"We all carry around implicit attitudes based on how we have understood the way the world works as we grow up and if you never see a certain kind of person in a certain job, and all of a sudden somebody who looks or sounds like that shows up, you go 'Oh, wait a minute. Who are you? You don't belong here,' " she said.

She said she believes this is a factor in some of the criticism of Clinton, who was First Lady to former U.S. president Bill Clinton when Campbell first met her at the G7 Summit in Tokyo in 1993.

"Things that people hate about her ... are kind of small potatoes, compared to other people who have run for public office," said Campbell, who then mentioned the email scandal and the attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi.

"You're looking for the way to be able to say 'Aha! You see? That's why I'm not going to vote for her.' But underlying it is really this sense of discomfort that 'I've never voted for somebody like that for president.' "

We are a week in, and every therapy session has started with Brexit. They’ve stayed with it, too. The shock, the fear, the dismay, the feelings of shame, of being unsafe, of being misplaced and unwanted. Notions of what the UK has stood for in people’s consciousness are being shredded. The vote experienced as an assault on senses of self, of identity and community that people didn’t know they carried inside of them and relied upon until the vote shattered it.

People express anger and despair. The image of where they lived, and what the country has meant to them, is pushing them to consider what kind of fantasy they (and, of course, many of us) have lived with until it came crashing down a week ago. Were they delusional, some ask, to not see the level of alienation and despair that has gripped so much of the country? Were they living in a fairytale in which despite the woes of the last years, it all works out in the end? Were they themselves complicit in a make-believe in which politicians can kick the EU and then expect people to support it? Has Britain become the kind of family in which one side is not talking to the other? There is too, a dirtiness, a sense of having cleaved to an alliance with people they didn’t necessarily like while disdaining the political rhetoric of the other side. Yes, these are Remainers, for the most part. But lest you wonder, my practice is metropolitan, cosmopolitan, London-based, but it isn’t essentially middle-class or Guardian-reading.

The alienations and sorrows that drove people to therapy in the first place are writ large in Brexit. Questions of insecurity and belonging are uppermost; do I have a place, do we have a place, how unbearable that others don’t feel they have a place. These sentiments from the consulting room include a concern for self, rage and worry, mixed with concern for those on the other side. For some, the same psychological factors that led them to disown or split off unwelcome parts of themselves, or to repress them or project them on to others, rebound in Brexit darkness. A few have said: there are parts of myself that I don’t want to know about, and there are parts of my country (or the country) I live in that are showing me a darkness I would rather suppress.

In this sense, Brexit, with its foreboding of irreversibility (although who knows on that one), has brought people into a confrontation with self, with helplessness. For some, there has been the expression of a desire to act, to be counted in a more profound way. Equally, there is fright and consternation about a racism now given oxygen. The barely visible, the shadow, is being seen and it is unwelcome. It has released a shockwave as people recognise that the political really is the personal, and that what is personal – what counts as a response to alienation in some of the Brexiters – is the ugliness of othering the foreign, the newly arrived, the people who are displaced from home. The starkness of this recognition, in the taunts and daubings and attacks that show a fear of the other, are sobering and scary. It hurts to know how powerful and how close to the surface such feelings are, and it is crucial that we contest the underlying terms of a political debate in which racism is acceptable expression of powerlessness. By contrast, it has shocked people to see the nakedness of political power, the House of Cards moves played out in plain view as though politics were a game, even a playpen, with leadership, stewardship and inclusivity barely on the table.

As we have done since 2004, we are taking a polls-only approach to give a daily snapshot of the race – as well as a November prediction. This approach has an effective precision of a few tenths of a percentage point of public opinion, and performs very well as both a tracker and a forecast. Currently, the probability of a Hillary Clinton victory in November is 85 percent, based on polls alone.

Today, I give a brief tour of the computational approach.

The Meta-Analysis starts with a Python script that downloads recent state polls from the Huffington Post’s Pollster operation. Thanks to Natalie Jackson, the HuffPollster team, and dozens of pollsters for this stream of information, which forms the foundation of the calculation.

Where polls are not available, we use the election result from 2012. As I have written, this year’s Clinton-versus-Trump state polls are strongly correlated with 2012′s Obama-versus-Romney polls. Because no realignment is evident, past results are a good predictor of the likely outcome this year. At the moment, no more than fourteen states are genuinely in play.

Hillary Clinton will travel to Atlantic City on Wednesday to attack Donald Trump for what a campaign official called the “wake of destruction” his business dealings left in the seaside resort.

Trump casinos went through bankruptcy twice in the 1990s, and his companies left a legion of local contractors hanging with their bills unpaid. Clinton also is expected to talk about Trump University, a venture that promised to teach people the secrets of real-estate wealth and is now the subject of lawsuits for fraud.

The location and time of Clinton’s Atlantic City appearance have not yet been finalized, the campaign said. The former secretary of state is also scheduled to campaign in Scranton on Friday with Vice President Biden.

Foreign leaders have made no secret of their disdain for Donald Trump — and now French President Francois Hollande has made it explicit, endorsing Hillary Clinton for the White House.

"The best thing the Democrats can do is to get Hillary Clinton elected," Hollande wrote in a column for a French newspaper, according to a translation by Politico.

Trump, meanwhile, offers slogans that are "barely different from the extreme right in Europe and in France," and electing him “would complicate relations between Europe and the U.S.," Hollande wrote.

It is unusual for a foreign leader to make such an explicit endorsement in a U.S. presidential election.

...It wasn’t an easy decision. As a conservative, I find Hillary Clinton stands for the opposite of a number of things I believe strongly: that our government is involved in too many areas of our lives, that its profligacy is spending our country into bankruptcy, and that it very often makes problems worse because it knows too little to keep pace with change. Clinton has a seemingly inexhaustible list of government programs to address every social concern, and no conceivable way to pay for it all.

So, I have deep misgivings about a Clinton presidency, but the anguish of British voters who cast a protest vote thinking it wouldn’t matter — that their vote wouldn’t be decisive — convinced me that something much bigger is at stake in this election. The unthinkable, I realized, was actually possible this year. In the British referendum, major polling firms had the “Remain” vote leading by as much as 8 percent. As little as five hours before results were announced, betting markets gave Remain a 96 percent chance of success. And I realized I didn’t want to wake up on November 9 to find Donald Trump elected president and wish I had done more to prevent it.

As one of the signatories of the national security experts’ “never Trump” letter, I genuinely believe the erratic statements Donald Trump has made would be disastrous if adopted as American policies. His candidacy is itself bad for our country: after watching him win primary after primary, our allies have already begun questioning the durability of long-standing American commitments. Governments reliant on our security guarantees, already worried by President Barack Obama’s passivity in “leading from behind,” see the presumptive Republican nominee taking even more reckless stances. They’re understandably hedging their bets. Regaining the confidence of America’s friends in the world will be the work of more than one presidency.

It is impossible to imagine Donald Trump doing the things an American leader is called to do in an insecure world: steadying an American ally after a terrorist attack (as President Bush did after the 7/7 attacks in London), reconfiguring foreign assistance to reward good governance (as President Bush did with the Millennium Challenge Accounts), making hard decisions to reinforce an ally being intimidated (as President Clinton did for Taiwan in 1996, sending two carrier battle groups to counter Chinese bullying), or consoling gold star families when their dead are returned home from the war (as President Bush did, privately and prayerfully).