For example by accusing people who don't buy the GOP narrative of being "horribly biased" in favor of her. Or professing to believe, in the face of the facts, negative claims that have objective answers (such as that she's particularly dishonest for a politician).
If you run too far with the analogy. Point is simply that we have both made a lot of predictions, and all of his have been wrong and mine have not. Also, one can see the faults in his positions and his general irrationality in real time.
I'll think about it. I'd be balancing the fact that he was killed in the debate against my concern that he's already bottomed out and has lost supporters who are temporarily embarrassed by him but are normally loyal Republicans and likely to return.
Ed: See that cooks beat me to it. I'd take his side on the final tally (because I think that she'll do a little better than the polls suggest). If
@cooks1 wants me to go halfies on the time, I'm OK with that.
Here is another example. Clinton's approval (and "enthusiastic support" level) among liberals is normal for a Democratic candidate. Your claim here is simply, objectively false. You believe it because you're rationalizing your own weird hatred.