Why Trump May Lose

I don’t mean to be a “Debbie Downer” - I’m just trying to be a realist about the upcoming election. (I hope I am wrong!)

To start with, Trump held a losing hand going into this campaign. He’s spent a lot of time either in a courtroom or otherwise defending himself against charges that were largely “trumped up” (excuse the pun). But his disadvantage made it all the more important to be on point at his rallies, interviews, etc. about why Biden-Harris has been such a disaster and what (in more specifics than, “I’ll fix it”) he’s going to do to restore some sanity to the government and our lives. Unfortunately, Trump has been more undisciplined and subject to misinterpretation than ever. This may be why the race, despite the many gaffes of Harris/Walz and her inability to rise above acting like a mean girl with no real plan except to lambaste Trump, is still such a dead heat when it should be approaching landslide proportions. Here are some examples of what may cost Trump the election:

• Trump’s abrasive, short-hand manner of explaining his positions and his annoying habit of cramming numerous topics into one long soliloquy that may or may not answer the original question. It’s not a big stretch for people leaning toward Harris to believe that Trump is actually losing it.
• Trump’s inexplicable love affair with tariffs, to the point of making them a centerpiece of his campaign. Tariffs and their supposed benefits are tough enough for an expert to explain in terms the average voter can understand. With Trump, what people hear is, “I’m right on this, trust me. The critics are wrong.” That simply doesn’t cut it. He needs to offload the details on subjects like this to his running mate, who can presumably make the case far better than Trump can. Think about how J.D. Vance took “journalist” Martha Radatz to task on the subject of Venezuelan thug takeovers of apartment complexes in Aurora, CO (go to the YouTube video on this if you haven’t already seen it, it’s well worth it). This was a masterful cleanup of Trump’s messy aisle of hyperbole on that subject.
• Trump’s off-hand remarks about possibly using the U.S. military to quell extreme leftist troublemakers, without specifying to what kinds of situations this could apply. Needless to say, the Harris campaign immediately jumped all over that one as an example of an “unconstitutional” or “dictatorial” act. A cursory look at history shows that presidents have called out military and national guard forces to respond to riots or events such as integrating a school in the Deep South during the segregation era. However, Trump never bothers to include that in his commentary.

Then there’s the Harris strategy when answering any question, which is as follows: 

Filibuster – blame Trump – filibuster some more – condemn Trump – rinse and repeat. 

Given what at least 50% of the electorate believe or feel about Trump and his inability to counter that effectively, it’s no wonder that this empty strategy may just work to get Harris elected, and her handlers are banking on that. Even in her brief interview with Bret Baier of Fox News, Harris never veered far from her standard approach to avoid answering the questions, and of course, her leftist media friends gave her credit for standing strong in the “lions’ den” of an actually fair and balanced interviewer they viewed as “hostile.”

Of course, the usual Democrat shenanigans will surely be employed regarding mail-in ballots, ballot harvesting, allowing people to vote without a valid identification/proof of citizenship, etc., especially in the swing states which are usually decided by only a few thousand votes. Although a clear winner should be called by midnight election night or shortly thereafter, the final results may not be available for several days afterward. The longer the delay, the more that favors the Dems and a Harris victory.

Finally, watch certain bellwether elections for key Senate seats in swing states because the Republican candidates are running behind now. Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin all have races that are about as close as the presidential one. For instance, former U.S. representative Mike Rogers is trailing his Democrat opponent Rep. Elissa Slotkin by a within-the-margin-of-error amount in Michigan for an open Senate seat occupied by retiring Democrat Debbie Stabenow. The other two states feature a Republican challenger going against a Democrat incumbent. Since many voters can’t be bothered with “splitting” the ticket and will vote a straight ticket, those votes may help determine the outcome of these key Senate races along with the presidency.