50,000-$100,000, in the individual market. He also said that most of these people get their health care through their employer—and that more of its costs have been shifted to the employee since the law was passed. To Emanuel, this means that employers have seen a reduction in health care costs.

Whatever the reason, the facts are that premiums are set to spike, health insurers continue to flee the markets, and 2017 looks like a lot a pain is going to hit Americans’ wallets. More Americans are opting to pay the penalty to remain uninsured because it’s more economical. The CBO projections for those who should be enrolled by this law were off by 24 million, and the co-ops that were established (23 originally) are all on the verge of total collapse. So, yeah—Obamacare is crazy, it’s unworkable, it’s too expensive, and it’s a total disaster. Oh, and of course, the liberal answer to all of more government.

Emanuel had placed blame on the bill's disastrous results on Republicans (not a single member voted for the final bill), or insinuated that insurers' withdrawal from the Obamacare market was politically motivated. Have you seen their balance sheets?