Where we stand today: It's all even, and it's a sprint to the finish

If you're a Trump supporter (or you're just horrified by the prospect of a Hillary presidency), and you're encouraged by the movement in the polls the past week, I am not here to tell you that you shouldn't be. What's happening in the polls is very good news for Trump and terrible news for Hillary. But that said, the news may not exactly mean what you'd like it to mean. While there are national polls showing Trump with a small or even growing lead, and state polls that are trailing the national trends to show Trump pulling ahead in battleground states like Ohio, Florida and Iowa, it really cannot be said in any meaningful way that Trump is "winning" or "leading." That's because too many people haven't made up their minds, and too many others are still flirting with the idea of voting for fringe, unserious candidates - an idea most will likely abandon by Election Day.

But what has happened in the recent polls is important for Trump in an entirely different way, and it was something that had to happen before he had any chance of winning, let alone taking command of the race. What Trump has shown with his recent rise is that he's overcome the biggest obstacle he had to face from the beginning, and that was the media-created notion that he is a dangerous lunatic. That was obviously fueled by some of his own behavior, especially ill-considered comments about specific women who bother him (although I thought the remark about Rosie O'Donnell was hilarious, but maybe that's just me). This, combined with the complete misrepresentation of his statements about criminals from Mexico and immigrants from terror-supporting states, created an opportunity for the media to sell him as racist, sexist nut who just might go and push all the nuclear buttons! In contrast, they presented Hillary as the safe and sane choice - the candidate that you might not like personally, and who may have flaws, but had been in the arena and tested and could be trusted with the responsibilities of the presidency. If the public had bought these two narratives, Trump might have lost 50 states. But the public bought neither.

Why? I think they reject the Trump narrative because they see it for what it is. Trump is certainly unconventional as politicians go, but for the most part, as Rob put it when we were talking about this the other day, the political class is simply butthurt over the fact that someone is in a position to possibly win the presidency who is not part of their club. And when I talk about the political class, I absolutely include the political media in that. The biggest illusion in America is that politicians and the reporters who cover them are not just different players in the exact same play act. Whether it's officeholders, appointees, consultants or the press, they're all part of the same club, and Trump is decidedly not in the club. And I think the American public is getting wise to this. They know Trump isn't perfect, but the political class is hardly in a position to demand perfection from anyone considering their fine performance running up $20 trillion in debt and destroying health care. Whatever Trump's flaws, I think the voters figure they can separate the wheat from the chaff without the help of their betters offering proclamations from on high in Washington. So no, the public has rejected the political class's attempt to sell Trump as an unhinged nut. And while they'll keep trying to come up with new storylines to make the sale, I don't think the public will buy. As for the Hillary side of the ledger, I don't think it's any one thing. I don't think it's the 9/11 collapse, or the "deplorables" or any particular aspect of the story concerning her schlock, homebrew e-mail server. I think it's the whole package, the never-ending trail of clear evidence that this woman is a sleaze, and has no real interest in any of this except for her own interests and advancement.

This represents a Rubicon-crossing moment for this election season, because the voters are neither going to flee from Trump as a lunatic nor cling to Hillary as the safe and sensible choice. But that doesn't mean anything's been decided. What it means is that neither candidate has really made the sale. Trump may have passed the "not crazy" test, but that doesn't mean he's sold himself as the best choice to be the next president. Hillary isn't going to make it on her resume or on the idea that Trump is beyond the pale, but she might still have a chance - particularly in the debates - to make it appear she knows policy better than Trump does. That may or may not turn the election, but I think in an election when no one has made the sale, just about anything could tip the scales. The good news is that Trump seems to have passed muster as an acceptable option. The bad news is that the voters want to see something definitive that proves to them he's the best choice. To me and others who do what I do, this is obvious, because we've been invested for so long in the imperative to tell you how awful Hillary is. I truly believe just about anyone out of the phone book would be better than Hillary, because I'm that convinced she's that terrible. But most of the public doesn't see it that way, and that's Trump's challenge. Why, sir, should we overlook your lack of experience and your occasional vulgarity and vote for you? We're listening. But we need a good answer. If he comes up with one, I think he's the next president. But I don't know what it is going to be.

Dan Calabrese——Bio and Archives

Dan Calabrese’s column is distributed by HermanCain.com, which can be found at HermanCain

Follow all of Dan’s work, including his series of Christian spiritual warfare novels, by liking his page on Facebook.