Can Donald Trump win?

[pjohns]

Full disclosure: I am a Republican; and I back the Republican nominee for president (Donald Trump), even though I have some rather serious misgivings as concerning his temperament.

Even so, I just do not see how he wins the presidency.

It is possible that he could win the popular vote. (The polls that I have seen have him down about two points--within the margin of error; and, in any case, easily overcomable.)

But the electoral vote--which is what really matters--is of much greater concern to me.

Larry Sabato has this narrowing. (He recently had Hillary Clinton with an enormous lead here. Now, it is down to just 25 points among "safe" states--188 for Hillary Clinton, versus 163 for Donald Trump. But if "likely" and "leaning" states are thrown in, the lead becomes 272 electoral votes to just 215, with 51 rated as toss-ups. And 272 is more than enough to win): http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/2016-president/

So Donald Trump's path to victory is rather narrow, it seems to me: He must win all the swing states (including, but not limited to, Florida and Ohio); and steal at least one state currently leaning to Mrs. Clinton (e.g. Michigan, Colorado, or Pennsylvania).

This is possible; but not probable, in my opinion.

Perhaps Trump's best chance is his oft-proclaimed cadre of followers who "do not show up in the polls," simply because some Trump voters-to-be just do not want to admit it.

Again, I consider this a possibility; but not really probable.

What do others think?

And, more importantly: Why?

[Common]

I have said from the start that I didnt believe trump would win, I still feel that way. I have to admit he has done far better than I thought he would and frankly thats amazing considering he has had everything and everyone against him from the time he announced his intent to run.

If he were to win I would be happily astonished

[exploited]

He will not win, and that is great news for the economy, for human rights, and for the countries international reputation.

[rembrant]

Trump is obviously unpredictable and unprecedented. he has a Core ( and many are indeed deplorable) I'd note that this Week the Cincinnati Enquirer ... endorsed Clinton ..called Trump "A clear and present danger to the country"... that's....not words used in most elections. Note too.. this is the first time in 100 years that paper endorsed a Dem. Repubs tended to do better in the Cincinnati area than the Cleveland area. The Akron paper also endorsed Clinton.

As this all heats up.....Trump has a HUUUGE history. You can't unsay shyt you say on video. While Trump won't (dares not) release Tax Returns.. there's enough PUBLIC fact to show a big tip of a HUUUGE iceberg. Trump....has been an EXPERT.......at FRAUDS. There's quite a history of whoever trusted him.. getting ripped off.

Never mind the obvious Dog Whistle bigot crap.....there's words.... shoes that fit....like Pathological liar,egotist,sociopath, demagogue. It's said he's got a minimal attention span, does not read much, is a "loose cannon" who acts on impulse. They say he "counterpunches" any time he fails to get his proper adoration. Ask Megyn Kelly about that. There's civil limits to that.. Trump ignores those. Trump.....seems bent on being the King of Deplorable. Actually.. Deplorable is ironically a POLITE term. As a failed Casino Mogul who'd never been elected to office, never held political position...is confused about what ANY President CAN do....what EXACTLY... is it anyone LIKES? His arrogance? His mean streak, his hustles and hates and reckless lies?

I don't know but it's a deplorable situation.

MANY high Profile Repubs refuse to endorse Trump. Some.....did... very reluctantly. However.. the whole spectrum of Hate Groups, Alt Right Internet jerks... have no hesitation.

My Repub Brother bought a Johnson/Weld T shirt. He really knows little about their modified Libertarian stuff.. but he KNOWS enough about Trump. He may actually vote Clinton but would never let me know it. When we go vote.. it is a BIG responsibility.

[MisterVeritis]

I have said from the start that I didnt believe trump would win, I still feel that way. I have to admit he has done far better than I thought he would and frankly thats amazing considering he has had everything and everyone against him from the time he announced his intent to run.

If he were to win I would be happily astonished
I believe you can look forward to it.

[Peter1469]

He will not win, and that is great news for the economy, for human rights, and for the countries international reputation.

I don't support Trump, but that is nonsense. Hillary has the most experience of any presidential candidate. But her experience was utter failure. Trump couldn't do worse if he tried.

[Green Arrow]

Could he win? Absolutely.

Will he? Hard to say at this juncture. Polls are tightening and Hillary has never been able to put him away. It depends on a number of factors.

[exploited]

I don't support Trump, but that is nonsense. Hillary has the most experience of any presidential candidate. But her experience was utter failure. Trump couldn't do worse if he tried.

Nonsense. Clinton is an idiot but she is a predictable and manageable idiot. Nothing will be fundamentally changed under her Presidency.

[AZ Jim]

Nonsense. Clinton is an idiot but she is a predictable and manageable idiot. Nothing will be fundamentally changed under her Presidency.Clinton has only one asset in this election, she isn't Trump.

[zelmo1234]

He will not win, and that is great news for the economy, for human rights, and for the countries international reputation.

Actually it is not good for the economy, More of Obama is bad, he is the first President in our history that was not able to achieve 3% GEP growth in any of his years in office.

Human Rights? Look want has happened to our poor in the USA under Obama

[exploited]

Actually it is not good for the economy, More of Obama is bad, he is the first President in our history that was not able to achieve 3% GEP growth in any of his years in office.

Human Rights? Look want has happened to our poor in the USA under Obama

You understand that instability is the enemy of the market, right? Trump is proposing to renegotiate tons of agreements, both trade and defence related. If he wins you can expect a drastic and immediate drop in the stock market and the international economy.

[MisterVeritis]

You understand that instability is the enemy of the market, right? Trump is proposing to renegotiate tons of agreements, both trade and defence related. If he wins you can expect a drastic and immediate drop in the stock market and the international economy.
Liberty, on the other hand, is good for free markets. When he wins Americans will all be better off.

[pjohns]

Trump is obviously unpredictable and unprecedented. he has a Core ( and many are indeed deplorable) I'd note that this Week the Cincinnati Enquirer ... endorsed Clinton ..called Trump "A clear and present danger to the country"... that's....not words used in most elections. Note too.. this is the first time in 100 years that paper endorsed a Dem. Repubs tended to do better in the Cincinnati area than the Cleveland area. The Akron paper also endorsed Clinton.

As this all heats up.....Trump has a HUUUGE history. You can't unsay shyt you say on video. While Trump won't (dares not) release Tax Returns.. there's enough PUBLIC fact to show a big tip of a HUUUGE iceberg. Trump....has been an EXPERT.......at FRAUDS. There's quite a history of whoever trusted him.. getting ripped off.

Never mind the obvious Dog Whistle bigot crap.....there's words.... shoes that fit....like Pathological liar,egotist,sociopath, demagogue. It's said he's got a minimal attention span, does not read much, is a "loose cannon" who acts on impulse. They say he "counterpunches" any time he fails to get his proper adoration. Ask Megyn Kelly about that. There's civil limits to that.. Trump ignores those. Trump.....seems bent on being the King of Deplorable. Actually.. Deplorable is ironically a POLITE term. As a failed Casino Mogul who'd never been elected to office, never held political position...is confused about what ANY President CAN do....what EXACTLY... is it anyone LIKES? His arrogance? His mean streak, his hustles and hates and reckless lies?

I don't know but it's a deplorable situation.

MANY high Profile Repubs refuse to endorse Trump. Some.....did... very reluctantly. However.. the whole spectrum of Hate Groups, Alt Right Internet jerks... have no hesitation.

My Repub Brother bought a Johnson/Weld T shirt. He really knows little about their modified Libertarian stuff.. but he KNOWS enough about Trump. He may actually vote Clinton but would never let me know it. When we go vote.. it is a BIG responsibility.

This is merely a diatribe about why you dislike--actually, detest--Donald Trump.

But it is clearly not a serious analysis (which is what I attempted to offer; and would hope that others would reciprocate).

[pjohns]

Nonsense. Clinton is an idiot but she is a predictable and manageable idiot. Nothing will be fundamentally changed under her Presidency.

Well, one thing, at least, will be "fundamentally changed": the Supreme Court...

[Peter1469]

Nonsense. Clinton is an idiot but she is a predictable and manageable idiot. Nothing will be fundamentally changed under her Presidency.

That is the problem. The status quo is unacceptable.

[Bethere]

That is the problem. The status quo is unacceptable.

On November 9 the headlines will say:

THE ESTABLISHMENT WINS AGAIN!

[MisterVeritis]

On November 9 the headlines will say:

THE ESTABLISHMENT WINS AGAIN!
LOL. Dewey Defeats Truman!

[exploited]

Liberty, on the other hand, is good for free markets. When he wins Americans will all be better off.


Trump will not establish "liberty." He will rack up debt and spend money to an insane degree. We are talking trillions. I have no idea where you are getting this idea that he will decrease the size of government.

[exploited]

Well, one thing, at least, will be "fundamentally changed": the Supreme Court...

Not really. All SC judges are extremely qualified and capable, regardless of who appoints them. In fact, the SC is probably the only really well-functioning part of the federal government. Mostly people just get mad when they make fair decisions they disagree with ideologically, which is fine, but people need to realize that the court is and will remain fairly even-handed. Which means you'll win some and lose some.

[Ransom]

Yes, Trump can win. I believe turnout is key and where that is easy to say, this isn't a prediction. There are many many sheep. There is much money behind Hillary. I've no idea today what the American is thinking when they're entering the polling booths these years. Social issue dominated, the economy, foreign affairs, immigration, abortion, Obamacare, gun control....who knows what's foremost on the voter's minds, look to who we elected and re-elected President in 08 and 12. So Trump can lose too.

Polls and predictions aside, I don't think anyone knows. Tonight may give us much to think about, I'm not sure it's going to change or make up anyone's mind

[NapRover]

Not really. All SC judges are extremely qualified and capable, regardless of who appoints them. In fact, the SC is probably the only really well-functioning part of the federal government. Mostly people just get mad when they make fair decisions they disagree with ideologically, which is fine, but people need to realize that the court is and will remain fairly even-handed. Which means you'll win some and lose some.
if that is so, let her release her list of nominees she will select from.

[exploited]

if that is so, let her release her list of nominees she will select from.

Why on earth would she do that before she is elected?

[Mac-7]

Trump is obviously unpredictable and unprecedented. he has a Core ( and many are indeed deplorable)

I'd note that this Week the Cincinnati Enquirer ... endorsed Clinton ..

called Trump "A clear and present danger to the country"... that's....not words used in most elections. Note too.. this is the first time in 100 years that paper endorsed a Dem. Repubs tended to do better in the Cincinnati area than the Cleveland area. The Akron paper also endorsed Clinton.

.

Most members of the news media are liberals

And not at all above average in intelligence

Fortunately newspapers command very little respect or influence anymore

[NapRover]

Why on earth would she do that before she is elected?

Obviously, so people will get a chance to vet them.

[pjohns]

Not really. All SC judges are extremely qualified and capable, regardless of who appoints them. In fact, the SC is probably the only really well-functioning part of the federal government. Mostly people just get mad when they make fair decisions they disagree with ideologically, which is fine, but people need to realize that the court is and will remain fairly even-handed. Which means you'll win some and lose some.

Let us be clear: Some of us are strict constructionists.

Others believe in a "living Constitution."

Strict constructionists (as regarding which, I am one) believe that the Constitution means exactly what it says; that it means nothing different in 2016 than the same words meant in 1787.

"Living Constitution" theorists, on the other hand, believe that the meaning of the words of the Constitution must change with the times.

The mere fact that jurists are "extremely qualified" (i.e. that they have very good repute with many of their peers) does not obviate this fundamental difference...

[pjohns]

Why on earth would [Hillary Clinton] do that before she is elected?

Well, Donald Trump did so...

[MisterVeritis]

Trump will not establish "liberty." He will rack up debt and spend money to an insane degree. We are talking trillions. I have no idea where you are getting this idea that he will decrease the size of government.
I suppose there is a correlation between a government that spends money and liberty. Trump intends to spend money to defend our border are rebuild our military. Those are constitutional requirements for the Federal government. He promises to reduce tax rates and roll back regulations. Those directly support an increase in individual liberty.

I made no mention about Trump decreasing the government's size.

[MisterVeritis]

Not really. All SC judges are extremely qualified and capable, regardless of who appoints them. In fact, the SC is probably the only really well-functioning part of the federal government. Mostly people just get mad when they make fair decisions they disagree with ideologically, which is fine, but people need to realize that the court is and will remain fairly even-handed. Which means you'll win some and lose some.
More frequently they side with statists against the Constitution. It is time to reverse the trend. We need an Article V convention of the states to propose term limits for justices.

[MisterVeritis]

Yes, Trump can win. I believe turnout is key and where that is easy to say, this isn't a prediction. There are many many sheep. There is much money behind Hillary. I've no idea today what the American is thinking when they're entering the polling booths these years. Social issue dominated, the economy, foreign affairs, immigration, abortion, Obamacare, gun control....who knows what's foremost on the voter's minds, look to who we elected and re-elected President in 08 and 12. So Trump can lose too.

Polls and predictions aside, I don't think anyone knows. Tonight may give us much to think about, I'm not sure it's going to change or make up anyone's mind
This morning on the news a news reader said Trump is ahead in the national polls. Others have said Trump is ahead in a number of swing states.

[exploited]

Obviously, so people will get a chance to vet them.

The "people" are not qualified to vet SC justices. They will simply find things they disagree with politically and demand an otherwise great choice be turned down for no good reason, regardless of what case law or precedent says. In fact, one of the biggest problems that the US has is judges being subject to public election and review. The judicial system is not about making choices you believe it should make. It is about interpreting case law, applying precedent and doing careful research.

[exploited]

Let us be clear: Some of us are strict constructionists.

Others believe in a "living Constitution."

Strict constructionists (as regarding which, I am one) believe that the Constitution means exactly what it says; that it means nothing different in 2016 than the same words meant in 1787.

"Living Constitution" theorists, on the other hand, believe that the meaning of the words of the Constitution must change with the times.

The mere fact that jurists are "extremely qualified" (i.e. that they have very good repute with many of their peers) does not obviate this fundamental difference...

Sounds like you want judges to prejudge cases based on their political views, rather than applying relevant precedent and case law, which has evolved considerably since the Constitution.

[pjohns]

Sounds like you want judges to prejudge cases based on their political views, rather than applying relevant precedent and case law, which has evolved considerably since the Constitution.

I do not want justices who believe that the Constitution should "evolve" (absent specific amendments).

Oh, by the way: Do you believe that the SCOTUS should have been bound by "relevant precedent" as concerning, say, Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857).

Or, perhaps, as concerning Plessey v. Ferguson (1896)?

Was Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (Kansas) a mistake, in your view?

[NapRover]

The "people" are not qualified to vet SC justices. They will simply find things they disagree with politically and demand an otherwise great choice be turned down for no good reason, regardless of what case law or precedent says. In fact, one of the biggest problems that the US has is judges being subject to public election and review. The judicial system is not about making choices you believe it should make. It is about interpreting case law, applying precedent and doing careful research.

Whether or not it's political, conservatives tend to rule according to the oaths they take regarding the constitution. Liberals take the same oath, but seem to have their fingers crossed during it. Secular progressives rule according to what they want the country turned into vs. what it was meant to be by the founders. For this reason alone, we should vote Trump.