No matter how you look at it, Trump’s not winning … Amid the incessant din of election-year punditry and prognostication, one fact reigns supreme: Republicans vote for Republicans and Democrats vote for Democrats … It is why America is freckled with “red” and “blue” states and “safe” congressional seats. It is also why American presidential races are typically close, regardless of who the candidates may be. –USA Today
There are ways Donald Trump might be able to win the election even though the electoral map seems to favor Clinton.
Yesterday, we pointed out that the FBI’s declaration of Hillary’s innocence would probably mean that she would win. (See related story, this issue.)
But if Trump pursues some specific strategies he might be able to surmount certain Clinton advantages.
Hillary should have been indicted. There are powerful forces protecting her.
A nationally published editorial by Matthew Whitaker entitled, “I would indict Hillary Clinton,” provides us with reasonable arguments as to why the FBI should have acted.
FBI director’s judgment was that ‘no reasonable prosecutor’ would bring the case. I disagree. Hillary Clinton could have been charged with violating several different code sections, and the detailed the evidence that supports bringing criminal charges.
The larger point here is that those backing Clinton have maneuvered to ensure that she remains a viable candidate.
Hillary has the benefit of support from states that regularly vote Democratic. There are more Democratic states than Republican states. Thus, Trump will have to beat her in most swing states.
USA Today (excerpt at top) explains the following:
First, pick the six “closest” swing states (VA, NH, IA, OH, FL, NC). Got it? Now understand that New Hampshire excepted, Clinton only has to win one of them in order to reach the requisite 270 electoral votes to win.
Lest any Trump supporters seek solace in poll numbers, recent polls have Trump sliding further behind in all the relevant swing states …
An article by Mike Adams, the well known Internet publisher and “health ranger” suggests that Trump might be able to win if he focuses on issues Americans favor.
The idea is that Trump might be able to gain votes by emphasizing a three topics that people regard favorably: medical hemp, holistic medicine and naturopathic care.
“This list of three game-changing topics could bring Trump an extra 5 – 10% of progressives while keeping the votes of nearly all conservatives,” Adams writes
Adams pointed out that “Clinton is wholly owned by Monsanto and Big Pharma, as well as big banks and the petrochemical industries. Clinton ‘may mean the end of America’.”
The contrast between Trump and Hillary would be stark on these issues, he believes. Additionally, supporters of Bernie Sanders are likely sympathetic to these issues as well.
In fact, there have been reports that many Sanders voters are not going to support Hillary. They believe she “stole” many states from Sanders in the primaries.
Conclusion: By focusing on areas that have not been part of the traditional political discussion and presenting them in terms that both Democrats and Republicans can appreciate, Trump might be able to cross the current electoral divide and exploit the latent antipathy that many Democrats feel toward Hillary. If he can appeal directly to Sanders’ supporters, so much the better.