No, really?

This business about Trump's "scamming the public with his 'university', or his conniving to destroy the businesses who worked under him, or his ties with Mobsters, or his connections with Putin, or his many ongoing litigations."

Where did you hear about that?

such information even if it is mentioned rarely and only in passing. In fact, we go searching for such information.

But most American voters are not as deeply, intensely involved as we are in searching for political information, so they are likely to miss stories that get little media play, especially when other stories are being harped on constantly.

So just because the other poster heard about those Trump negatives by way of the media, that doesn't mean that the media are covering the negative Trump stories anywhere near enough.

Nor does it mean that the media aren't drowning out the brief, unemphasized references to the Trump negative stories with an endless flood of anti-Hillary scandal stories, even zombie-lie stories about scandals that have been repeatedly debunked.

every general election candidates get a convention bump that always wears off after a while. Hillary's bump was larger than Trump's and lasted longer but now its wearing off a bit.
The LA Times/USC Daybreak poll currently has Trump up by 3 points but the realclearpolitics
average of the latest polls has Clinton up by 4.9, 46.8% to 41.9%.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

I live here in the Los Angeles County area, and that LA Times poll is a right-leaning poll. The LA Times ain't what it used to be when I was growing up (I'm 55). I wouldn't trust that poll as far as I could throw a feather, and I don't care what Nate Silver says I'm not wasting time adjusting for it

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-leave-the-la-times-poll-alone/

His 'lust in his heart"
The swimming rabbit attack
The friggen Ted Koppel dirge that lasted 400+ plus days...every freaking night.

It has been almost 40 years of the media giving Republicans cover and we are all the lesser for their blatent dishonesty. Thanks liberal media.

who are pushing his fat, lazy and crazy horse to make it a race.

Am I the only one here who is screaming for some disclosure? There are reams of negative press on that skunk that should be examined in a daily basis in the press... his taxes, his connections, his dubious health, his bankruptcies, his lies regarding his charitable donations, on and on.

Hillary gets more blame for the Iraq was than the media gets. Really, really a shame and a sham.

She gets more blame than Bush & Cheney get, and not all of it from righties. SOME on the left hold her more responsible for lying the USA into that war than Bush & Darth Cheney tRump was for the war before he was against it--he said so on the Stern show. Yet Hillary gets called on HER bad judgment for voting "yes" to the 2002 Congressional Resolution.

Here is what Hillary voted FOR:

Myth #1: The 2002 Congressional Resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq, on which Hillary Clinton and a large majority of U.S. Senators voted yes, gave George W. Bush “carte blanche” to pursue war against Saddam Hussein.

False! In fact exactly the opposite is true: While that Resolution did indeed authorize President Bush, under strict requirements of the 1973 War Powers Act, to use force, Section 3(b) of the Act also required that sanctions or diplomacy be fully employed before force was used, i.e. force was to be used only as “necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq,” and to do so only upon the President certifying to Congress that “diplomatic or other peaceful means” would be insufficient to defang Saddam.

Despite those legal conditions, the following year we were at war—and millions of us were astonished that the Bush Administration, running roughshod over Congress’s requirements, hadn’t given more time for U.N. inspectors to complete their job of searching for weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-marburggoodman/five-myths-about-hillary-iraq-war-vote_b_9177420.html

Notice that the media has published negative article after negative article about Hillary since Roger Ailes has been behind the scene within the Trump campaign. Roger Ailes is leaking his opposition research to reporters.