Obama in Nevada: ‘Heck no’ to Trump, Joe Heck

Getty Images


President Barack Obama campaigned on behalf of Hillary Clinton in Nevada on Sunday, also pushing those gathered to vote for Democrats running down ballot.

After thanking the state for helping to elect him, praising retiring Sen. Harry Reid and touting the process made during his eight years in office, Obama launched into an attack on GOP nominee Donald Trump.

“You’ve got a guy who proves himself unfit for this office every single day in every single way,” he said.

He also criticized Trump for claiming the election process is rigged, saying: “If this was rigged, boy it would be a really big conspiracy.

“The Republican governor is not going to rig an election for Hillary Clinton or rig an election for Catherine [Cortez Masto],” he added, referring to the Democrat running for Reid’s seat.

“We’ve got to have a Congress that is willing to make progress on the issues Americans care about,” he said, before launching an extended attack on Rep. Joe Heck, the Republican facing off against Masto.

He said Heck supported Trump when it was “politically convenient” and asked “What the heck took you so long?” to denounce the nominee. Heck dropped his support for Trump earlier this month, after the now infamous “Access Hollywood” tape of Trump bragging about assaulting women.

“Too late!” Obama said. “You don’t get credit for that!”

As he criticized Heck, he asked “Nevada, what the heck?” and then led the crowd in chants of “Heck no!”

Polls show a tight race between Heck and Cortez Masto, the former Nevada attorney general in a race that Heck had been narrowly leading for months.

Clinton is ahead of Trump by nearly 5 points in the RealClearPolitics average, and the latestaverage for the Senate race shows Cortez Masto up by 2 points.

Heck revoking his support of Trump has set off a backlash against from Trump supporters and he’s privately acknowledged he’s in a “very difficult situation” for no longer supporting his party’s standard-bearer.

By The Hill staff


Winners and losers from the final presidential debate


 Sarah Parnass/The Washington Post


* Hillary Clinton: This was the Democratic nominee’s best debate performance. She finally figured out the right calibration of ignoring and engaging Trump. Given her considerable edge in the electoral map, Clinton didn’t need a moment in this debate, she simply needed to survive. But she had a moment, anyway — with a stirring answer in response to Trump’s comments about women and the allegations against him of groping nine different women. Clinton,borrowing from Michelle Obama’s speech on the same subject, was deeply human and relatable in that moment. Throughout the rest of the debate, she did what we know she knows how to do well: She deftly dropped a series of opposition research hits and sprinkled in a series of attempts to goad Trump into mistakes. She came across as calm and composed in the face of his, at times, tough-to-watch interruptions. (“Such a nasty woman,” Trump said of Clinton as she was speaking toward the end of the debate.) Her performance wasn’t perfect; she struggled to defend the Clinton Foundation, for example, but Trump managed to throw her an opening to talk about his own foundation’s issues. All in all, Clinton won — a clean sweep of the three debates.
* Chris Wallace: Wallace was the best moderator of the four debates — three presidential, one vice presidential. Poised and confident, he sought to steer the conversation without dominating it. He allowed the candidates to debate issues back and forth but, when they veered off course and didn’t answer his questions, he made sure to let them know about it. And, as was the case in other Fox-sponsored debates in the primary season, Wallace’s questions were just top-notch. On immigration, on the women alleging that Trump groped them, on the Clinton Foundation, Wallace asked blunt questions that demanded straight answers.


* Vladimir Putin: The Russian leader had to be thrilled about the amount of airtime he and his country received in the debate. And Trump, while insisting that he and the Russian president are not, in fact, friends, repeatedly said that he knew for a fact that Putin had no respect for Clinton. Any airtime for Putin in a debate with tens of millions of Americans watching probably make him very, very happy.

* David Fahrenthold: The WaPo reporter who has broken every piece of news about the Trump Foundation didn’t get mentioned by name during the debate but he was all over it. Clinton mentioned Fahrenthold’s reporting about the six-foot portrait Trump bought of himself— with charity money. Wallace noted that Trump had used foundation money to pay off fines —another Fahrenthold scoop. This was the biggest night for Fahrenthold since he won the Ciquizza!!! (Side note: Make sure to read my conversation with Dave about how he happened onto the Trump Foundation story and how he continues to break big news on it.)

*Puppets: There hasn’t been this much conversation about puppets in a presidential debate since, well, ever. Also, making “puppets” a winner allows me to post this GIF of Gob and Franklin Bluth:



* Donald Trump: Top to bottom, this was Trump’s most consistent and best debate. But, it wasn’t a good debate for him. Not at all. His signature moment — and the defining moment of the entire debate — came when he refused to say he would concede if the election results showed he had lost. Trump’s I’ll-just-wait-and-see answer was a total disaster and will be the only thing people are talking about coming out of the debate.


* Down-ballot Republicans: For an hour or so, the likes of Pat Toomey (Pa.), Richard Burr (N.C.) and Kelly Ayotte (N.H.) had to be, generally speaking, happy with Trump’s performance. But then came the question of whether he would respect the election results if he lost and Trump’s total debacle of an answer. It’s hard for me to see how Republicans in close down-ballot races can afford to keep sticking by a candidate who has broken with centuries of tradition when it comes to the peaceful handover of power. And, you can expect every single Republican — those in tough race and even those who aren’t — to be asked tomorrow (and the day after that and the day after that) whether they agree with Trump’s view on the rigged nature of the election. Not exactly a closing message any of them would choose.

Michael Moore to debut surprise Trump film



Filmmaker Michael Moore is debuting a new movie about Donald Trump that he began teasing just days ago.

“Michael Moore in Trumpland” will first screen for free in New York City’s IFC Center on Tuesday night.

“See the film Ohio Republicans tried to shut down,” reads a description of the film on the IFC Center’s website. “Oscar-winner Michael Moore dives right into hostile territory with his daring and hilarious one-man show, deep in the heart of TrumpLand in the weeks before the 2016 election.”

Moore tweeted a tease to “finishing touches on an ‘October Surprise’ for this election” over the weekend.

On Monday night Moore tweeted the details of his new film that included a photo of three of Trump’s children: Ivanka, Eric and Donald Jr.

The liberal filmmaker and supporter of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton has been a vocal critic of the Republican presidential nominee throughout his campaign.

Earlier this month, he compared Trump to a “human Molotov cocktail” voters can throw into a political system that has left them behind.

Paulina Firozi



Jonathan Ernst/REUTERS

Fears Mount As Trump Goes Darker… Republicans In Damage Control Mode… Trump Retreats Into Detached Echo Chamber As Race Enters Final Stretch… Dark Shadow Hangs Over Clinton World… Hillary Closing In On Victory…

Right-Wing Alternate Reality Collapses As Obama Approval Rating Hits 56% In Fox Poll

Image result

Cage Skidmore


Sorry, Republicans, but Americans think President Obama has done a pretty good job.

In a blow to Republicans living in an alternate reality, President Obama’s approval rating continues to soar even higher in a brand new Fox News poll released on Thursday.

According to the poll, 56 percent of Americans approve of the job the current president has done – the eighth Fox poll in a row to show Obama’s approval rating at 50 percent or higher.

The new numbers directly contradict constant Republican assertions that Obama has destroyed the country and turned the U.S. into a hellscape. Americans actually think the current president has done a pretty good job.

Other recent polling consistently shows the same thing as the Fox Poll: A majority of Americans approve of the job President Obama is doing. According to RealClearPolitics, the current president’s job approval stands at a strong 52 percent when averaging recent polling.

This isn’t just good for the outgoing president, though. It’s also good for the current Democratic nominee.

Obama’s increasing popularity is proof that tying Hillary Clinton’s candidacy to him and calling her a third Obama term won’t hurt the Democratic nominee – if anything, it will only help her chances next month when voters go to the polls.

As we reach the mid-point of October and approach the final few weeks of this campaign, these numbers should have Republicans – particularly Donald Trump – shaking in their boots.


Was it a Depressing Week in Politics for Women, or a Great One?


Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Image result for the new york times magazine logoMAGAZINE

Dear Sue,

In life, and especially on the pool table of presidential politics, it’s weird how things collide and reverse. Adversaries become assets and weaknesses become unexpected sources of power. The first female president may end up owing some of the margin of her victory to outrage about male lechery. And all these years later, sex-related scandal appears to have become a Clinton strength.

At Sunday’s debate, Hillary Clinton walked into a situation that was mostly a dream for her, with Donald Trump’s support from his own party collapsing because of universally condemned remarks he’d made about women. But it was also a bit of a Groundhog Day nightmare for the Democratic nominee: In front of tens of millions of people, with the fate of the Supreme Court, our national defenses and so much else in the balance, she had to literally face all the old allegations about her husband. Her adversary tried to choreograph a direct confrontation between him and his accusers.

This is what I want to analyze and rewatch with you: Clinton’s demeanor, so different from her affect at the first debate, and what it tells us about her. A few weeks ago, she alternated between defending, smiling and shimmying. Last night she appeared utterly calm and composed, serene even. Her glare at Trump was cutting but unemotional. As he stood and paced, she looked centered and about as content as a person can seem amid the melting scrutiny of the debate stage.

These questions may be somewhat beyond journalistic reach, but here’s what I want to know: What do you think Hillary Clinton has learned about sexual scandal over the years that helped her performance last night? (My bet is that she has absorbed the dynamics and optics of public airing of male lechery more than almost anyone else alive.) What do you think Bill Clinton, whose unforced errors haunt Democratic politics to this day, was thinking during the first half-hour of the debate? Will Trump’s gambit of bringing forward Bill’s accusers actually provoke some sympathy for Hillary, reminiscent of the Monica Lewinsky scandal?

And even as Hillary quietly worked this weekend to position the Trump tapeto her maximum advantage, do you think she ever wondered to herself: How many national debates about inappropriate male behavior can one woman live through?


Dear Jodi,

I am no psychologist, although we’re all sort of Clintonologists these days, and may have been since 1992. To me, Clinton’s serenity in the face of some pretty sordid claims about her husband was impressive, but not all that surprising. Think of all the free exposure therapy she’s had, courtesy of the right-wing media. Dangle a spider in front of an arachnophobe enough times (increasing duration and proximity), and the hot, emotional reaction dwindles to the point of extinction. She has been handling, with unflappable cool (her critics would say too much cool), these issues since her husband’s first presidential campaign.

But I think what you’re also getting at is just how untested this specific scenario is: There’s really no precedent for how to conduct yourself in a nationally televised presidential debate while confronting ugly allegations about your husband’s sex life. Untold numbers of women have had to deal with their husbands’ alleged affairs, but none of them have ever had to do it while also trying to look presidential. She certainly showed the world it could be done. It’s a first, all right, although I don’t know that it’s one worth celebrating.

I did wonder, watching the debate, if her sang-froid in the face of those kinds of accusations plays differently to Trump’s supporters. Clinton’s fans see grace, someone going high when he goes low; Trump’s might see a political operative who is so jaded by years of dealing with her husband’s sexual exploits that she has no emotional response to them whatsoever. Through different eyes, might that poise be perceived as a liability?

I love the idea of Clinton’s wondering, in a private moment, as you put it: How many national debates about male lechery can one woman live through? I also wonder if she sometimes despairs, looking back at 1992, at how little has changed since then. It might not be so much “This again” as: “Really? Still this?”

I somehow doubt that Trump’s bringing up Bill’s past exploits made Clinton seem more sympathetic, the way the Monica Lewinsky scandal did in 1998. (As you know, her approval ratings have never been higher than they were then.) I sometimes think that a lot of the young women who might have worked up more interest and sympathy and admiration for Clinton this year simply haven’t had to — their disgust for Trump is so strong that they haven’t given his opponent that much thought, one way or the other.

As for what Bill was thinking: What a great question. Jodi. I have no idea. Would love to throw it back to you. Do you think he can manage to muster up the self-righteousness so many men are feeling in the face of comments like Trump’s that it’s just “locker room talk”? Do you think his comments inspired in women the general feeling that the great locker rooms of the world need a whole lot more women in them?


Dear Sue,

We can’t read minds, but maybe to answer the Bill Clinton question we can gaze a bit into the future.

Hillary Clinton is now overwhelmingly favored to win the presidency. (Twitter got a little ahead of itself and practically held her inauguration today, after the news that Paul Ryan would no longer defend Trump.) If she does, the Clinton trio will have more historical titles than members. First female president. First husband-and-wife presidencies. First first child twice over. And first first gentleman.

In other words, Bill Clinton — a former president, one who was impeached over fidelity issues — would become our first husband in chief, at a time when gender roles are up for grabs as never before.

I don’t know what Bill will be thinking, but I can bet what everyone else will be: Everything this man does in the role will matter. How he treats his wife in public, whether he supports or steps on her. Whether he sees the traditional first-spouse duties — hosting, commemorating — as numbing, empty, inferior tasks or as part of the essential function of a healthy White House. First ladies are symbolic, but the first first husband will likely be super-symbolic.

This could be messy. Defining the Feminist Thing to Do in a woman’s White House is likely to be a running riddle, because which is the project: role reversal or wiping away outdated roles altogether?. Perhaps the first husband should smash the outdated conventions of the presidential-spouse role, do away with the floral-botanical complex for good? Publicly discuss Syria policy and environmental protection, because who made the rule that smart presidential spouses don’t discuss that stuff, anyway? But the risk of undercutting or overshadowing Hillary Clinton is great, as we saw in the 2008 race.

Cosmically, it seems as if figuring this all out could be part of Bill Clinton’s penance for the damage he did years ago. He is unlikely to talk about it. First spouses have little incentive for public introspection — name the last deep interview Michelle Obama did — but his actions will speak volumes.

Listen to how other men have started talking, though. In his new autobiography, Bruce Springsteen, Mr. Hot Rod Open Highway Macho Man, calls his younger self a misogynist. He repeatedly uses that word. He also says he was a serial cheater, unfaithful to his first wife and to his current wife, Patti Scialfa, too. He went to therapy, but what finally changed him for good was watching Scialfa give birth: “This small hospital room would be the great house of your contrition, of a life’s happy penance, except there is no time for your [expletive] here,” he wrote about himself.

I wonder if Bill Clinton has picked up Springsteen’s book.

Back to the moment: If our first female president will be propelled into office in part by outrage about male sexual misbehavior, would you find that depressing, or poetically satisfying?


Dear Jodi,

I can sort of see it: Hillary’s trying to get Bill to talk strategy before bed, and he’s listening, he’s really trying, but he’s also eyeing the Springsteen memoir on his nightstand table longingly. (Baby, we were born to run!)

Of course, we do have a precedent for a first spouse who advised the president on foreign policy, and pretty much everything else, and that was Hillary Clinton. Many of her supporters at the time called that feminism; but as you suggest, if Bill were to play as much of a role in her presidency as she did in his (especially in his first term), it would look anything but feminist, to the public. It would be nice to see a first spouse, one of these days, who was not vested in the floral-botanical complex or the role of policy adviser. I would have loved, had Howard Dean been elected, to see his wife continuing to practice medicine, for example (even if it meant a lot of Secret Service agents wandering around in scrubs).

In a way, Bill Clinton is the ideal transitional first husband. Undeniably powerful and charismatic, he’s a man who’s already had his turn at running the free world — no one better embodies gender roles than that guy. But maybe one day we’ll see a female presidential candidate whose husband is a successful hospital administrator, for instance, or a lawyer. If he were planning to give up his job to move to the White House, to play a mostly ceremonial role while trying to raise a couple of sane kids, would that be an uncomfortable scenario for voters? If instead he continued to work, and barely gave a thought to his role as first husband, would the public respond with understanding, or irritation at the double standard? Certainly, that choice would also mean the end of the first lady as we’ve known her.

I know I’m getting ahead of myself here, but it is comforting to realize that Hillary Clinton is probably not singular, that there will be other women running for president as serious candidates going forward. And possibly those elections will be far less fraught than this one.

You asked if I find it sad or poetically satisfying that two men’s sexism caught on a recording might propel the first woman into the presidency. I’m going to go with poetically satisfying, were it to happen — it would suggest that sometimes, when it really matters, justice does eventually catch up to those who abuse their power. The recording has amplified, for many women, their sense of the urgency of this election. It’s not just that they can’t bear Trump, or that they love Hillary; it’s that the election is about something bigger now than just the office of the presidency. The recording put many women directly in touch with their outrage about the outdated, the exclusionary, the sexist, the predatory, the power-and-otherwise grabby. Women are more eager than ever to see a girl waltz into the most powerful old-boys’ club in the world, the White House, and take a seat at the head of the table.



Ryan Won’t Defend Trump

Paul Ryan holds his weekly press conference in the Capitol on Sept. 29, 2016.

Bill Clark—CQ Roll Call/Getty Images


Speaker Paul Ryan is telling congressional Republicans that he won’t defend Donald Trump now or in the future and will spend the next month defending his party’s House majority, according to a call with GOP lawmakers

Obama administration publicly blames Russia for DNC hack

Getty Images


The Obama administration on Friday publicly attributed recent political hacking incidents to the Russian government, calling the thefts an intentional effort to interfere with the U.S. election process.

The Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence publicly blamed Russia for the hack of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and other political organizations this year.

“We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities,” the agencies in a joint statement.

The hack and subsequent release of emails from the DNC, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and former Secretary of State Colin Powell were widely believed by security experts and many in the intelligence community to be the work of Russian intelligence.

The Obama administration has been under fierce pressure from lawmakers — led by Senate and House Intelligence Committee ranking members Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), respectively — to publicly attribute the attacks.

The decision to name-and-shame Russia is a historic one. Of the four countries officials cite as the U.S.’s key adversaries in cyberspace — Russia, North Korea, China and Iran — Russia was the only one against whom the U.S. had not yet taken some kind of public action over its cyber activity.

Some onlookers suspected that the White House was leery of publicly naming Russia in the DNC hack because it didn’t want to disrupt a fragile ceasefire deal in Syria.

But Secretary of State John Kerry officially suspended negotiations with Russia over implementing such an agreement on Monday. And on Friday he called for a war crimes investigation of Russia and Syria for attacks in Aleppo.

Washington has almost unanimously treated Russian involvement in the attack on the DNC and other Democratic groups as fact after several forensics firms avowed that all the digital fingerprints pointed to a well-known Russian intelligence group known informally as Fancy Bear.

Moscow used a diffuse network of outlets to disseminate the material it stole — all of which the administration confirmed Friday.

“The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts,” the statement read.

Security experts have long believed that the previously-unknown hacker Guccifer 2.0 was a front for Russian interests, despite his claims to be a single Romanian hacker. He — or they — published the DNC and DCCC documents on a WordPress blog set up shortly after the hacks.

DCLeaks.com, which published the Powell emails, claims to be American but is also thought to be a Russian intelligence front. The anti-secrecy platform WikiLeaks also published the DNC emails, but would not reveal where it got them.

The intelligence agencies also confirmed long-standing speculation that the attacks were an effort by the Russian government to meddle in the U.S. election — whether to simply sow doubt in the integrity of the process or to ensure an outcome favorable to the Kremlin.

The release of the DNC emails — just days before Hillary Clinton formally became the Democratic nominee — threw the first day of the Democratic National Convention into chaos and led to the resignation of committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Some Democrats, including the Clinton campaign, have characterized the leak as an attempt by Russia to benefit GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump, seen as Russian President Vladimir Putin’s preferred candidate.

The administration did not offer specifics on Russia’s precise motivation.

“These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the U.S. election process,” the administration said. “Such activity is not new to Moscow — the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there.”

The agencies said they were not ready to confirm that recent probing of state’s election systems were the work on Russian hackers, but urged caution.

Lawmakers were quick to celebrate the announcement.

“I applaud the administration’s decision to publicly name Russia as the source of hacks into U.S. political institutions,” said Schiff.

The Obama administration has taken a case-by-case approach to responding to high-profile cyber incidents — decisions that onlookers say are based on both the nature of the attack and the level of the diplomatic involvement between the U.S. and the country in question.

The White House publicly blamed North Korea for hacking Sony Pictures in 2014. Some onlookers point to the antagonistic relationship between the two nations, arguing that the U.S. had little to lose by piquing the country’s dictatorial young leader Kim Jong-Un.

Also in 2014, the U.S. issued indictments for five People’s Liberation Army officers on hacking charges.

Earlier this year, the Justice Department indicted seven Iranians for a series of coordinated cyberattacks against the U.S. financial sector and for infiltrating a New York dam in 2013.

Conversely, Obama has declined to name the culprit behind the massive hack of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), uncovered last spring. The intrusion has been widely attributed to China but is believed to have been an intelligence-gathering mission.

The U.S. also maintains deep economic and diplomatic ties with Beijing.

Critics say that a policy of responding to attacks on a case-by-case basis isn’t enough to keep bad actors from hacking the United States.

In the case of Russia, Schiff had said previously, “the longer this goes on without the administration making attribution, then I think the longer we’re going to see these hacks continue.”

Katie Bo Williams

5 numbers that mattered this week


Donald Trump may have lost the first presidential debate, but he might not sink too far in the polls because of it. | Getty


Continuing our POLITICO feature, where we dig into the latest polls and loop in other data streams to tell the story of the 2016 campaign. Here are five numbers that mattered this week.

The reviews are in: Donald Trump lost the first presidential debate. But he might not sink too far in the polls because of it.

Of the nine scientific national polls conducted either immediately after Monday night’s debate or in the days following that asked debate-watchers who won, Hillary Clinton won all nine – often by wide margins. Same for the four post-debate, battleground-state polls released this week: Clinton went four-for-four.

That was also the verdict in a new Fox News poll released Friday night: Among likely voters who watched the debate, 60 percent said Clinton won, while only 22 percent picked Trump as the winner.

Still, Trump’s share of the vote among likely voters in a four-way matchup was unchanged from the previous poll in mid-September: 40 percent. Clinton’s share ticked up slightly, from 41 percent to 43 percent.

Trump is still winning about 80 percent of self-identified Republicans, unchanged from the previous poll. And he’s still winning about half of white voters.

The debate is probably best described as a squandered opportunity for Trump: He kept his base, but he didn’t expand his coalition. While the percentage of undecided voters decreased from 6 percent in mid-September to 3 percent in the new poll, Trump held steady.

Trump could be running up near his ceiling: He’s at 40 percent in the four-way ballot, and 44 percent in a head-to-head matchup with Clinton, who is at 49 percent without the other candidates included. Expanding past that will require changing voters’ minds: A combined 55 percent of likely voters have an unfavorable opinion of Trump, including 49 percent who say they have a “strongly unfavorable” view.

Even though Trump retained his support on the ballot test in the Fox News poll, he damaged himself in other ways in the debate. The percentage of likely voters who view Trump as honest and trustworthy shrank to 31 percent, down from 39 percent two weeks ago. And 62 percent of likely voters say Trump is not honest or trustworthy – one point higher than the 61 percent who say Clinton isn’t honest.

Women are a particular weak spot for the GOP nominee. In mid-September, 48 percent of white men and 44 percent of white women found Trump honest and trustworthy. Now, 44 percent of white men view Trump as honest and trustworthy, but only 34 percent of women agree.

Both candidates continue to struggle badly on this measure among younger voters. Seventy-one percent of voters younger than age 35 view Clinton as not honest or trustworthy, a point higher than the 70 percent of young voters who say Trump isn’t honest or trustworthy. (Younger voters still tilt toward Clinton on the ballot test: 44 percent to Trump’s 28 percent, with Libertarian Gary Johnson at 17 percent and Green Party nominee Jill Stein at 8 percent.)

Trump touted his “winning temperament” at the Hofstra debate, but he failed to make the sale to the American people.

A 59-percent majority of likely voters said in the Fox News poll they don’t think Trump has the temperament to be president – equal to the mid-September poll.

Clinton, on the other hand, boosted her numbers significantly. Two-thirds of likely voters, 67 percent, say Clinton has the temperament to be president, up from 59 percent two weeks ago.

Trump also failed to convince voters on one of his most significant thematic arguments on Monday: that his lack of government experience is an asset, and Clinton’s experience is a liability.

The Fox News poll asked voters whether it was a “good thing” or “bad thing” that Trump “has never been in government.” Respondents were split – but tilted negative: 43 percent said it was good, and 47 percent said it was bad.

For Clinton, they asked whether the fact Clinton “has been in government for more than 20 years” was a good or bad thing, and they found voters saw her experience more as an benefit. A 53-percent majority said Clinton’s experience was a good thing, and just 40 percent saw it as a bad thing.

There’s a massive gender gap on this question, at least among white voters. While white men say Trump’s lack of experience is a good thing by a wide margin, 60 percent to 25 percent, more white women say it’s a bad thing (49 percent) than a good thing (43 percent). Only 32 percent of suburban women say Trump’s inexperience is a good thing.

The numbers for Clinton are just as stark: Only 29 percent of white men say Clinton’s experience was a good thing, but 56 percent of white women see it as good. And more than two-thirds of suburban women – the voters Trump needs to attract in states like Pennsylvania and Colorado – say Clinton’s experience is good.

A new Mason-Dixon poll in Florida gives Clinton a 4-point lead over Trump built mainly on Clinton’s strength – and Trump’s weakness – among Latino voters.

Clinton leads among Hispanics, 64 percent to 29 percent, the poll shows. That’s a more significant advantage than Barack Obama enjoyed in Florida in 2012 (60 percent) and 2008 (57 percent), according to exit polls.

Trump is significantly underperforming past Republicans among Hispanics in Florida. Mitt Romney won 39 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2012, and John McCain won 42 percent in 2008.

Part of that is a long-term trend: Cuban-Americans, who are more Republican than other Latinos, are a smaller percentage of the Florida Hispanic population. And younger Cuban-Americans are trending more Democratic.

But Trump seems to be accelerating these trends this year. And most of the interviews in this poll were conducted before a Newsweek report alleged one of Trump’s companies circumvented the embargo against Cuba in the 1990s.