I dunno; that sounds to me akin to burning down one's house with kerosene versus burning down one's house with napalm, Regardless, I think the nature of the AP/GfK respondents' answers was, "Who is least capable of 'Making America great again' - which can mean literally anything depending upon each respondent's worldview - then who is most capable.of it, even if the question did say that.
Or at least I hope it was:
When asked which candidate would do the best job achieving Trump's campaign slogan of "making America great," 33% of Americans in the Associated Press-GfK poll picked [Mrs.] Clinton, compared to 28% for Trump.
Still, about 30% said they didn't trust either candidate to "make America great again."
That last number is much more telling, and encouraging, than the head-to-head figures, because it indicates that there may indeed be as many as nearly a third of Americans who are still capable of un-tribalistically thinking for themselves. Or, put another way, according to this survey, 33% of Americans are Marxists-Alinskyists, 28% are brain-dead reactionaries, 30% are (or at least I'd like to believe they are) constitutional conservatives, and 9% are in tequila and/or weed hibernation.
Once we get past the Rorschach test, the results look typically dismal for the New York liberal conman:
[Mrs.] Clinton's edge over Trump on the issues spans foreign and domestic policy.
She holds a significant advantage on handling immigration, health care, the U.S. image abroad, filling Supreme Court vacancies, international trade and working with Congress....
[Mrs.] Clinton has a slimmer lead over Trump on which candidate is trusted to protect the country, with 37% backing the Democrat and 31% backing the "Republican". The margin is similar when Americans were asked who they trusted to handle the threat posed by the Islamic State group.
These numbers have "Hillary is bad, but Trump is even worse" scrawled all over them. Indeed, the November election with the pompadoured prince on the ballot may be the towering exception to the rule that people vote FOR candidates rather than AGAINST them. Hardly any general election voter wants to put the Empress back in the White House, but they're even more revulsed by the American Mussolini.
And this stat illustrates it like a nose zit on prom night:
And despite Americans' overall preference for [Mrs.] Clinton on a host of issues, just 20% say she represents their own views very well on matters they care about, while 23% say somewhat well.
But as with most issues addressed in the AP-GfK poll, the numbers for Trump are even worse: Just 15% of Americans say he represents their views very well and 14% say somewhat well. [emphasis added]
Why are the numbers so low? Because nobody knows what views either will espouse on any given day, but everybody knows what each really believes: She's a corrupt, incompetent, abrasive, lying, hectoring Marxist-Alinskyist, and he's a corrupt, dishonest, narcissistic, peckerwood, crypto-fascist ignoramus. She would carry on Barack Obama's evil work, and he would obliviously compound and justify it.
So why is the Ugly Dutchess currently leading in the RCP average by a 50%-39% margin? Because she's the devil voters know, and Donald Trump is the devil voters fear. Not unlike how the only Democrat President Nixon could have blown out in 1972 was George McGovern, and that's who the Donks dutifully and stupidly nominated.
And if I remember correctly, they were....angry at their "establishment" at the time.
About the headline picture:
The Boston Globe is publishing a mock front page Sunday featuring bleak and satirical headlines it predicts will accompany a Donald Trump presidency.
The bogus front page – accompanied by a "Stop Trump" editorial – will lead the newspaper's Sunday Ideas section and "is a work of political satire and commentary produced by the Globe's Editorial Board, not the newsroom," the Globe's editorial page editor, Ellen Clegg, tells Politico in an email.
Here's the PDF of it. Scroll down past the lead editorial to take a look. It's not a bad parody, other than the "bank glitch halts border wall work" because that wall, if it was ever constructed, wouldn't start until months or years later, and "Trump on Nobel prize short list," which is a physical impossibility in any quantum history. I think the Globe threw that one in there to make sure readers couldn't possibly mistake it for an actual front page.
It's also not anything that conservative publications haven't done before, as I distinctly remember an American Spectator piece that depicted equivalent future apocalyptic headlines about Barack Obama in the 2008 home stretch, which were pretty accurate other than The One resigning in lieu of running for reelection.
The time frames for the other mock headlines ("Markets sink as trade war looms," 'New libel law targets absolute scum in press") are similarly over-accelerated - does anybody think Trump would get a honeymoon at all, given the solidly "blue" Congress that would be slaveringly staring back at him? - but the subject matter doesn't sound far off, really.
Point is, it's an absolute worst case, nightmare scenario, probably assuming that the GOP would retain both houses of Congress (also a quantum impossibility), and as we discussed above, one that is extremely unlikely to ever materialize (in favor of the OTHER absolute worst case, nightmare scenario). That's the choice towards which La Clinton Nostra and rabid Trumplicans are bulldozing the country: hemlock or cyanide.
But, as this is the Boston Globe we're talking about, they hate Ted Cruz even more:
Action doesn’t mean political chicanery or subterfuge. It doesn’t mean settling for an equally extreme — and perhaps more dangerous — nominee in Ted Cruz. If the party can muster the courage to reject its first-place finisher, rejecting the runner-up should be even easier.
Probably the only thing in the Globe editorial that had Trumplicans cheering.
Trump, as is his want, counterattacked without refuting anything the Globe said:
“How about that stupid Boston Globe? It’s worthless, sold for a dollar,” Trump said during a rally Sunday in Rochester, N.Y.
“They pretended Trump is the president and they made up, the whole front page is a make-believe story, which is really no different from the whole paper. … The whole thing is made up.”
“They wrote a totally dishonest story, totally dishonest,” Trump said during the rally Sunday.
Except of course, they weren't stories, they were predictions to illustrate the point of their editorial, and they riffed off of issues positions Trump has, in fact, taken.
It was a parody. Precisely the sort of thing that serious candidates ignore.
Which makes one parody ripping another at least stylistically appropo, I guess.