Which, really, shouldn't come as a surprise; it was always a strong bet that when America finally saw Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump head to head, undecided voters would conclude she's the better choice.

NOW, WHAT'S THE right metaphor? Is Donald Trump the Titanic, sinking steadily beneath the accumulating waves of voter knowledge? Or the Hindenburg, his lighter-than-air candidacy exploding in a flash of epiphany that reveals, once and for all, its latent weaknesses?

Indeed, almost irrespective of the particular character-related reservations about Clinton, Trump's flaws outweigh hers. Yes, she occasionally trims the truth, but compared to Trump, she's a paragon of probity. Granted, she sometimes seems entitled, but he's a gently born, parentally financed son of privilege who poses, preposterously, as a self-made business titan. She has insulted some Trump supporters? He has disparaged any number of groups, from Mexicans to POWs to Muslims to African-Americans, to name just a few. One can go on and on, through nearly every such category of Clinton concern, except perhaps for chauvinistic objections to the tone of her voice or the sound of her laughter.

Since Clinton's clear victory in the first debate, things have started coming apart for the Trump campaign. Like a moth to the flame, he doubled down on his decades-old weight-shaming and other disparagement of Alicia Machado, the 1996 Miss Universe.


Then came The New York Times story about the $916 million loss Trump declared in 1995 — and the likelihood that he has used that loss to avoid paying federal income taxes for up to 18 years.

It's hard to overstate the potential importance of that revelation. It renders laughable the rationalizations Trump and his camp have given to explain why he, unlike almost every major-party candidate for the last four decades, has refused to release his income taxes. It makes a mockery of his claim that he is a brilliant businessman and highlights his true record, with its repeated recourse to bankruptcy, his exploitation of every nook and cranny of the tax code, and his stiffing of contractors even while he himself led a lavish lifestyle.


The only silver lining for Trump is that this controversy has largely overshadowed (1) an AP story about his boorish behavior on the set of "The Apprentice" and (2) the New York attorney general's order that his charitable foundation, so-called, immediately cease fund-raising because it hadn't properly registered with the state as a charity authorized to solicit money.

How awkward has the Times story made things? Well, consider Trump's on-the-stump response. He has taken to arguing that his success gaming the tax code means he's the one best prepared to fix it. Or, to recast that argument: You should vote for Donald Trump to crack down on people like Donald Trump.

As a campaign argument, that one falls a little short in the cogency department. It's true that Rudy Giuliani, aspiring first mate of the Trump campaign's ship of fools, has gamely and obediently argued that the Times's story only proves Trump is a towering genius.

But others in the ranks of Republican zombies hoping to ride Trump back to relevance are now hedging their bets. Take Newt Gingrich. After last Monday's debate, Gingrich told Fox News's Sean Hannity that Trump had won "an enormous, historic victory," one whose magnitude would take several days to become apparent. But this week, Gingrich is publicly imploring Trump to change his campaign approach.


Newt is right about this much. When it comes to Trump, things are certainly sinking in.

Which is why I'm going with the Titanic.

Scot Lehigh can be reached at lehigh@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @GlobeScotLehigh.