No doubt you have noticed the unified messaging strategy between the Democrats and the Legacy Media, wherein GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump has already lost the election. It's an amazing revelation that in mid-August one of the candidates has already been declared a losing loser of - what is it now - 49 of the 50 states?
You see it every day on the broadcast news and with any basic Google or Twitter search. The New York Times: "The State of Clinton-Trump Race: Is It Over?" Huffington Post: "GOP Operatives Aren't Sure Trump Wants to Win." Politico: "GOP Insiders Aren't Sure Trump Wants to Win." And even The Wall Street Journal editorial board suggests Mr. Trump should hand his nomination over to Indiana Gov. Mike Pence. It is the season of whining snowflakes.
This race, of course, will be decided by the debates, which won't begin until the last week of September. Historically, the polls in August prior to the election mean nothing. In 1988, for example, Michael Dukakis, the Democratic nominee for president, was 17 points ahead of then-Vice President George H.W. Bush. 17 points. That race was also over for Mr. Bush. Until it wasn't, which is why we all remember President Dukakis - which we don't.
In August 2008, a USA Today/Gallup poll had the John McCain/Sarah Palin ticket leading by a staggering 10 points. Then other things happened on the way to the November election, and we are reaping the results of President Obama's hopeless nihilistic change.
Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, despite having her own party, the Republican establishment and the media all foaming at the mouth targeting her opponent, can barely keep a single-digit lead over Mr. Trump. She isn't 17 or even 10 points ahead. In other words, she's not doing as well as Mr. Dukakis or Mr. McCain.
Let's indulge in the liberal delusion for a moment. If Mr. Trump has already lost, why the frenzied efforts by liberals and their water-carriers to convince people? After all, wouldn't the better strategy be to not mention it lest the GOP somehow replace him, or the candidate himself might drop out threatening your guaranteed victory?
Unless, of course, that's exactly what you want. But why?
That's the conversation I had when speaking with friends in the Democratic Party. From my 20s through 30s I was a left-wing activist in the feminist movement and within the Democratic Party. I remain friendly with some from those days, as they, too, grew disenchanted with the lies of the left, but have nowhere else to go.
So we talk. We gossip. And they share.
My friend, who must remain anonymous due to her position, laughed when I asked if the party was aware how ridiculous the "Trump is Toast" meme was on its face. She then revealed what she claims is the reason behind the frenzy: There are serious concerns among organizers about Mrs. Clinton's ability to handle debates with the unpredictable Mr. Trump.
One concern, first seen in a released Huma Abedin email, is that Mrs. Clinton is indeed often "confused," and without a script can lose her train of thought; a situation already witnessed at rallies.
The Democratic debates were not considered an issue as the participants, I am told, would not pursue Mrs. Clinton in a way that would lead to embarrassment. This was most evident when her main competitor, Vermont Sen. Bernard Sanders, declared during a debate that he didn't care about the email issue and had no interest in pursuing it.
Mrs. Clinton will not have that same sort of beneficial deference from Mr. Trump.
The now singular obsession by the establishment and the media makes sense: Mrs. Clinton can win if she has someone opposite her who is a sad seat-filler, with no chance of winning, thereby removing pressure from Mrs. Clinton, allowing her to get through the debates with the least amount of damage.
If Mr. Trump were somehow forced out, the GOP, of course, would be in chaos. With whom would they replace him? Gov. Pence? The rather pathetic "Never Trump" seat-filler, Evan McMullin? No matter the choice, the race would be Mrs. Clinton's.
My source says this is not all pie-in-the-sky malarkey, as it's happened before. Mrs. Clinton, in 2000, was concerned about debates with then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani, my friend claims, when both were vying for the U.S. Senate seat for New York. Mr. Giuliani ultimately withdrew from that race after a prostate cancer diagnosis.
The GOP replaced him with Rick Lazio, who gave up his House seat to run for the Senate. Hillary "won" the debates because Mr. Lazio was awful, and couldn't hold a candle to the expectations of a Giuliani campaign.
Bottom line: Hillary has never run a real race and won. But she's prepared to be president? Apparently, only if it's handed to her.
Mr. Trump should be flattered that he's seen as such a threat by his opposition. The rest of the voting public also has a terrific opportunity to reject the lies and manipulations of career politicians propped up by a system that is fighting to maintain a status quo that keeps them rich and fat - while we struggle against perpetual war, terrorism, urban violence and poverty. Enough is enough.
• Tammy Bruce, author and Fox News contributor, is a radio talk show host.