Back in July I wrote a post predicting that Trump will win on November 8th. Back then I predicted a Trump win in the Electoral College, 304 to 234. I still think Trump will win, but I’m revising my prediction:
The main difference is Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, given to Trump in my earlier post, now moved over to Clinton—I still think Trump could take Pennsylvania, but we’ll see. (see also this article).
This is a very interesting race—two candidates with very high unfavorable ratings. Which leads me to ask, what would have this been like if the Republicans had nominated someone likable? Would the lead (and outcome) in the Electoral College have been significantly different? You’d think so, but I’m not so sure. Say for instance we had Bush v. Clinton III [George Bush v. Bill Clinton, 1992; George W. Bush v. Al Gore (Clinton surrogate), 2000]—would Jeb have been able to generate the enthusiasm that Trump has? I don’t think so. Neither do I think that for Cruz or Rubio or the others. Trump has tapped into a populist (created?) movement not unlike the one that Theodore Roosevelt created with his third-party run for the presidency in 1912—that’s the election where the third party almost won. Back then the Republicans went with the mainstream candidate, William Howard Taft, and handed the election to Woodrow Wilson. In spite of Hillary Clinton’s faults, I think that if the Republicans had nominated anyone but Trump, she would have won. While I’m not equating Trump with Roosevelt, the Republicans have not nominated the mainstream candidate and I think that will make all the difference. Like it or not, I think we’re on the verge of a revolution, much like 1980, that will have lasting impact. Another way to put it: the most salty candidate will win.