In the wake of Donald Trump’s solid win in the South Carolina primary many are screaming that Trump can’t win in a general election. In response, I’m going to reiterate my posting of “Trump Can Win” and add a little to it.
It has to be acknowledged that Trump has high negatives but then so does Hillary Clinton so that’s pretty much a wash between the two. Additionally, I don’t think that his high negatives will transfer into votes for Hillary. One might find a lot of Republicans not necessarily voting for him but voting for other Republicans on the ticket because Republicans in general look to be very enthusiastic for the upcoming election. If Trump tries to make peace with some of his Republican opponents (by picking a high-profile Republican such as Cruz or Rubio as his VP) he might even recoup some of those votes. Remember earlier last week he was supposedly having a “spat” with the Pope (started by the Pope though that was generally left out of the news) but by the end of the week Trump was declaring the Pope a great guy (without addressing the issue at the heart of the ‘spat’). That’s Trump — he can turn on a dime and his supporters don’t seem to notice anything beyond the positive aspects.
His supporters are clearly enthusiastic while Hillary’s are mostly of the robotic lever-pulling Democrat faithful. Look at a Hillary Clinton rally and it looks like a meeting of the National Education Association. That’s her supporting diehards, chunky older women who work for or depend upon the government. Sprinkle in a few blacks who identify themselves exclusively by their skin color, the professional representatives, not necessarily the self-identified membership, of select other “racial” groups and the sexually confused along with a large hunk of the mainstream media. She has so far failed to put together the Obama coalition and it looks highly unlikely she’ll be able to cobble together 100% of it. Failing that her election becomes problematical.
The Democratic national coalition of the last 20 years has relied on high enthusiasm of the core (Hillary fails that); enthusiastic and ignorant youth (will The Bern’s kids go to Hillary or stay home?) and, increasingly, disproportionate, support in select cities. The latter is needed to overwhelm vast Republican support in suburbia and rural areas (witnessed in those famous ‘sea of red’ county and Congressional voting pattern maps). Can the Democratic inner city vote fraud machine replicate its hyperenthused Obama efforts for Hillary? I doubt it.
As I noted earlier, other than Florida and Virginia, maybe North Carolina, Hillary cannot win any Southern state. The traditional Republican states in the Midwest and West are likely Trump locks too, especially if he takes a pro-business approach in things like mining, timber, oil/energy, agriculture, etc.
Trump brings additional advantages in some of the old “industrial” states. The Democrats have been treating them as redheaded stepchildren for awhile. It could be Trump’s convenient semi-traditional populism versus Hillary’s academic socialist populism in states like Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York.
Looking at the complete disaster that is Rahm Emanuel’s Chicago and suddenly Illinois becomes a bit more competitive. Hillary may have been born there but she dissed them for New York and the Dems are heavily dependent upon winning big in Chicago to win the state. How enthusiastic will the Illinois Dems be when Obama makes only a single campaign appearance for Hillary in the last week of the campaign?
The desperate and deceptive media attempt to hang the Flint, Mich., water problems around Gov. Rick Snyder’s neck isn’t accidental. Democrats (and their media auxiliaries) know that the depopulating of Detroit has weakened the state’s Democrat advantage putting it into play for a populist Republican whose irascibility becomes a positive. Oh, and eventually it will be common knowledge that Flint has been run by Democrats for decades and the water problems can be placed at their feet.
In Pennsylvania, traditionally, Democrats run up a small margin in Pittsburgh and a huge margin in Philadelphia (a poster child for vote fraud). Most of the rest of the state leans solidly Republican. Like rural and suburban Michigan, I think Trump’s faux-populism plays well in the Keystone State. I don’t see any enthusiasm for Hillary there (or in any of these listed states).
And, again, much the same can be said for Ohio, with Cleveland being a smaller version of Philadelphia.
New York and New Jersey are very likely to be friendly to Trump. Hopefully, by November, New York City’s experiment with bringing back the nightmarish 1970s pre-Giuliani New York will have awakened enough people to mitigate that fat nut of Democratic parrots that live there.
Hillary Clinton may be forced to deploy a large portion of her time and vast resources to defend those states.
The big point is that for all of Trump’s flaws, Hillary can’t take advantage of them. In fact, she shares many of them. If Trump were facing someone popular or different, then he could be routed but he isn’t. He’s facing an even more flawed candidate — one who generates minimal enthusiasm among her supporters and has no geographical base to operate from. Oh, and one that should be indicted and convicted of major crimes, but that’s another story.
I’m not a Trump cheerleader. I think he’ll make a terrible president (unless his scorched-Earth-style campaign really is nothing but political theater), but he’ll be better than Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders; no matter how much he disappoints supporters by turning out to be the big government/ex-Democrat dilettante he likely is.