There's a worse theory, and I have no more evidence to back it up than Michael Moore does his
It could be that The Donald is the equivalent of the designated loser in a fixed fight. He could be purposely "taking a dive" but doing it in such a way as to appear to be still in it.
Who knows why he would do that if indeed he is. His whole campaign started off with the premise that he was so rich he could fund his own campaign without taking any money from anyone. That promise seems to have been "declared inoperative." Someone check the books of the Clinton Foundation and see if any grants were made to anything that benefits him -- though what the Foundation does with its money is a big unreported news item although we hear a lot about what it does to get money.
I like a good conspiracy theory -- I enjoy them even if I don't believe them, and that this whole election could be kabuki theater designed to give HRC the appearance of having won fair and square against great odds and defeated an opponent who looks to be formidable.
If her banker, hedge fund founders, and military industrial complex backers were to ease her into Oval Office against a nobody she could lack legitimacy in the public's eye. But if she has to seem to struggle to beat a colorful newsworthy opponent, i.e., Trump, she will able to claim a "mandate" and that "the people have spoken loud and clear." She will then be free to juke the stats of the banks and start lots of as many wars as she likes unhindered by any remnant of opposition.