The New York Times endorses a pragmatic responsible, woman lawyer while Trump, her opponent, displays all the stereotypical woman qualities we do not want as a leader of the free world.

In any normal election year, we’d compare the two presidential candidates side by side on the issues. But this is not a normal election year. A comparison like that would be an empty exercise in a race where one candidate — our choice, Hillary Clinton — has a record of service and a raft of pragmatic ideas, and the other, Donald Trump, discloses nothing concrete about himself or his plans while promising the moon and offering the stars on layaway. (We will explain in a subsequent editorial why we believe Mr. Trump to be the worst nominee put forward by a major party in modern American history.)  NYT LINK

All the polls are stupid...I can' t believe people even pay attention to them.  I predict Hillary to win with a solid majority unless there is ramapant voter fraud.

Update:  My sentiments about the election come from my gut but is backed up by this sentiment from David Plouff, Obama's campaign manager.

[D]avid Plouffe may be most famous for his role in managing Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign, but in the 2016 campaign he has taken on a visible role as a highly optimistic surrogate for Hillary Clinton. Despite considerable liberal fretting over the possibility of a Trump presidency—and polls that are much too close for even a smidgen of comfort—Plouffe has repeatedly expressed his absolute faith in Clinton’s candidacy, even going so far as to put her odds of winning at 100 percent. LINK

Update:  October 11  via The Rude Pundit

And there you have it. The last refuge of the motherfucker who has been fucking mothers for most of his pathetic career is to treat a Democratic woman, elected in a probable landslide, LINK