Why we shouldn’t rule out a Trump win in November

Donald Trump has achieved what many deemed sheer lunacy. Barring some mischief by GOP leaders at the July convention, he will be the Republican nominee after a year-long campaign that has been as unique is it has been effective at securing his goals.

In light of his success, no one should rule him out against Hillary Clinton when the two participate in the most intriguing, enraging, exciting, and disappointing election battle in recent memory. Trump has repelled attacks from all sides, often rendering them ineffective except to actually strengthen his appeal as an anti-political, populist hero. Who is to say his armor will wear thin? Here are a few factors that will determine whether he sustains his surge from a primary pipe dream to a general election victory, or if he fails to clear that final hurdle of his historically impressive campaign:

Sanders supporters

This generally young group of people tends to be active in social justice causes and disillusioned by the influence of corporate greed in the political process and life in general. For Trump, they will be critical to his success depending on how they act on November 8.

If most vote strategically, Clinton will likely reap the rewards since she is of the same party and her attitude on social issues more closely resembles that of Sanders than Trump. But whether they vote strategically depends on how strongly they feel about backing Sanders no matter what and how stubborn they are about holding onto their ideology even when there is no hope for it to succeed in the way they had planned.

Many of them are passionate, many do intend to go down with the Sanders ship (“Bernie or Bust”), and many will refuse to choose the lesser of two evils. Will the millions of voters who ardently backed the Democratic Socialist from Vermont unite behind the career politician with a history of corporate-friendly and hawkish behavior, the woman who crushed their hopes and dreams?

If indeed many Sanders supporters do not side with Clinton and instead act expressively, this would be great news for Trump. They could make a scene at the Democratic Convention reminiscent of the 1968 Chicago riots, further highlighting discord within the party at a time when unity would be the best offense against the GOP while it dealt with Trump. When it comes time to vote, they may cast a write-in ballot for Sanders (an act that carries more symbolism than utility) or they could just stay home, disgusted with the options generated by the two-party system.

In either case, Clinton would lose votes from registered Democrats. This would not mean much in solidly blue California or Illinois, for instance, but some states where Sanders performed well will be battlegrounds in November. Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, Colorado and Wisconsin altogether provide 45 electoral votes (a sizeable chunk of the required 270) and whose predominantly white populations give Trump a more welcoming base from which to draw support.

We cannot overlook the potential for a significant portion of Sanders supporters to vote for Trump because of his status as an anti-establishment figure. They may admire what he has been able to do: essentially hijack the GOP from the party elite and use it as a vessel to represent the will of the people. Both Trump and Sanders operate with populist undertones; Trump has often remarked how poorly the Democratic Party has been treating Sanders and has been encouraging him to seek a third way, clearly trying to win over those who prioritized his anti-political elite message. Whether Sanders’ people stick with their man, stay home, or drift over to Trump because of his similar appeal, it is a win for Trump.

Trump also has the upper hand in that Clinton is locked in a troubled relationship with Sanders supporters. She is stuck between having to move further left to win some of them over and also towards the center to cater to moderate, undecided voters just like any viable candidate does as the general election looms. Clinton has not yet made a concerted effort to woo Sanders voters, and the longer the Democratic primary lasts, the more resistant they will be to the Clinton agenda. Trump, meanwhile, will sit back and applaud such a state of affairs. One year ago, who would have thought he would be the last man standing in a cluttered 17 person pack while Clinton—the supposed inevitable nominee—was still dueling with the curmudgeonly socialist? A weakened Clinton hobbling to the finish line amid the threat of a Democratic split bodes well for Trump’s chances.

The Electoral College

Al Gore learned the hard way that the popular vote does not elect the president. In the coming months, analysts will dissect numerous electoral college scenarios, plugging in various proportions of support for each candidate according to race, religion, gender, age, income, party, and voter turnout. Since the general impression of Trump is that he underperforms with minorities (and since American demographics are becoming more liberal), I wanted to see how badly he could fare with them and still win. I used an interactive model by David Byler, elections analyst at RealClearPolitics, to find out.

My scenario has African American support at seven percent, one point higher than Romney’s share in 2012. Assuming Clinton does not choose an African American as her running mate, this is a reasonable estimate. Turnout is 67 percent, which may decrease if there is no African American on the Democratic ticket—there was in 2008 and 2012—or if voter ID laws curtail ballot access). Hispanic support is also seven percent, a huge 20 point difference from Romney’s percentage.

Despite some of Trump’s frank rhetoric about immigration, it is difficult to see results diving lower than this. Asian and other minority support drops to 18 percent, a 14 point deficit from four years ago. Of course, then, the demographic that Trump has to rely on to compensate for these losses is white voters.

If he obtains 66 percent of the white vote (seven points more than Romney received) with a 65 percent turnout rate, he would still win the Electoral College, 277 to 261, despite horrendous levels of minority support and a popular vote deficit of nearly five million. Trump’s challenge, then, is to boost his appeal particularly to college-educated whites since he already has a firm grasp on blue-collar workers and those without a degree. This is not improbable. In addition to bringing out of the woodwork many first-time voters, Trump has slowly but surely changed his tone from the first few months of his campaign to now. Having solidified his base, he is turning to the median voter, presenting himself in a more presidential and palatable demeanor.

Keep in mind that in this scenario, minority support is the same in each state. In reality, Trump could fall even more in blue states and there would be no electoral consequences for him. Hypothetically, if not a single African American votes for him in any blue state as long as support holds steady at seven percent in every red state, Trump would still win. A substantial net loss of minority votes for Trump can be overcome depending on where those ballots are cast.

When you think about it, the outcome of presidential elections is determined by a handful of states and a few prized counties therein.

Selective campaigning is necessary and it works, as I will show in Part II.