"I would be a top-ten assassination target in that scenario because once you define Trump as Hitler, you also give citizens moral permission to kill him. And obviously it would be okay to kill anyone who actively supports a genocidal dictator, including anyone who wrote about his persuasion skills in positive terms. (I’m called an “apologist” on Twitter, or sometimes just Joseph Goebbels).
So I’ve decided to endorse Hillary Clinton for President, for my personal safety. Trump supporters don’t have any bad feelings about patriotic Americans such as myself, so I’ll be safe from that crowd. But Clinton supporters have convinced me – and here I am being 100% serious – that my safety is at risk if I am seen as supportive of Trump. So I’m taking the safe way out and endorsing Hillary Clinton for president."
I came here to say that he must have changed his tune because Trump's luck seems to have turned for the worse based on the latest poll numbers; but he still predicts Trump will win, so I guess maybe it's not that or at least he's changing his tune gradually, hedging his bets.
(For the record, I generally think that Scott Adams is a troll and everything he writes is clickbait, he himself said his traffic increased 5-fold since he started writing about Trump. As to his correct prediction of Trump's rise, I think that's the prediction one would have made based on polls alone (certainly Nate Silver admitted that his abject failure in this instance was due to ignoring polls.) Since Adams apparently doesn't care about the outcome as much as Nate Silver and other professional journalists, he didn't have a bias to cloud his judgement, or rather his ability to parrot polls which is where the actual data comes from. His drivel about his mastery of persuasion skills as the basis of his political analysis seems to me not that convincing, since the supposedly stellar examples of persuasion that he shows outside of the election business look pretty bad to me.)