PD Editorial: If you're not concerned about the election, you're not paying attention

Three weeks ago, national polls suggested Hillary Clinton’s lead in the presidential race was substantial and widening following the release of the “Access Hollywood” recording showing Donald Trump speaking in crude terms about women.

This was followed by a steady stream of women going public with claims of how the man who would be the wall-maker to Mexico appears to see no barrier in making unwanted advances toward those of the opposite sex.

While Trump still has a problem with women - particularly white, college-educated ones who vote - Clinton’s lead has all but disappeared.

Here’s the bottom line. As the Washington Post reported Thursday, if the election were held today - and if the average of polls as determined by RealClearPolitics holds true - Clinton could lose the popular vote but win the electoral college by a mere eight electoral votes.

If that doesn’t have you concerned, you need to get more engaged.

In addition to drumming up images of hanging chads and legal battles over recounts, such a close outcome has the potential to cause deep fissures in an already fractured nation.

There is no such things as an unimportant vote. One would think that point was driven home by the chad-thin margin in the 2000 presidential election. But such thinking still exists - particularly in California where the outcome in the presidential race has long since seemed a forgone conclusion, a factor that will prompt many to sit this one out. They shouldn’t. While the state’s 55 electoral votes have never really been in jeopardy of going to anyone but Clinton, every vote is still needed if only to ensure a victory in the popular vote, thus further establishing legitimacy to the outcome and providing a buffer against Trump’s inevitable claims of a “rigged” election.

So what has changed in the past few weeks? Nothing. To date, the developments concerning Clinton’s emails and her interactions concerning the Clinton Foundation have provided more fog than fact.

On Friday, FBI director James Comey notified Congress that the bureau had opened a new investigation into Clinton’s emails based on the discovery that some of them were found on the personal computer of Clinton’s assistant, Huma Abedin. But there’s no indication as yet whether there is anything different in this discovery than what Comey and company had back in July when they announced that, while Clinton’s handling of her emails was reckless, there was not enough evidence to seek an indictment.

Much the same can be said about the Wikileaks release of new emails raising questions about Clinton’s potential pay-to-play conduct involving the Clinton Foundation. As we’ve noted before, the former secretary of state made poor choices in how she handled her emails and the ties between her State Department work and her foundation. But as yet there’s no evidence of her doing anything deliberate or malicious let alone criminal, despite Trump’s desperate pledges to throw his political rival in jail.

More important, all of this new information - some of it leaked by individuals who clearly hope to influence the election - is a further distraction from this fundamental truth: Trump is neither qualified nor fit to be president of the United States. In our Aug. 21 editorial endorsing Clinton, we observed that “it is rare that we have encountered someone in national politics who has shown, by his actions, his temperament and propensity for loose-cannon remarks, to be so ill-equipped for the all-important task of serving as commander in chief.” His conduct since then has only confirmed that conclusion. His election would not just be a mistake. It would be an embarrassment. Local voters need to do what they can to prevent that from happening.