Stop overestimating the intelligence of the average voter. Why Trump could win.

[RR1997]

Many people on Atlas believe that Clinton has a 100% (or almost 100%) chance of beating Trump. I used believe that too. Now my views of this race are starting to change.

Let's not underestimate the power of populist bullsh**t. There are extremely uneducated/uninformed people out there who will vote for any candidate who pretends to hate the elites and are anti-establishment. These people actually buy into meaningless populist talking points. There are so many people out there who will vote for any candidate just because they're anti-establishment. It's why there are so many people online and irl who are undecided between Trump and Sanders. It's why a lot of Ron Paul supporters are voting for Bernie this year. Bernie and Paul share almost nothing in common politically, but many people support the two just because they're anti-establishment. In interviews with Trump/Bernie supporters, they seem to support them just because they're anti-establishment (and not because of any real issues). Trump and Bernie are both running disgusting scampaigns.

There are also a lot of voters that scared of immigrants and Muslims (even Democrats). Trump will appeal to a lot them. There are many uninformed voters who will vote for Trump just because he's turned this election into a reality TV show.

Second of all, the media is going to treat Hillary unfairly. The media hates Hillary Clinton a lot. They're going to portray Hillary as a corrupt sketchy bitch because of faux scandals like Emailgate.

I hate it how the media criticizes Hillary for her Wall Street donors but not Obama. Obama has gotten more donations from Wall Street than any other candidate in history (a lot more than Hillary).  In 2008, Hillary ran as the candidate who was going to be tough on Wall Street while Obama mostly ignored the issue. Hillary is to the left of Obama on Wall Street.  Yet, Obama was never criticized for being too close to Wall Street. Hillary on the other hand has gotten tons of criticism for her Wall Street donors. Why wasn't the media attacking Obama in 2008 for being too close to Wall Street? It's ok when the cool black guy is bought by Wall Street but it's absolutely unacceptable when Hillary is.

Media coverage of Hillary is going to be very negative, which will help Trump.

The polls are tightening. Most recent polls have shown Trump almost beating Hillary. Anything could happen. Let's not completely rule out a Trump presidency. Let's stop overestimating the intelligence of the average voter.  Trump could win.

[ProudModerate2]

Media coverage of Hillary is going to be very negative, which will help Trump.

I agree that we can not underestimate trump.
But understand that the media is going to also go very hard and very negative on trump also ; harder than on Hillary.
The media is already starting to punch, and most of the blows are on Donald's face.

[Angrie]

There are extremely uneducated/uninformed people out there who will vote for any candidate who pretends to hate the elites and are anti-establishment.

It is true that there are a lot of idiots out there. If you venture out into the wild sometime, you will find that it's like a hellish reverse lake Woebegon out there, where everyone is below average.

However, the system is fundamentally broken. How else are voters supposed to register their dissatisfaction? The American electoral system does not give voters an opportunity to effectively register their disapproval and to call for change.

[Angrie]

I hate it how the media criticizes Hillary for her Wall Street donors but not Obama. Obama has gotten more donations from Wall Street than any other candidate in history (a lot more than Hillary).  In 2008, Hillary ran as the candidate who was going to be tough on Wall Street while Obama mostly ignored the issue. Hillary is to the left of Obama on Wall Street.  Yet, Obama was never criticized for being too close to Wall Street. Hillary on the other hand has gotten tons of criticism for her Wall Street donors. Why wasn't the media attacking Obama in 2008 for being too close to Wall Street? It's ok when the cool black guy is bought by Wall Street but it's absolutely unacceptable when Hillary is.

In 2008, we hadn't had 8 years of a pathetic post-crash stagnating economy. After a major economic disturbance like that, and after things stop working, people gradually start to wisen up. Perspectives change. People learn new things in response to experience.

We hadn't had 6 years in which absolutely nothing positive happened, because the American system of government is utterly incapable of functioning like a first world government when there is a high degree of polarization.

In 2008, we just had the Iraq war to be dissatisfied about. It appeared that most of America's problems were attributable to the failures of one man - George W. Bush. It seemed like if we just got rid of him, then all would be well - or at least, not so bad. But instead, we find that America has much deeper institutional problems that are not so easily overcome.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

There are extremely uneducated/uninformed people out there who will vote for any candidate who pretends to hate the elites and are anti-establishment.

It is true that there are a lot of idiots out there. If you venture out into the wild sometime, you will find that it's like a hellish reverse lake Woebegon out there, where everyone is below average.

However, the system is fundamentally broken. How else are voters supposed to register their dissatisfaction? The American electoral system does not give voters an opportunity to effectively register their disapproval and to call for change.

While I sympathize with how broken the system is, voting for the establishment candidate who appeals to the lower common denominator (not that Clinton isn't making some scummy appeals herself, but Trump out-lows her) is not the solution - forming third parties, protesting, and civil disobedience are all better and more effective alternatives to "guess I'll vote for the stupid billionaire, that'll show 'em!"

[RR1997]

There are extremely uneducated/uninformed people out there who will vote for any candidate who pretends to hate the elites and are anti-establishment.

It is true that there are a lot of idiots out there. If you venture out into the wild sometime, you will find that it's like a hellish reverse lake Woebegon out there, where everyone is below average.

However, the system is fundamentally broken. How else are voters supposed to register their dissatisfaction? The American electoral system does not give voters an opportunity to effectively register their disapproval and to call for change.

While I sympathize with how broken the system is, voting for the establishment candidate who appeals to the lower common denominator (not that Clinton isn't making some scummy appeals herself, but Trump out-lows her) is not the solution - forming third parties, protesting, and civil disobedience are all better and more effective alternatives to "guess I'll vote for the stupid billionaire, that'll show 'em!"

Uh, Donald Trump is not the establishment candidate. The establishment hates him. They were trying to everything they could to stop him from winning the nomination.

[RightBehind]

I think Americans want the rest of the world to hate them.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

There are extremely uneducated/uninformed people out there who will vote for any candidate who pretends to hate the elites and are anti-establishment.

It is true that there are a lot of idiots out there. If you venture out into the wild sometime, you will find that it's like a hellish reverse lake Woebegon out there, where everyone is below average.

However, the system is fundamentally broken. How else are voters supposed to register their dissatisfaction? The American electoral system does not give voters an opportunity to effectively register their disapproval and to call for change.

While I sympathize with how broken the system is, voting for the establishment candidate who appeals to the lower common denominator (not that Clinton isn't making some scummy appeals herself, but Trump out-lows her) is not the solution - forming third parties, protesting, and civil disobedience are all better and more effective alternatives to "guess I'll vote for the stupid billionaire, that'll show 'em!"

Uh, Donald Trump is not the establishment candidate. The establishment hates him. They were trying to everything they could to stop him from winning the nomination.

They're both establishment candidates. Neither is going to change the overall structure of the status quo one little bit - under Trump it's still going to be government of the 1%, by the 1% and for the 1%, just like it was under Clinton, Obama, Bush, Bush, etc.

Don Trump was not hated because he threatens to overthrow existing hierarchies. He was hated because he hasn't jumped through all the appropriate hoops. He's breaking protocol at the dance, not threatening revolution.

It's not a revolution if, after the king dies, the barons don't back his daughter and heir apparent, but throw their support to her wastrel, whoring, illiterate uncle instead.  Nothing is going to change for the peasants in either case.

If you think Trump is actually going to change things, you need to explain why he's busy hooking up with the usual crowd: neocons, banksters, right-wing billionaires, the Israel lobby, etc. And please, for the love of all that's holy, don't reference the bullsh**t that comes out of his mouth as though it actually means anything. Judge Trump, like all public figures, by what he does.

Trump is a Republican Obama - promising change to those desperate for it, while cozying up to the powers in place. (The big problem for me is that he seems much more stupid and volatile than even the badly unqualified Obama. He may "change" things the same way a drunk captain changes a ships destination - by running it aground.)

[Wisconsin+17]

Uh, you have two New York liberal democrats over 70. They are both establishment.

[°Leprechaun]

I would say his odds are 10%-30% although maybe lower. He could raise this if he were to tie or beat Clinton in the polls any time between now and the election. A lot could depend on turnout.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Some serious hot takes in this thread.

[IceSpear]

Very true. People are sadly mistaken if they think Hillary is a lock. For god's sake, 46% of the country voted for Sarah Palin to be an old man's heartbeat away from the presidency. At the same time the incumbent Republican president destroyed the economy, led us into an endless quagmire in the Middle East, and had a 25% approval rating. You really think it would be THAT difficult for Trump to get 50%?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

With folks like me sitting out? Yes, yes it is.

[IceSpear]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

With folks like me sitting out? Yes, yes it is.

The polls show Republicans are already starting to unify around him.

[Virginiá]

Very true. People are sadly mistaken if they think Hillary is a lock. For god's sake, 46% of the country voted for Sarah Palin to be an old man's heartbeat away from the presidency. At the same time the incumbent Republican president destroyed the economy, led us into an endless quagmire in the Middle East, and had a 25% approval rating. You really think it would be THAT difficult for Trump to get 50%?

To be fair, the electorate has diversified a lot since 2008. That's a big problem when your only real voter base consists of one of the fastest shrinking demographic groups in the country.

Unless there is a huge lopsided turnout rate (seems highly unlikely) that favors Republican-leaning voters, then any Republican that wants to win this year will need roughly 64% of the white vote. Given how shady, deceitful and offensive Trump is even to members of his own party, it's hard to see how he can even retain Romney's numbers among white voters. The only plus for Trump here is that Clinton has her own baggage weighing her down. But a +5% boost in the white vote over a period of just 4 years? That is very rare. Especially given how polarized the country is and how terrible a candidate Trump is.

[RightBehind]

People are absolutely warped.

That's why Trump could win.

[HAnnA MArin County]

Yes, Americans are stupid.

That's why Trump could win.

We knew that already.

[White Trash]

Hurr durr people I disagree with are stupid. You ever think that maybe the reason people buy into populist rhetoric like the kind Trump and Sanders are using is not stupidity, but maybe, just MAYBE they actually want to see radical change in how things are done in government? But what do I know, I'm just a stupid populist.

[pho]

It has nothing to do with voter intelligence and everything to do with demographics. Trump isn't beating Hillary if he's losing women 65-35 and getting less than 20% of Hispanics. It's nearly a mathematical impossibility.

[Ljube]

Media coverage of Hillary is going to be very negative, which will help Trump.

I agree that we can not underestimate trump.
But understand that the media is going to also go very hard and very negative on trump also ; harder than on Hillary.
The media is already starting to punch, and most of the blows are on Donald's face.

I have not seen that recently.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Let's not underestimate the power of populist bullsh**t.

Trump's "populism" is phony, and I know it.

I'm a Rust Belt working-class guy who's supposed to be part of Trump's target audience, and I know he's a stinking phony.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

Only way I'd really vote for Trump is if I decide that another civil war needs to happen.

[RR1997]

Let's not underestimate the power of populist bullsh**t.

Trump's "populism" is phony, and I know it.

I'm a Rust Belt working-class guy who's supposed to be part of Trump's target audience, and I know he's a stinking phony.

I agree with you completely. Donald Trump's "populism" is obviously fake, but many people have been fooled by him.

[RightBehind]

The poorly educated his a candidate who loves them.

[Xing]

The average American is not very well-informed, and often chooses a candidate for the wrong reasons. This is nothing new. However, it's likely the case that enough Americans will be unwilling to vote for Trump. It's not certain, but likely.