WaPo's Stuart Rothenberg:
At this point, Clinton is more likely to approach the size of Obama’s wins, whether his 365-to-173 electoral vote win over John McCain in 2008 or his more narrow 332-to-206 victory over Mitt Romney four years later. A 1980-style blowout does not seem to be in the cards, given the country’s current political divide or the two major-party nominees.
That's what the smart, safe money says. I prefer netless, high-wire anxiety, so I'm still betting on the long shot of a 400-something Clinton victory, which the upcoming debates could well render feasible. It's not so much that Hillary might perform with perfection as that Trump is likely to blunder his way onto the stage — and not stop blundering.
James Fallows is correct that Trump's professed non-preparation for the debates is "brilliant if it masks actual preparation on Trump’s side," but it's "stupid in all other circumstances." Just what are the odds that Trump will take the singularly "brilliant" route? Pretty damn long, I'd say, which shortens the other odds.
P.S.: Care for a sample of Trumpian brilliance?