Is Donald Trump likely to win the 2016 election late 2015early 2016

Is Donald Trump likely to win the 2016 election (late 2015/early 2016)?

Love him or hate him, Donald J.
Trump is a winner.
  And it's in our human nature to love a winner.
  That isn't to say that the billionaire real estate developer, business mogul and celebrity star of the hit show, "The Apprentice,"  doesn't have his detractors; far from it.
   But to answer the question of "can Trump win the Presidential election," let's first take a moment to appreciate what "The Donald" has endured and overcome to arrive as the last man standing for the Republican nomination:
And throughout it all, The Donald was undaunted, never backing down, never apologizing and never afraid to fight back quietly amassing support.
  Time and again, after each media, political or financial attack, the world watched and waited for the expected inevitable back peddling, apology and promise of corrective behavior.
  After all, this is what every politician does and the public dictates and demands what is considered politically correct.
  Yet, time and again, Trump was defiant and brash, doubling-down on his previous positions.
  What the media and PC police missed, was that they did not create Trump, and he is not theirs to destroy.
  This is especially true since he is self-funded and not a career politician.
  And to a great many Americans that have had their fill of politicians with no backbone willing to surrender their positions and values for political advantage, Trump gained their respect.
  They love him for his strength and independence referring to him colloquially as the "blue-collar billionaire.
"   Americans knew that here was something unique that they hadn't seen before, nor may never see again.

But there is something else.
  Donald Trump is transformative.
  When Bruce Lee set about reinventing the art of Kung Fu, his genius was to recognize that the rigid traditional moves that everyone obeyed were too formal and unnecessary to achieve quick effective results.
  Through his brand of genius, Donald Trump also performed his own kind of Kung Fu.
  Throughout the debates and at his rallies, Donald never used a teleprompter nor rehearsed and memorized his lines.
  This allowed him to speak from the heart and directly to the American public.
  Preferring not to delve into great detail, he focused on effective but memorable lines.
  This led to some very interesting exchanges with Jeb Bush in particular where the tired formulaic attacks were tried such as:"You think this is tough, wait til you have to deal with Putin and ISIS.
" which was responded by "Yeah, you're a real tough guy Jeb.
"  and 'I wish it was always as easy as you Jeb.
"  This rendered Jeb ineffective and speechless as well as other debaters using well rehearsed lines.

And Trump's ability for presentation and showmanship is equally matched by his ability to read the American people.
  He has correctly identified and championed those ideas that are most important to working class Americans such as immigration, trade negotiations, national defense, the war on terror, healthcare, job creation and the economy.
  These issues cut across all demographics – all ages, genders, races, religions, education and income levels.
  That's because his platform is not set up to appeal to or divide sections of the electorate.
His message appeals to Republicans, Democrats and and Independents alike.
  And Bernie Sanders supporters have many of these same concerns.
  Ideologically, they may be closer to Hillary Clinton but on their views of Washington establishment politicians and Wall Street collusion, they are one and the same with Trump.
  Once Bernie is gone, these supporters are likely to jump the ideological divide or not vote at all.
  Some have suggested the electoral college is stacked against any Republican candidate.
  With his transformative appeal, these analysts have ignored how Trump will likely rewrite the political map.
  If estimates are correct, only 59% of the white vote turned out for Romney in 2012.
  Those missing are disaffected voters that are clearly coming out for Trump and can amount to between 6 and 10 million people even if he increases this turnout by just 4%.

Above all, Donald Trump promises to make America great again.
  When you think back to the American 20th Century, it was a great one.
Now think about the American headlines of today.
What do you think of? War? Poverty? Political division?  Do we see greatness in America still on a daily basis or even in the movies?  What I remember is our own President on a   Voted for the Iraq war – bad judgement.
  Failed to act in defending Ambassador Stevens and his staff – bad judgement.
  Allowed the selling off of strategic reserves of U.
S.
uranium to Russia – bad judgement.
  Keeping a private email server that was later hacked by the Russians and Chinese – bad judgement.
 
So do I think Donald Trump is going to win the Presidential election?  It goes without saying but I'll put an exclamation point on it.
  In a landslide!

At this point in the race, (7/24/2016) I believe that Donald Trump has a good chance of winning the Presidential election.
Now that Trump has been officially nominated, and the last desperate attempts of a #NeverTrump movement were summarily squashed, the coup is complete, and the GOP is more or less united, despite the many claims that the GOP was going to implode.
It simply hasn’t happened.
The Democrats would love to say the same thing, and so does the media.
Problem is, there are many disaffected Bernie supporters who believe that the Democratic primaries
Jerk System.
" No.
I didn't make this up.
Therefore, you could say it is possible for Chaos to be a Jerk, at least according to Chaos Theory.
It seems that many people would describe Trump in less than favorable terms–see Donald Trump is the worst thing that ever happened to (fill in the blank) below:
Vote for None of the Above
It might not matter what people think of Donald Trump.
The public is sick of Washington and perceived do-nothing politicians.
His unpredictable nature is a delight to the anti-establishment types.
Trump's anti-establishment appeal is similar to the sentiment felt by the public during another well known campaign, run by another millionaire, that of Monty Brewster.

A vote for Trump is more a vote against the predictable order in politics, than it is a vote for Trump, so to speak.
Even if Trump were unqualified as a politician, it doesn't really matter because even the most qualified politicians are considered to be failures by the public.
With this viewpoint, anything or anyone would be better than a traditional politician.

Chaos is Not Always a Bad Thing
Chaos Theory is a way to help define events that are difficult to understand using conventional mathematics.
Using Chaos Theory, for example scientists were able to predict which half of a roulette wheel the ball would end up.
Betting based on those equations enabled them to beat the house odds, returning them 18% on their gambling, compared to the average person who loses 2.
7% of their money.

I know what your thinking, the presidency is not a game! Here is some good news.
Under the right conditions chaos can also spontaneously evolve producing a brilliantly synchronized system such as one found in neurons (everything is related to neurology) or fireflies, if you prefer.

Donald Trump as President
How bad could it be?  Would Donald Trump, the Chaos Candidate, evolve into a perfectly synchronous president or would he be a "Jerk" (see Jerk Systems above)? Perhaps he would strictly enforce a dress code?
Or, perhaps, he would be willing to play the most dangerous game of Russian Roulette in US history?
No one knows what a Trump presidency would be like.
I certainly can't tell you.
Only one thing is certain, a Trump presidency would provide for a lot of comedic material.

Disclaimer: Please don't interpret anything I write as an indication of who I support for President.
I'm just writing about observations I have made.

References:
" He similarly branded Carli Fiorina as a "Bad CEO.
" He has started his work on Hillary Clinton.
Trying to brand her as the "Worst Secretary of State.
" This might sound laughable, but so did "Low Energy" to the Bush campaign.
Look where that got them.
Is Hillary Clinton prepared?
I am sure her campaign must be secretly very worried.
If they aren't then I am worried for them.
They are all long time political insiders who are experts at their game.
What they may not realize, as the political insiders on Jeb Bush's team did not, is they are playing in a different game, with different rules.
If they realize this too late, then the game will be over sooner than they think.

The Question:
>>U.
S.
Presidential Elections: Is Donald Trump likely to win the 2016 election?
A lot of good answers here, but I'd like to Re-Ask this question after the recent comments by Trump regarding banning Muslims from entering the country.
(09 Dec 2015)

It is highly unlikely that ANY candidate can win the Presidency in modern America without much support from:
Trump has actively alienated each of these groups at some stage of his campaign, and in many cases multiple times.
He has even made alienation of some of these groups a staple of his campaign.
This has made Trump perhaps the most unpopular presidential candidate among non-whites in modern American history.
The following favorable-unfavorable ratings are from November 8, 2015, so the ratings are likely even worse today than they were at the time given the level of discourse from Trump since then.
Even the GOP understood that they must garner support from minority groups during the 2016 election cycle in order to stand a chance.
See:
To wit, the tendency of every change in president to be accompanied by a change in party affiliation.
This is a socio-political phenomenon disconnected from the merits of candidate's policies in practice.
Because of it, it is wrong for anyone to say he cannot win simply because he is an idiot or a fascist.

Second, there is insufficient credit being given to the fact that a social revolution is occurring of which he has come to be the heir apparent (aka, the Tea Party Movement).
This phenomenon is being ever more widely compared to fascism in early twentieth century by serious minded commentators.
Fascism was never policy driven, but entirely a cult of personality, fueled by negative emotions, much as Trumps campaign has been.
Then there is the fact that Trump is clearly drawing support from the uneducated and even the overtly anti-intellectual.
He has even acknowledged this.
Moreover, we must remember that while he could be overthrown in the convention, this is only possible if he does not carry the first vote, yet there is every indication he will prevail on the first vote.
If tradition and official rules are subverted in an attempt to prevent his nomination, who knows what will happen given the years of unrepudiated threats of "second amendment remedies" (armed revolution) in the party.
Finally, we must remember that this is the party that has turned the ballot box into a controversy, with partisan gerrymandering, voter suppression, ballot mismanagement, faux ballots (aka, provisional ballots that few realize go uncounted), and a Supreme Court ruling disfavoring inquiry into contested elections.
This backdrop means that if Trump does not win, there is a high probability his supporters will believe a fraud has been committed, not to mention the possibility that a fraud will actually have been committed.
Given these factors, belief that rational evaluation of his policies and statements will control the outcome is simply naive, if not absurd.
The Republican part has set itself up to be consumed by hate and violence after decades of overt racism, advocacy of gun ownership as a civil right, tolerance of carrying guns at political rallies, endless dog-whistling, and official tolerance of baseless conspiracy theories.
And anyone who does not see parallels between his advocacy of roughing up protesters at his rallies and brutalizing our enemies, real and imagined, and the brutality of the brownshirts (Sturmabteilung) of the 20 & 30's is nothing less than myopic.
That a distinction in degree exists, so far, is small comfort.
Let us not forget, that the Tea Party is a party within a party, repudiating the later party's legitimacy, while that repudiated party has spent 8 years denying the legitimacy of the president and calling into question the very notion of the necessity of governance.
Wherein, within the Republican party, denunciation of the legitimacy of existing power structures  has actually become a mainstream Republican position.
In other words, the party seems destined to be hoisted on it's own petard.
Therefore, there is a real danger Trump could win.
Worse still, there is real danger if Trump wins.
FIRST ANSWER
Paraphrasing after deletion: He has no ability to attract swing voters and therefore cannot hope to carry the general election.
This opinion was withdrawn when polls showed many  Democrats, perhaps 20%, will cross party lines to vote for him, thus establishing I was wrong.

Donald Trump is certainly an entertaining and a charming person.
He's also the one candidate that speaks the 'in your face' truth about the reality facing the United States.
I do not mean, the nitty gritty numbers  that the politically correct police like to harp on, but rather the existential threat from external forces.

Whether we like it or not, big businesses have gained a severe stranglehold on the political machinery as well as the media machinery, in the world, as in the USA.
Ultimately the republicans are heavily connected to corporate managements and the democrats are heavily connected to Union managements.
Each of these  have their own media outlets and corresponding media machines which denigrate 'the other' while portraying their owners is divine light.
Whether it is corporate bosses or Union bosses, all men (and women) are corruptible and greedy.
In the 90s the Chinese, realized these facts and gave the corporate bosses the promise of low cost production  who in turn  gave the Union bosses a payoff.
With the carrot of reduced costs, manufacturing, the heart of the US economy, moved outside the country.
Since each 'corporation' wanted to sell products at a lower cost than 'the other', the Chinese could play one against the other.
Contrary to this bottom up structure of the US economy, the top down structure of the Chinese economy meant that they could maintain competition and direct their enterprises to keep producing at a lower cost, until all manufacturing capacity in the US was depleted.
All this time the corporate bosses and union leaders in the US got fat paychecks from across the Pacific and the common people in the country suffered through job losses, foreclosures and economic crises creating a wide gap between the rich and the poor.
Ultimately, by about 2015, the Chinese economy (in PPP) rose to nearly $15 trillion which is just shy of the size of the US economy and cost of manufacturing rose in China.
Since the corporate (and union) bosses, had essentially hollowed out an entire generation of manufacturing, from the US, few of the citizenry even retained the skills or the know-how required to for it.
The younger generation went into media, finance and education and IT related jobs, which implied that the US, instead of outsourcing, started depending on China for manufacturing.

This was thin ice.
An economy that is not based on solid manufacturing is unlikely to survive in the long run because 'services' unlike 'manufacturing' are cheaper to 'learn'.
So Chinese/Indians/Europeans, just come to US, 'learn' and go back to their countries/nations to 'provide' these services.
A good example of this is information technology and related sectors.
Thus, the only market for US.
services ultimately became the U.
S.
itself.
This is a downward spiral.
Just like IT, media services could not be exported to other nations and neither could finance.
In short, the US could not export products to the world anymore and  simply kept on importing  more and more from China.
The trade deficit on this account was countered by the Chinese by buying into US treasury keeping the dollar artificially high! This gave the 'big bosses'an illusion of power while all the technology was being carried away to China.
When the Chinese had enough, they increased costs and reduced pay offs to the corporate and union bosses.
Suddenly these very people, who thought they were in control, became totally dependent on China rather than the other way around.
They lost control.
They tried to create an artificial crash in the commodities market, that the Chinese economy so heavily relies on by dumping money and oil in 2015.
Yet, this  only helped the Chinese, by increasing the value of the dollar and making it ever more difficult to export from the US.
Thus, backdoor plays stopped working on China.
Hence the bosses, both corporate and union, decided to field a candidate that speaks the truth, takes power and shows the Chinese, who is boss.
They fielded one of their own.
Donald Trump is not just smart and charismatic, he is part of the establishment, that has kept the greatest nation on earth going for so long.
Thus, he is not anti-establishment as the media makes him out to be, but rather pro-establishment.
He needs to appear anti-establishment to garner the right kind of vote at the right time.
He will appear as pro-establishment to garner other votes when needed.
Ultimately, he will win and he will set the world right!

Sad part is that he's checking all the boxes, so all that's left is for the party to cheat.

Aside from the fact that I'm a transgender woman, do you know why I will never be president? Because I'm unwilling to put forth the concept that America is on the verge of failure and I'm the candidate who can bring it back.
I refuse to pander to moneyed interests and I will never try to convince you that America has failed.
"Make America Great Again," my lily white ass, this is objectively the best time in the history of time to be alive and in America.

But it works.
Every president in American history has put forth some kind of similar premise.
The country is doomed! The country is doomed! But fear not, for I can save us all!
You know who says shit like that? Cult leaders.
I am not that thing.
And if you're really so idiotic that you believe that America needs help to be "great again," then you're really showing how white you really are.

I'm a minority.
My skin is white, but I'm a gay trans woman.
The only way I could have it any worse in America is to be a gay black trans woman.
That's it.
There is no more oppressed demographic.
A society can be fairly measured by how it treats its most vulnerable members, and things are improving for the trans community.
It's a fantastic time to be American.
We don't need to be made great again, because we're already great.
We should be striving to make America even greater (but again, no candidate in the history of the nation has ever successfully run on that platform).
So why are we trying to "make America great again?" There's a quote I really like, and I'm going to line break here and bold it because I really want it to stand out:
When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.

Note, please, that Trump rallies are decidedly monochromatic events.
Note that a majority of Trump supporters are men.
Note that Trump panders to the evangelical vote despite being arguably not Christian.
The white Christian male has been the dominant demographic in America forever, and that's on the cusp of changing.
That's the greatness that Trump wants to bring back.
The suzerainty of the white Christian male.
That promises a regression in hard-earned gains in rights and equalities for a broad spectrum of groups that are not WCMs.
And you can see the WCMs are eager for it.
Hence the violence against protesters, the assault on a black kid in custody, the shouts of things like "he's a f***ing Muslim!", "Burn him!", etc.
They don't want equality, they want domination.
And you should be scared.

"Will" Trump become president?  Anyone who answers "yes" or "no" is not really answering the question, as no one actually knows.
"Can" he?  Yes, of course he can.
The odds are that he won't, but there is real danger here.
  The tone of the answers being given below belies just how much whistling in the dark is being done by the Democratic Party.
For those of you old enough to have seen the first "Star Wars" movie – the one with the Death Star, Uncle Owen, and Governor Tarkin – will recall the scene near the end, when a Death Star apparatchik approaches Peter Cushing, to announce that the rebel attack has been analysed, that their is a danger, and that perhaps the Governor should consider having his shuttle standing by.
IF Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee and IF Donald Trump is the Republican nominee, there is a very, very real chance that the long term electoral map could tip.
 
In another thread (about Massachusetts), a commentor quite nastily referred to people in Western Massachusetts as dirt-poor igoramuses living in rural shitholes.
There are A LOT of people like that in Pennsylvania, in Ohio.
  Trump's putative fascism is less important to many than the fact that Trump – almost alone – is talking about economic fear.
  He alone seems to see that the benefits of mass immigration are mixed.
  Mrs Clinton, who likes to point to her experience and include time during Bill Clinton's time in the White House, will be tied to NAFTA.
  She is going to get hit – hard – on her support for TPP.
  Her connections to the big banks.
  People may even point out that she played a large role in the toppling of Syria, Egypt, and Libya, and now advocates the need to bring in refugees from crises that her State Department helped create.
Trump is a big-mouthed oligarch, and it's incredibly ironic that he is seen as a sort of populist.
 
Simply calling him (and by extension, his supporters) a bunch of gap-toothed bigots is not going to work as well as Mrs Clinton and her handlers think it will, I suspect.

They need to point out why Mrs Clinton's bank-friendly, big business-friendly, interventionist-friendly policies are better for the lower-middle class than Trump's isolationist, protectionist policies are.
They have not even really tried yet.

I am notorious for having good instincts when the information needed is incomplete, as it is here, to say the least.
In a sense this is a projection of my predilection.
I say the question in the subconscious of many voters will be, "are we safer now than 8 years ago?" Clinton has put the nail in her own coffin by riding Obama's coattail through the primaries thus far.
It works for primaries, but will backfire in the election.
Most people who are democrats especially between 30 and 50 and especially white males, I think,  will say no more of the same old same old.
Hillary is pure politician and will place herself in the center.
But qualitatively she will use the same old strategies that belong to the last century.

As far as the economy goes Trump is a new face with a more impressive resume.
And if I am right that people foresee continuing decline of the standard of living they will want change.
So I predict that if she is the candidate Trump will win.
Now I know that the common wisdom is that he alienates women Hispanics etc and just can't win.
Just remember that his anger and positions resonate in the Rust Belt states.
Think Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
These Blue states combine for 64 electoral votes which because of his positions and the unusually high white population Trump could win.
His dangerous cheap bigoted rhetoric notwithstanding, his poor judgment and lack of  grasping the consequences of his recklessness my fear is that he could possibly be elected.

At this point it's very difficult to say.
Trump is virtually guaranteed to be the GOP  nominee and his campaign has been marked by a sudden upsurge in voter turnout, a phenomenon that (at present) appears to have benefitted Republican candidates more than Democratic ones.
At the same time, the Trump campaign is riddled with several potential hindrances that could easily stifle his momentum.
Trump's arguably incendiary rhetoric has caused noticeable divisions within the party, reaching as high as Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (who, by virtue of presidential succession and other influences, is essentially the 2nd or 3rd most powerful man in America)–this may, in turn,  contribute to the growth of a divided Republican electorate.
There is the growing potential for those in support of the #NeverTrump movement to either abstain from voting, vote for Hillary, or even vote for a 3rd party candidate representative of the conservative views expected of most Republican members.
The flourishing of an Independent candidate, though typically insignificant, has had the potential to alter election results if major enough (
I would contend that it depends largely on how he and Hillary make use of the media to either draw out voters or lambast their opponents.
In the age of social media and reality television, after all, Mr.
Trump has shown himself to be quite a prolific user of those means as tools of communication.

I hate the guy but he is almost certain to win.

Many of his critics in the media and in his party are nowhere near as intelligent as he is and can't see very obvious (and brilliant) strategic moves he is making.

He is managing to win the republican primary without stating any meaningful policy positions.
  The biggest impediment to prevailing in a general election is that candidates get locked into positions that are centrist relative to their party during the primaries, which ends up being too liberal or too conservative to have wide appeal among independents and moderates (I.
e.
, most voters) in general election.
It becomes very hard to pivot away from the prior positions in order to move to center and win in a general election, without seeming like a typical lying politician.

In Trump's case, all he has to do after winning the primary is state moderate (even slightly liberal) policy positions and it is over.
  He he is already polling within striking distance of Clinton.
  Coming out as basically a moderate on most issues–post primary–will widely broaden his appeal.
  He can even come out as a liberal on many issues without losing support because republicans will vote for him over Clinton as long as he is not as liberal as she is (this is one of those almost-self-evidently-obvious things that pundits don't seem to comprehend).
Again, all he has to do is move center in order to capture independent and moderate voters post-primary.
  By presenting no real policy platform prior to that stage, that will be easy for him to do.
His is public fights with Fox News, and the Republican Party itself, are not going to cost him any republican voters when push comes to shove.
But they will gain him independent voters.
  That's why he did it.
 
From on a game theory perspective, it is no different than the bidding strategy in the first round of the price is right.
He just positions himself slightly to the right of Clinton when it comes time to position himself, and captures everything right of him on the spectrum.

For clinton to have a chance, she would need to position herself slightly left of Trump in the general.
That is not possible at this stage.
 

There’s too much that can happen between now and the election to be able to make a prediction with any degree of confidence.
History suggests that, in the absence of an obvious, early landslide of support for a candidate after the summer Conventions, predictions made before October tend to be inaccurate.
We forget, for example,
So anybody who offers odds on the General Election this far out is either fooling themselves, trying to fool others, or both.
Having said that, what we know from the polls as they stand today, it can’t be ignored that Trump could win Iowa, is leading in New Hampshire, and is showing strong in South Carolina (while Nevada remains a bit of a mystery).
Historically, candidates in both Parties who win two of the four early contests go on to win their Party’s nomination.
So unless there is a massive swing against Trump at the last minute (
which is still completely plausible), despite everything common sense and conventional wisdom should dictate, it’s possible, based on available data and historical trends, that Trump could be in a position to secure the nomination, barring Emad Noujeim's answer to What are some of the most important black swan events in history?
Update (November 9, 2016) :
Trump has been elected president.
It looks like the unfolding of events has provided an empirical or “experimental” verification of what I had written about five months before the November elections.
In fact this answer was written on June 18, 2016.
See also my newer, related answer Emad Noujeim's answer to How did Donald Trump win the 2016 Presidential Election? .

Is Donald Trump likely to win the 2016 election (late 2015/early 2016)?

Love him or hate him, Donald J.
Trump is a winner.
  And it's in our human nature to love a winner.
  That isn't to say that the billionaire real estate developer, business mogul and celebrity star of the hit show, "The Apprentice,"  doesn't have his detractors; far from it.
   But to answer the question of "can Trump win the Presidential election," let's first take a moment to appreciate what "The Donald" has endured and overcome to arrive as the last man standing for the Republican nomination:
And throughout it all, The Donald was undaunted, never backing down, never apologizing and never afraid to fight back quietly amassing support.
  Time and again, after each media, political or financial attack, the world watched and waited for the expected inevitable back peddling, apology and promise of corrective behavior.
  After all, this is what every politician does and the public dictates and demands what is considered politically correct.
  Yet, time and again, Trump was defiant and brash, doubling-down on his previous positions.
  What the media and PC police missed, was that they did not create Trump, and he is not theirs to destroy.
  This is especially true since he is self-funded and not a career politician.
  And to a great many Americans that have had their fill of politicians with no backbone willing to surrender their positions and values for political advantage, Trump gained their respect.
  They love him for his strength and independence referring to him colloquially as the "blue-collar billionaire.
"   Americans knew that here was something unique that they hadn't seen before, nor may never see again.

But there is something else.
  Donald Trump is transformative.
  When Bruce Lee set about reinventing the art of Kung Fu, his genius was to recognize that the rigid traditional moves that everyone obeyed were too formal and unnecessary to achieve quick effective results.
  Through his brand of genius, Donald Trump also performed his own kind of Kung Fu.
  Throughout the debates and at his rallies, Donald never used a teleprompter nor rehearsed and memorized his lines.
  This allowed him to speak from the heart and directly to the American public.
  Preferring not to delve into great detail, he focused on effective but memorable lines.
  This led to some very interesting exchanges with Jeb Bush in particular where the tired formulaic attacks were tried such as:"You think this is tough, wait til you have to deal with Putin and ISIS.
" which was responded by "Yeah, you're a real tough guy Jeb.
"  and 'I wish it was always as easy as you Jeb.
"  This rendered Jeb ineffective and speechless as well as other debaters using well rehearsed lines.

And Trump's ability for presentation and showmanship is equally matched by his ability to read the American people.
  He has correctly identified and championed those ideas that are most important to working class Americans such as immigration, trade negotiations, national defense, the war on terror, healthcare, job creation and the economy.
  These issues cut across all demographics – all ages, genders, races, religions, education and income levels.
  That's because his platform is not set up to appeal to or divide sections of the electorate.
His message appeals to Republicans, Democrats and and Independents alike.
  And Bernie Sanders supporters have many of these same concerns.
  Ideologically, they may be closer to Hillary Clinton but on their views of Washington establishment politicians and Wall Street collusion, they are one and the same with Trump.
  Once Bernie is gone, these supporters are likely to jump the ideological divide or not vote at all.
  Some have suggested the electoral college is stacked against any Republican candidate.
  With his transformative appeal, these analysts have ignored how Trump will likely rewrite the political map.
  If estimates are correct, only 59% of the white vote turned out for Romney in 2012.
  Those missing are disaffected voters that are clearly coming out for Trump and can amount to between 6 and 10 million people even if he increases this turnout by just 4%.

Above all, Donald Trump promises to make America great again.
  When you think back to the American 20th Century, it was a great one.
Now think about the American headlines of today.
What do you think of? War? Poverty? Political division?  Do we see greatness in America still on a daily basis or even in the movies?  What I remember is our own President on a   Voted for the Iraq war – bad judgement.
  Failed to act in defending Ambassador Stevens and his staff – bad judgement.
  Allowed the selling off of strategic reserves of U.
S.
uranium to Russia – bad judgement.
  Keeping a private email server that was later hacked by the Russians and Chinese – bad judgement.
 
So do I think Donald Trump is going to win the Presidential election?  It goes without saying but I'll put an exclamation point on it.
  In a landslide!

At this point in the race, (7/24/2016) I believe that Donald Trump has a good chance of winning the Presidential election.
Now that Trump has been officially nominated, and the last desperate attempts of a #NeverTrump movement were summarily squashed, the coup is complete, and the GOP is more or less united, despite the many claims that the GOP was going to implode.
It simply hasn’t happened.
The Democrats would love to say the same thing, and so does the media.
Problem is, there are many disaffected Bernie supporters who believe that the Democratic primaries
To wit, the tendency of every change in president to be accompanied by a change in party affiliation.
This is a socio-political phenomenon disconnected from the merits of candidate's policies in practice.
Because of it, it is wrong for anyone to say he cannot win simply because he is an idiot or a fascist.

Second, there is insufficient credit being given to the fact that a social revolution is occurring of which he has come to be the heir apparent (aka, the Tea Party Movement).
This phenomenon is being ever more widely compared to fascism in early twentieth century by serious minded commentators.
Fascism was never policy driven, but entirely a cult of personality, fueled by negative emotions, much as Trumps campaign has been.
Then there is the fact that Trump is clearly drawing support from the uneducated and even the overtly anti-intellectual.
He has even acknowledged this.
Moreover, we must remember that while he could be overthrown in the convention, this is only possible if he does not carry the first vote, yet there is every indication he will prevail on the first vote.
If tradition and official rules are subverted in an attempt to prevent his nomination, who knows what will happen given the years of unrepudiated threats of "second amendment remedies" (armed revolution) in the party.
Finally, we must remember that this is the party that has turned the ballot box into a controversy, with partisan gerrymandering, voter suppression, ballot mismanagement, faux ballots (aka, provisional ballots that few realize go uncounted), and a Supreme Court ruling disfavoring inquiry into contested elections.
This backdrop means that if Trump does not win, there is a high probability his supporters will believe a fraud has been committed, not to mention the possibility that a fraud will actually have been committed.
Given these factors, belief that rational evaluation of his policies and statements will control the outcome is simply naive, if not absurd.
The Republican part has set itself up to be consumed by hate and violence after decades of overt racism, advocacy of gun ownership as a civil right, tolerance of carrying guns at political rallies, endless dog-whistling, and official tolerance of baseless conspiracy theories.
And anyone who does not see parallels between his advocacy of roughing up protesters at his rallies and brutalizing our enemies, real and imagined, and the brutality of the brownshirts (Sturmabteilung) of the 20 & 30's is nothing less than myopic.
That a distinction in degree exists, so far, is small comfort.
Let us not forget, that the Tea Party is a party within a party, repudiating the later party's legitimacy, while that repudiated party has spent 8 years denying the legitimacy of the president and calling into question the very notion of the necessity of governance.
Wherein, within the Republican party, denunciation of the legitimacy of existing power structures  has actually become a mainstream Republican position.
In other words, the party seems destined to be hoisted on it's own petard.
Therefore, there is a real danger Trump could win.
Worse still, there is real danger if Trump wins.
FIRST ANSWER
Paraphrasing after deletion: He has no ability to attract swing voters and therefore cannot hope to carry the general election.
This opinion was withdrawn when polls showed many  Democrats, perhaps 20%, will cross party lines to vote for him, thus establishing I was wrong.

When asked in the beginning of July if Donald Trump could be president, after hearing him speak and the pundits say he would fail, I said.
.
.
Yes, I believe he will be the Republican nominee.

I have updated my answer to explain the largely unpredictable occurrence–how and why it is possible that Donald Trump will be the Republican Nominee and could be the 45th President of the United States of America.
I will also address the following:
Why the Donald is Attractive to Voters
When talking about attraction, Donald Trump is probably not on the top of a list of people you would think about.
Usually the word is associated with physical attraction.
A handsome man or an attractive female.
Besides from visual attraction, other things and even objects can be considered attractive (ie tourist attraction, a ride at an amusement park).
Donald Trump is also attractive.
Probably not in the way the woman in the red dress below is attractive.
Donald Trump has other qualities that the American public desire, things that cause a great interest in him–money and power.
Like a beautiful person, these are very potent desires in our society and Donald Trump projects both of these attributes that make him attractive.
Who Do You Find to Be More Attractive?
Jeb Bush Calls Donald Trump a God
In case you don't remember here is a clip of Jeb Bush (or Jeb!) saying it:
What exactly is chaos or more specifically who was Chaos? Chaos (χάος) according to Greek Mythology was a
Jerk System.
" No.
I didn't make this up.
Therefore, you could say it is possible for Chaos to be a Jerk, at least according to Chaos Theory.
It seems that many people would describe Trump in less than favorable terms–see Donald Trump is the worst thing that ever happened to (fill in the blank) below:
Vote for None of the Above
It might not matter what people think of Donald Trump.
The public is sick of Washington and perceived do-nothing politicians.
His unpredictable nature is a delight to the anti-establishment types.
Trump's anti-establishment appeal is similar to the sentiment felt by the public during another well known campaign, run by another millionaire, that of Monty Brewster.

A vote for Trump is more a vote against the predictable order in politics, than it is a vote for Trump, so to speak.
Even if Trump were unqualified as a politician, it doesn't really matter because even the most qualified politicians are considered to be failures by the public.
With this viewpoint, anything or anyone would be better than a traditional politician.

Chaos is Not Always a Bad Thing
Chaos Theory is a way to help define events that are difficult to understand using conventional mathematics.
Using Chaos Theory, for example scientists were able to predict which half of a roulette wheel the ball would end up.
Betting based on those equations enabled them to beat the house odds, returning them 18% on their gambling, compared to the average person who loses 2.
7% of their money.

I know what your thinking, the presidency is not a game! Here is some good news.
Under the right conditions chaos can also spontaneously evolve producing a brilliantly synchronized system such as one found in neurons (everything is related to neurology) or fireflies, if you prefer.

Donald Trump as President
How bad could it be?  Would Donald Trump, the Chaos Candidate, evolve into a perfectly synchronous president or would he be a "Jerk" (see Jerk Systems above)? Perhaps he would strictly enforce a dress code?
Or, perhaps, he would be willing to play the most dangerous game of Russian Roulette in US history?
No one knows what a Trump presidency would be like.
I certainly can't tell you.
Only one thing is certain, a Trump presidency would provide for a lot of comedic material.

Disclaimer: Please don't interpret anything I write as an indication of who I support for President.
I'm just writing about observations I have made.

References:
" He similarly branded Carli Fiorina as a "Bad CEO.
" He has started his work on Hillary Clinton.
Trying to brand her as the "Worst Secretary of State.
" This might sound laughable, but so did "Low Energy" to the Bush campaign.
Look where that got them.
Is Hillary Clinton prepared?
I am sure her campaign must be secretly very worried.
If they aren't then I am worried for them.
They are all long time political insiders who are experts at their game.
What they may not realize, as the political insiders on Jeb Bush's team did not, is they are playing in a different game, with different rules.
If they realize this too late, then the game will be over sooner than they think.

The Question:
>>U.
S.
Presidential Elections: Is Donald Trump likely to win the 2016 election?
A lot of good answers here, but I'd like to Re-Ask this question after the recent comments by Trump regarding banning Muslims from entering the country.
(09 Dec 2015)

"Will" Trump become president?  Anyone who answers "yes" or "no" is not really answering the question, as no one actually knows.
"Can" he?  Yes, of course he can.
The odds are that he won't, but there is real danger here.
  The tone of the answers being given below belies just how much whistling in the dark is being done by the Democratic Party.
For those of you old enough to have seen the first "Star Wars" movie – the one with the Death Star, Uncle Owen, and Governor Tarkin – will recall the scene near the end, when a Death Star apparatchik approaches Peter Cushing, to announce that the rebel attack has been analysed, that their is a danger, and that perhaps the Governor should consider having his shuttle standing by.
IF Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee and IF Donald Trump is the Republican nominee, there is a very, very real chance that the long term electoral map could tip.
 
In another thread (about Massachusetts), a commentor quite nastily referred to people in Western Massachusetts as dirt-poor igoramuses living in rural shitholes.
There are A LOT of people like that in Pennsylvania, in Ohio.
  Trump's putative fascism is less important to many than the fact that Trump – almost alone – is talking about economic fear.
  He alone seems to see that the benefits of mass immigration are mixed.
  Mrs Clinton, who likes to point to her experience and include time during Bill Clinton's time in the White House, will be tied to NAFTA.
  She is going to get hit – hard – on her support for TPP.
  Her connections to the big banks.
  People may even point out that she played a large role in the toppling of Syria, Egypt, and Libya, and now advocates the need to bring in refugees from crises that her State Department helped create.
Trump is a big-mouthed oligarch, and it's incredibly ironic that he is seen as a sort of populist.
 
Simply calling him (and by extension, his supporters) a bunch of gap-toothed bigots is not going to work as well as Mrs Clinton and her handlers think it will, I suspect.

They need to point out why Mrs Clinton's bank-friendly, big business-friendly, interventionist-friendly policies are better for the lower-middle class than Trump's isolationist, protectionist policies are.
They have not even really tried yet.

Sad part is that he's checking all the boxes, so all that's left is for the party to cheat.

Aside from the fact that I'm a transgender woman, do you know why I will never be president? Because I'm unwilling to put forth the concept that America is on the verge of failure and I'm the candidate who can bring it back.
I refuse to pander to moneyed interests and I will never try to convince you that America has failed.
"Make America Great Again," my lily white ass, this is objectively the best time in the history of time to be alive and in America.

But it works.
Every president in American history has put forth some kind of similar premise.
The country is doomed! The country is doomed! But fear not, for I can save us all!
You know who says shit like that? Cult leaders.
I am not that thing.
And if you're really so idiotic that you believe that America needs help to be "great again," then you're really showing how white you really are.

I'm a minority.
My skin is white, but I'm a gay trans woman.
The only way I could have it any worse in America is to be a gay black trans woman.
That's it.
There is no more oppressed demographic.
A society can be fairly measured by how it treats its most vulnerable members, and things are improving for the trans community.
It's a fantastic time to be American.
We don't need to be made great again, because we're already great.
We should be striving to make America even greater (but again, no candidate in the history of the nation has ever successfully run on that platform).
So why are we trying to "make America great again?" There's a quote I really like, and I'm going to line break here and bold it because I really want it to stand out:
When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.

Note, please, that Trump rallies are decidedly monochromatic events.
Note that a majority of Trump supporters are men.
Note that Trump panders to the evangelical vote despite being arguably not Christian.
The white Christian male has been the dominant demographic in America forever, and that's on the cusp of changing.
That's the greatness that Trump wants to bring back.
The suzerainty of the white Christian male.
That promises a regression in hard-earned gains in rights and equalities for a broad spectrum of groups that are not WCMs.
And you can see the WCMs are eager for it.
Hence the violence against protesters, the assault on a black kid in custody, the shouts of things like "he's a f***ing Muslim!", "Burn him!", etc.
They don't want equality, they want domination.
And you should be scared.

Donald Trump is certainly an entertaining and a charming person.
He's also the one candidate that speaks the 'in your face' truth about the reality facing the United States.
I do not mean, the nitty gritty numbers  that the politically correct police like to harp on, but rather the existential threat from external forces.

Whether we like it or not, big businesses have gained a severe stranglehold on the political machinery as well as the media machinery, in the world, as in the USA.
Ultimately the republicans are heavily connected to corporate managements and the democrats are heavily connected to Union managements.
Each of these  have their own media outlets and corresponding media machines which denigrate 'the other' while portraying their owners is divine light.
Whether it is corporate bosses or Union bosses, all men (and women) are corruptible and greedy.
In the 90s the Chinese, realized these facts and gave the corporate bosses the promise of low cost production  who in turn  gave the Union bosses a payoff.
With the carrot of reduced costs, manufacturing, the heart of the US economy, moved outside the country.
Since each 'corporation' wanted to sell products at a lower cost than 'the other', the Chinese could play one against the other.
Contrary to this bottom up structure of the US economy, the top down structure of the Chinese economy meant that they could maintain competition and direct their enterprises to keep producing at a lower cost, until all manufacturing capacity in the US was depleted.
All this time the corporate bosses and union leaders in the US got fat paychecks from across the Pacific and the common people in the country suffered through job losses, foreclosures and economic crises creating a wide gap between the rich and the poor.
Ultimately, by about 2015, the Chinese economy (in PPP) rose to nearly $15 trillion which is just shy of the size of the US economy and cost of manufacturing rose in China.
Since the corporate (and union) bosses, had essentially hollowed out an entire generation of manufacturing, from the US, few of the citizenry even retained the skills or the know-how required to for it.
The younger generation went into media, finance and education and IT related jobs, which implied that the US, instead of outsourcing, started depending on China for manufacturing.

This was thin ice.
An economy that is not based on solid manufacturing is unlikely to survive in the long run because 'services' unlike 'manufacturing' are cheaper to 'learn'.
So Chinese/Indians/Europeans, just come to US, 'learn' and go back to their countries/nations to 'provide' these services.
A good example of this is information technology and related sectors.
Thus, the only market for US.
services ultimately became the U.
S.
itself.
This is a downward spiral.
Just like IT, media services could not be exported to other nations and neither could finance.
In short, the US could not export products to the world anymore and  simply kept on importing  more and more from China.
The trade deficit on this account was countered by the Chinese by buying into US treasury keeping the dollar artificially high! This gave the 'big bosses'an illusion of power while all the technology was being carried away to China.
When the Chinese had enough, they increased costs and reduced pay offs to the corporate and union bosses.
Suddenly these very people, who thought they were in control, became totally dependent on China rather than the other way around.
They lost control.
They tried to create an artificial crash in the commodities market, that the Chinese economy so heavily relies on by dumping money and oil in 2015.
Yet, this  only helped the Chinese, by increasing the value of the dollar and making it ever more difficult to export from the US.
Thus, backdoor plays stopped working on China.
Hence the bosses, both corporate and union, decided to field a candidate that speaks the truth, takes power and shows the Chinese, who is boss.
They fielded one of their own.
Donald Trump is not just smart and charismatic, he is part of the establishment, that has kept the greatest nation on earth going for so long.
Thus, he is not anti-establishment as the media makes him out to be, but rather pro-establishment.
He needs to appear anti-establishment to garner the right kind of vote at the right time.
He will appear as pro-establishment to garner other votes when needed.
Ultimately, he will win and he will set the world right!

I am notorious for having good instincts when the information needed is incomplete, as it is here, to say the least.
In a sense this is a projection of my predilection.
I say the question in the subconscious of many voters will be, "are we safer now than 8 years ago?" Clinton has put the nail in her own coffin by riding Obama's coattail through the primaries thus far.
It works for primaries, but will backfire in the election.
Most people who are democrats especially between 30 and 50 and especially white males, I think,  will say no more of the same old same old.
Hillary is pure politician and will place herself in the center.
But qualitatively she will use the same old strategies that belong to the last century.

As far as the economy goes Trump is a new face with a more impressive resume.
And if I am right that people foresee continuing decline of the standard of living they will want change.
So I predict that if she is the candidate Trump will win.
Now I know that the common wisdom is that he alienates women Hispanics etc and just can't win.
Just remember that his anger and positions resonate in the Rust Belt states.
Think Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
These Blue states combine for 64 electoral votes which because of his positions and the unusually high white population Trump could win.
His dangerous cheap bigoted rhetoric notwithstanding, his poor judgment and lack of  grasping the consequences of his recklessness my fear is that he could possibly be elected.

At this point it's very difficult to say.
Trump is virtually guaranteed to be the GOP  nominee and his campaign has been marked by a sudden upsurge in voter turnout, a phenomenon that (at present) appears to have benefitted Republican candidates more than Democratic ones.
At the same time, the Trump campaign is riddled with several potential hindrances that could easily stifle his momentum.
Trump's arguably incendiary rhetoric has caused noticeable divisions within the party, reaching as high as Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (who, by virtue of presidential succession and other influences, is essentially the 2nd or 3rd most powerful man in America)–this may, in turn,  contribute to the growth of a divided Republican electorate.
There is the growing potential for those in support of the #NeverTrump movement to either abstain from voting, vote for Hillary, or even vote for a 3rd party candidate representative of the conservative views expected of most Republican members.
The flourishing of an Independent candidate, though typically insignificant, has had the potential to alter election results if major enough (
I would contend that it depends largely on how he and Hillary make use of the media to either draw out voters or lambast their opponents.
In the age of social media and reality television, after all, Mr.
Trump has shown himself to be quite a prolific user of those means as tools of communication.

I hate the guy but he is almost certain to win.

Many of his critics in the media and in his party are nowhere near as intelligent as he is and can't see very obvious (and brilliant) strategic moves he is making.

He is managing to win the republican primary without stating any meaningful policy positions.
  The biggest impediment to prevailing in a general election is that candidates get locked into positions that are centrist relative to their party during the primaries, which ends up being too liberal or too conservative to have wide appeal among independents and moderates (I.
e.
, most voters) in general election.
It becomes very hard to pivot away from the prior positions in order to move to center and win in a general election, without seeming like a typical lying politician.

In Trump's case, all he has to do after winning the primary is state moderate (even slightly liberal) policy positions and it is over.
  He he is already polling within striking distance of Clinton.
  Coming out as basically a moderate on most issues–post primary–will widely broaden his appeal.
  He can even come out as a liberal on many issues without losing support because republicans will vote for him over Clinton as long as he is not as liberal as she is (this is one of those almost-self-evidently-obvious things that pundits don't seem to comprehend).
Again, all he has to do is move center in order to capture independent and moderate voters post-primary.
  By presenting no real policy platform prior to that stage, that will be easy for him to do.
His is public fights with Fox News, and the Republican Party itself, are not going to cost him any republican voters when push comes to shove.
But they will gain him independent voters.
  That's why he did it.
 
From on a game theory perspective, it is no different than the bidding strategy in the first round of the price is right.
He just positions himself slightly to the right of Clinton when it comes time to position himself, and captures everything right of him on the spectrum.

For clinton to have a chance, she would need to position herself slightly left of Trump in the general.
That is not possible at this stage.
 

Updated: 10.07.2019 — 11:07 am

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *