Can Donald Trump Actually Be President?

I live in Canada, and many Canadians feel especially glum about the election down south. Although few of us are enthusiastic supporters of Clinton, polling shows we definitely prefer her over the alternative.

But a lot of Canadians think a Trump presidency is possible, and even likely. After all, when every news pundit said it was impossible and instead he got the nomination just as easily as Romney did in 2012, it is hard to say he can't become President too.

Looking at polling right now paints a different story. Trump is down in every swing state, and usually by a lot. His Midwest strategy looks to be completely failing, with Clinton way up in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. He's down in every demographic except white men without college degrees. So is it possible he could overcome all of this and become President of the United States?

The answer is yes, yes he can. But it's not likely, and even less so than after my last post on the subject.

The traditional way Trump can win is simple; the polling bump from the Democratic National Convention ends, and begins to fall. Clinton still leads, but not by as much. Then the debates happen, and Trump decisively beats her in them. He overtakes her, wins election.

The non-traditional way is in the realm of speculation; Clinton gets murdered (which Trump has recently suggested supporters should do) and Democrats can't mount a challenger. Or maybe the economy goes done the tubs, or there's a housing crash, or a devastating terror attack. Maybe Obama reveals a scandal. Maybe Julian Assange of Wikileaks reveals Clinton's missing emails. Anything big, noticeable, and unexpected can tip the scales.

 But obviously, speculation works both ways. Someone could murder Trump, he can be hit with scandals, maybe Assange reveals his tax returns. And they aren't a very good metric to predict on, because their so... unpredictable.

So let's work out how likely the "traditional" victory can happen. It starts with Trump reversing his poll deficit. This isn't happening nearly fast enough for him. This is probably because after the DNC, Trump began to attack the family of a fallen veteran, and began to openly claim the election is already rigged.

Trump just can't stop himself from saying something that annoys most people. Sure, his base doesn't care (or likes it) but Romney and McCain both held the Republican base and lost decisively to Obama. Republican candidates need to tack to the middle, and saying outrageous things doesn't help.

The problem Trump has is that to reverse this, he can't just shut up. Then Clinton hold her edge right up to the debates. Why? Well, for instance Trump gave a big speech this week on his economic plan. It was meant to convince swing voters he had a grasp of economics and had plans to improve their prospects. Few people watched it (I didn't).

People don't care about policy speeches. Their boring. And we are currently in a bit of a lull for the election, because the Olympics are on! So most people are turning away from CNN and FOX to NBC to watch the US of A rack up medals.

So Trump's not doing well to close that poll difference, and doesn't have much chances to do so until the debates. But as we've seen, Mr. Trump isn't very good at debates. The moderators challenge him on facts, and sometimes openly attack him. Clinton gets challenged too, but she is a lot better at deflecting. And Sanders' best attacks on her were on her character, which Trump lacks the legitimacy to do (his character sucks too).

And then after the debates... whoa, its election day. Wait, there are only 90 or so days from now to the election?

So Trump's got little time and few chances to change the game. Thankfully, he doesn't seem to care. His campaign has yet to pay for a general election ad, while Clinton has spent $52 million. He doesn't court any of the demographics he needs, like women or college-educated voters (other than by saying, "Don't worry, women love me.") The election is already rigged, he says.

And why would he want to be President? Although Trump enjoys campaigning (the entire country gets to talk about him, he clearly loves that), being President is a tough job. You need to compromise, and understand the issues, go around the world to negotiate with other leaders. And perhaps most importantly to Trump, the honeymoon period doesn't last long and the electorate almost always turns on the President.

So let Trump be Trump, and this whole thing will be over soon.

Libya was Destined to be a Mess

When people criticize Hillary Clinton, many point to her judgment, especially on foreign policy. She voted for the Iraq War, she wanted a reset with Russia, and most notoriously, she wanted to intervene in Libya.

On the first two, remember that Obama voted for Iraq, and that Donald Trump is recorded supporting it as well (in the beginning). And the Russian reset was with President Medvedev, who was quickly scrapped in Russian policy for weakness. It is President Putin you can blame for that going south.

But Libya is the one that most people like to point to. One, apparently Obama was pushed into it by Hillary's suggestions. And two, Libya did eventually lead to the even more famous Benghazi attack.

So why did Clinton want intervention in Libya? Looking back, most people can clearly see it was a mistake. The government currently controls only the capital, and the rest is held by roving tribes, many affiliated with ISIS.

And you could question Clinton's judgment, pointing out how Iraq was a case of intervention fixing nothing. Clinton looks like she learned nothing from that war, blindly stumbling into a new conflict because "Hoo-ra, the U.S. army rocks!"

None of these criticisms actually point out why the intervention was suggested in the first place.

So I will set the scene; it is 2011, and the Arab Spring is unfolding. In most of these countries these protests would fail or turn into very different movements. Egypt removed its President, elected an Islamist, and removed him in a coup. Syrian protesters were fired upon, and the protesters became rebel fighters. Only Tunisia truly succeeded, becoming a parliamentary republic.

In Libya, the protesters aimed to remove their President, Muammar Qaddafi. He had a reputation for being a hotheaded dictator, and once considered funding a nuclear weapons program. So when the protests started, he declared them "drugged" linked to Al-Qaida, and that he would rather be a martyr than leave the country. The army fired on protesters, and soon half of the country fell to the rebels. Qaddafi had the army march out to retake these areas, and pictures of tanks in the desert reached Western news.

Now think about the consequences to the West. Similar developments were happening in Syria, though not as quickly. But unlike Syria, Libya was a pressing and immediate issue. Libya is only a short boat ride from Italy. That country and France (which has imperialist ties to Libya) openly advocated a no-fly zone and intervention. Civil war so close to Europe was seen as simply unthinkable.

So the no-fly zone was set up, and a coalition of Western powers (led by Italy and France, with the USA as a simple contributor) launched airstrikes on military targets. The rebels took Tripoli, found Qaddafi himself in a drainpipe, and beat him to death.

A parliament was set up in Tripoli, which failed to exert control outside of the city, leading to the chaos in the country today.

Now imagine that there wasn't an intervention. It was widely believed Qaddafi was going to defeat the rebels, with his superior army and tanks. But as we've learned in Syria, the dictator with the army doesn't always win (Assad hasn't lost either, but five years of civil war are definitely not a win). If Qaddafi had triumphed, and done so quickly, maybe the intervention could be considered pointless.

But let's say Qaddafi didn't immediately win. Let's say he ran into the same problems as Bashar Al-Assad in Syria, with the rebels hanging on to key cities, with major components of the army defecting, and no end in sight. Neither side is willing to back down, and the country spirals into every worsening civil war.

Syria has led to a mass refugee exodus, triggering crisis in Europe. It has become a haven for terrorist groups, and ISIS controls part of the country. Libya is far closer to Europe. Any terrorists and refugees would find exporting their problems to Italy and Europe much easier than Syrians did.

Now maybe if the Italians and French had been interested in creating a stable Libya rather than just toppling Qaddafi, they would have recognized that military action alone would not create lasting peace. But they didn't, and the US didn't push them to, so the current situation exists.

Nobody remembers how Libya actually started down this path to chaos, and nobody says how much worse it could have gone. But then, that wouldn't make a very good talking point, would it?

The Irony of American Leadership

Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, there has been no question that the United States of America is the world's one and only superpower. Though other nations challenge the USA in specific theaters of the world, like Russia in Europe, China in Asia, or Iran in the Middle East, none has a global presence quite like America does.

The U.S. has naval ships in every ocean. It has allies on every continent. It spends the most money on its military than any nation, and its more than the next ten countries combined. No country has had such a dominant global presence since the British Empire, and the United States is perhaps even stronger.

None of this means America is invincible. Wars in the Middle East have shown that even with the backing of strong allies, nation-building is hard. Rivals continue to chip away at American authority whenever they can (even if the attempts are shortsighted). And even the US's allies are unwilling to march lockstep with American goals.

Nonetheless, the current age is probably the most peaceful the world has ever seen. Unlike in the past, wars between nations are rare and far between. This is likely because the world is now filled with democracies, and voters are usually against wars (or tire of it soon). Even when terrorism is on the rise, there is no Cold War between two nuclear armed powers hanging over us. There are no fascists or communists calling for World War or genocide. And imperialism has largely broken down, with even people in Africa having greater access to food, water, and upward mobility.

Part of these positive outcomes result from the US' goals being somewhat benign. If you look at American foreign policy, especially in war, it often boils down to the US fighting for the side of "democracy." Unlike the British Empire or the USSR, which had started wars to increase influence for the sake of it, the US needed legitimate reasons to commit to conflict. It is after all a republic, and if a war was fought the people needed to think the war was right.

For instance, in both World Wars there was great hesitation to commit. In World War I especially, Americans found little difference between the imperialistic British, French, German and Russian nations that fought in the trenches. All had immigrants in America, and none had moral superiority. It was only after several German transgressions, like appealing to Mexico and sinking American ships, did the US join the Allies.

In World War II, the US was still reluctant, even when Hitler's Germany was considered a repressive regime. The U.S. saw Hitler as a threat only to Europe, not to them. Only after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor in retaliation for embargoes were the Americans thrown again into war.

Later wars like Korea and Vietnam were fought against the rising tide of repressive, communist movements that sought to control every detail of people's lives. Even if the United States supported repressive governments itself, these dictators lacked the total control of communism. The US viewed communism as an infectious ideology that limits freedom and hope. If you consider that the Soviet Union fell apart in 1991, and led to democratic reforms globally, the results were undeniably good.

Even the modern wars have little to do with power more than ideology. Although some skeptics claim that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria are so that the US can dominate the oil supply, there is little evidence for this. Although energy crisis would occasionally emerge, the US has not dominated oil supply in the Middle East because of its wars. In fact, the US has become nearly completely energy-independent with natural gas industry in its own borders.

The irony of American leadership is that when a nation's foreign policy is based on ideals rather than pursuit of power, the USA is actually more unconventional and unpredictable than its rivals. For instance, Obama declared the use of conventional weapons in Syria a "red line." He did this not because he wanted greater influence in Syria, or to topple a rival, or to create a new front against Russia. He did so because he (as most of Western civilization does) that the use of chemical weapons is a crime against humanity, and there must be a response.

Although Obama did not invade Syria as he may have suggested, he asked Congress to vote on intervention (they voted no, knowing war would be unpopular). He then negotiated with Russia to have those chemical weapons removed from the country. None of these actions increased American power in any way, but did end the risk of chemical warfare reemerging in the modern world.

Though this foreign policy, based on American ideals is not uniform (the US still considers Saudi Arabia a major ally despite its repressive policies, and has toppled many dictators it deemed threats), it is still effective. It has allowed the US to have a role in every continent, allies globally, and often legitimate concerns. It has stumbled one more than one occasion, but the blame is usually attributed to incompetence or stupidity rather than corrupt greed.

And unlike other nations, the United States appears quite happy with the current world order. While China and Russia constantly push against international law and borders, the U.S. strives to preserve them. There is no doubt that the U.S. benefits off them, but it also lacks total control of its allies. The U.K's decision in Brexit is a good example, when Obama suggested it was a pretty bad idea.

The U.S.A. is the global superpower. This can make people uncomfortable, but here are some soothing facts. There are fewer deaths in war than at any time in history, largely because of the norms between nations that the U.S. tries to preserve. Even with global terrorism on the rise, it is far likelier that you will be in a car accident or be diagnosed with cancer than a bomb going off. And the police are not brutal shock troops of a dictatorial regime, but normal people trying to keep their communities safer.

Hillary Clinton is the Luckiest Candidate

If you look at all of the candidates who ran to be President of the United States this year, it is clear none was as lucky as Hillary Clinton.

Why? Well, despite all her negatives, despite how easily she could have been defeated electorally, she probably won't be. Because the opposing party nominated the one thing she can quite easily slay.

Start on the Democratic primaries. Only four other candidates decided to run, three of whom just weren't inspiring enough to come close to beating Clinton and probably did it for some recognition (it didn't work). The last, Bernie Sanders, had a message that resonated enough to look challenging, but didn't hold enough appeal to groups beyond young whites. And I know that is painting broadly, but Clinton did a complete sweep of the southern states (whose Democratic primary voters are nearly all minorities), so he clearly did something wrong.

But why didn't someone more appealing run? Joe Biden thought about it, but chickened out. And he probably did because Hillary has been planning on running since 2012, and has the money to make any real fight really, really challenging. The irony was that Sanders showed Joe Biden might have actually beaten her, and that her campaign cash wasn't as insurmountable as was believed.

So, she got lucky in the Democratic primaries. But that 'aint nothin' when it comes to the Republicans.

Firstly, a lot of those guys could have beaten her. Probably not Ted Cruz, who happens to be disliked by pretty much everyone but staunch Republicans, but most of them. Others, like Jeb Bush or Chris Christie could probably eke out a win, by focusing on economics and foreign policy (and Jeb's Spanish). And Marco Rubio would have absolutely creamed Clinton's clock.

But that wasn't made to be. Every establishment candidate knew they could beat Clinton, and therefore decided the way to become President was to first eliminate the other establishment candidates. Bush devoted his cash to taking down Marco Rubio. Marco and Cruz duelled over immigration. Chris attacked Marco on repeating talking points. Kasich didn't attack anyone, but reserved his own slice of voters who don't like attacking.

So when it turned out that Trump voters were 40% of primary voters, they easily smashed everyone else to bits. No one was left to unite that 60%, and Clinton was handed the gift of facing Donald Trump.

And Trump is a gift. Clinton has a talking point for nearly every demographic and why Trump wants to destroy their lives. Swing voters are quite happy to dump the Trump and head for the hills. It doesn't matter how bad Trump is, because Trump is worse.

Now, she can still lose. There are about 90 days left, and anything can happen. But right now Trump is predicting that the election is going to be rigged. It won't be, but after he loses he can claim it was.