Beware all "experts" who tell you something will happen. That a candidate will win and another candidate will lose. The certainty expressed in these types of statements, which you see on the answers to this question -- particularly that Trump has no chance against Hillary Clinton -- are nothing more than bluster, and an arrogant attempt to dismissively declare that something is certain, and of course, as a truth sayer, it is you above all people who just knows this to be the case.

Let's get something straight. The answer to any question like this asked anywhere is always "we don't know." When asked "can this candidate beat that candidate?" the answer is always, and I do mean always, "yes."

Many other people here have declared that, of course, Hillary Clinton would not only beat Trump, but beat him handily. This certainty is nonsense. Can she win? Would she be a nominal favorite? Is she currently leading some important battleground states, according to the polls?
Yes to all.
But just because she can win, and just because she would be a marginal favorite, and just because she's polling well against Trump right now, does not mean she is going to win, that it is at all certain, or that it would in any way be easy for her.

In fact, there are a number of very real scenarios that would result in Donald Trump winning the election.

For Clinton, there is a huge problem she faces in rust belt states like Pennsylvania and Michigan, which have a tremendous number of white, blue collar, working class voters who blame free trade, and countries like China and Mexico for their job losses and economic decline.

This is also true of Maine's 2nd District, which is only worth a single electoral vote, but can easily be won by Trump for the same reasons.

These voters -- a significant number of whom are Democrats, incidentally -- will not vote for Mrs. Clinton, a free trader and the wife of the man who signed NAFTA, when presented a real alternative.

Blue collar Democrats -- guys who are in unions and hate free trade and blame it for the decline of manufacturing and with it, union jobs -- will go for Trump.

Why? Because they have had roughly 30 years or so of having no one of either party to vote for who represents their interests. If you are a millworker from northern Maine and you lost your job to foreign competition due to globalization and free trade, neither Republicans nor Democrats have spoken to the anger within you that such a thing has sparked.

Think about it. You made good money. You provided for your family. Suddenly a bunch of low wage workers from what you consider a third world hellhole (whether that is fair or not is not the point) steal your jobs when the company you work for offshores your factory. Republicans cheer. Democrats cheer. They both love free trade. You hate it, and you blame it for your poor economic circumstance.

The number of these voters who have been depressed, ignored, dismissed, and outright ridiculed is tremendous. And there are a lot of them in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin. A lot.

That means that these states -- particularly Pennsylvania and Michigan -- which have been Republican targets for nearly thirty years to no avail, have a very real possibility of flipping.

That would represent 36 electoral votes that Clinton would lose, and Trump would gain.

The rest of the south and the Midwest would operate as a pure red phalanx. It really doesn't matter if Trump loses some members of the Republican party down there. The conservative base, plus the reenergized blue collar voters of all parties would more than make up for any loss of the "intellectual right."

There may be a chance for Clinton to take a place like Montana, perhaps, but that is pretty unlikely, and those three electoral votes won't matter anyway.

All this could mean a 290 to 248 win in the electoral college for Trump.

Her only hope, if Trump were to take Pennsylvania and Michigan, would be winning Florida, which is a real possibility, given the strength of retired voters and the very diverse population. But it is still a very red state, at the end of the day, and you can't say with any certainty what would happen.

Then again, if she wins Florida and Trump wins Virginia, Trump still wins the election. That's how strong a position he is put in by winning some of those rust belt states that Republicans typically lose.

And that doesn't even touch the possibility -- which is real -- that Trump could win a state like Wisconsin, which would lead to a 20 vote swing in his direction.

In other words, Trump's path is actually rather unique, but real. Trump's power with white working class voters that have felt ignored and beaten down for decades is no joke, and can not be denied, and Clinton has no antidote for it.
(@ Matthew Gagnon)

Regardless of who wins the election, Gulchers will lose. The question is whether we will lose our freedoms or the contents of our bank accounts, or perhaps ... both.

I think Trump would lose a hypothetical two-way race against any other major candidate running, including Republicans and Gary Johnson.