A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a mostly facetious article about six events that could occur to flip the polls in favor of Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, and then I assessed how much each would matter. No single occurrence, apart from the preposterously unlikely event of Barack Obama endorsing Trump, seemed to have a ton of power on its own. Non-silly scenarios included the release of new and questionable Clinton e-mails, a month of passable behavior from Trump, and a serious health setback for Clinton.

What the column failed to consider, however, was the power of a few of these incidents occurring at the same time. We’ve now seen new unfavorable e-mail stories (this was inevitable), two weeks of moderately controlled behavior from Trump (the previous record had been about two days), and a genuine health issue for Clinton (a near-collapse during a 9/11 ceremony). We also saw a small but foolish gaffe from the Democratic nominee on Friday night, when she dismissed fully half of Trump’s supporters as part of a “basket of deplorables,” which she defined as “the racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it.” At a time when Trump should have been further on the defensive, contending with almost comically devastating revelations about his approach to charity (more on that in a bit), he is instead pulling even with his rival.

Rumors of Clinton’s failing health—which had been easy to write off because they were so obviously orchestrated—have become legitimate concerns.

There’s no use in discussing Clinton’s e-mails here, at least for now. It’s not just that there are plenty of other outlets that will further beat that horse—so much so that the Washington Post editorial page has hollered ’nuff. It’s that nothing we’ve learned is likely to move anyone’s opinion. The general narrative out there, whether that’s fair or not, is that Clinton is untrustworthy. The bottom line, in horse-race terms, is this: the drumbeat persists.

There’s only slightly more use in dwelling on Trump’s streak of good behavior. Yes, he has kept his impulses under control for a couple of weeks, a near-miracle, especially given the rise to power of campaign chief Steve Bannon, widely viewed as the high priest of full-freak Trumping. (While Trump has said plenty of recent things to appall the sober-minded, like resurrecting a promise to steal the oil of any place we bother to invade, he has said them calmly, rather than in a way that makes news.) So this is an important development, especially if Trump starts to notice how big a friend he has in silence. But one ludicrous outburst changes that, and those used to come at about one per cockcrow, so we’ll have to see if he can keep the lull going.

Unfortunately, the near-collapse of Clinton on Sunday from feeling “overheated”—now diagnosed as pneumonia—does call for some sentences. (Clinton’s line about the “basket of deplorables” might have caused a blip, but it has now been overshadowed.) The video of her seeming to buckle is terrible and heartrending, and it feels almost indecent to witness. But now the rumors of Clinton’s failing health—which had been easy to write off because they were so obviously orchestrated, with help from Rudy Giuliani, no less—have become legitimate concerns. It’s easy to dismiss symptoms like extended coughing, especially with a candidate who must endure countless hours and speeches on the campaign trail. It’s impossible to dismiss being overcome at a commemoration for 9/11, the sort of event during which every political bone in your body is telling you, “Do not make news. Do not make news. Do not make news.”

The setting for Clinton’s overheating was especially unfortunate. You could argue (and I have) that Clinton’s health doesn’t matter that much, politically, because not many of those who favor her over Trump—a split viewed by many of Clinton’s supporters as akin in severity to God versus Satan—will suddenly prefer him instead. But voters do think a lot about national security, and, if you believe Scott Adams, “When a would-be commander-in-chief withers—literally—in front of our most emotional reminder of an attack on the homeland, we feel unsafe.” Is Adams right? He might be—or at least right enough that two out of a hundred voters could change their minds, which is all that it takes.