Michael Moore Explains Why Donald Trump Will Win In November – And It Actually Makes Perfect Sense

Michael Moore - Photo by Nicolas GeninMichael Moore is a radical leftist that is trying to destroy everything that America once stood for, but for once he is making sense.  In his recent article entitled “5 Reasons Why Trump Will Win“, he makes a compelling case for why Donald Trump could win the election in November.  I can’t remember the last time I actually agreed with Michael Moore about something, but in this instance I do.  The American people are very angry and very frustrated, and they want someone that is going to shake things up in Washington.  Needless to say, that is not going to be Hillary Clinton.  According to Real Clear Politics, Trump has won five of the last six major national polls, and top Democrats are starting to understand that they could actually lose to the New York billionaire.

As Michael Moore has pointed out, the key to the election may be the upper Midwest.  That is why it may turn out to be very wise that Trump has picked a running mate from the region.  Residents of the upper Midwest have watched NAFTA and other “free trade deals” turn their formerly booming economy into an area now known as “the rust belt”.  Now that there is a major presidential candidate that is openly speaking out against these “free trade deals”, they will finally have a real opportunity to let their voices be heard.  The following is from the Michael Moore article that I mentioned above…

I believe Trump is going to focus much of his attention on the four blue states in the rustbelt of the upper Great Lakes – Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Four traditionally Democratic states – but each of them have elected a Republican governor since 2010 (only Pennsylvania has now finally elected a Democrat). In the Michigan primary in March, more Michiganders came out to vote for the Republicans (1.32 million) that the Democrats (1.19 million). Trump is ahead of Hillary in the latest polls in Pennsylvania and tied with her in Ohio. Tied? How can the race be this close after everything Trump has said and done? Well maybe it’s because he’s said (correctly) that the Clintons’ support of NAFTA helped to destroy the industrial states of the Upper Midwest.

Since NAFTA went into effect on January 1, 1994, the United States has lost tens of thousands of manufacturing facilities and millions of good paying jobs.  Once upon a time, the city of Detroit had the highest per capita income in the entire country, but now it is a rotting, decaying, crime-infested disaster zone that the rest of the world makes jokes about.

It was under Bill Clinton that NAFTA was implemented, and Bill and Hillary have long been supportive of NAFTA and other “free trade deals” that have been responsible for systematically dismantling America’s economic infrastructure.  Trump has already made this a major theme of his campaign, and the voters in the rust belt states could potentially make the difference in who wins in November.  Here is some additional analysis from Michael Moore

And this is where the math comes in. In 2012, Mitt Romney lost by 64 electoral votes. Add up the electoral votes cast by Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. It’s 64. All Trump needs to do to win is to carry, as he’s expected to do, the swath of traditional red states from Idaho to Georgia (states that’ll never vote for Hillary Clinton), and then he just needs these four rust belt states. He doesn’t need Florida. He doesn’t need Colorado or Virginia. Just Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. And that will put him over the top. This is how it will happen in November.

But there is another factor that Michael Moore has pointed out that I think we should consider as well.  While most American voters take their votes very seriously, there is a small minority that will let some of the most frivolous reasons imaginable decide their votes.

Some Americans just want a good story.  Others want to stick it to the establishment.  Yet others just “want to see what will happen” if a certain person gets into the White House.  And it seems quite likely that Donald Trump will win the “curiosity vote”, the “anger vote”, and “the twisted sense of humor vote”.  Everyone pretty much knows what we will get with Hillary Clinton in the White House (and it would be horrible), but there is a great mystery as far as what Donald Trump would do as president.  I happen to agree with Michael Moore that this is a factor that greatly favors Trump

You can take as long as you need in there and no one can make you do anything. You can push the button and vote a straight party line, or you can write in Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck. There are no rules. And because of that, and the anger that so many have toward a broken political system, millions are going to vote for Trump not because they agree with him, not because they like his bigotry or ego, but just because they can. Just because it will upset the apple cart and make mommy and daddy mad. And in the same way like when you’re standing on the edge of Niagara Falls and your mind wonders for a moment what would that feel like to go over that thing, a lot of people are going to love being in the position of puppetmaster and plunking down for Trump just to see what that might look like.

But before you get too excited about a Trump presidency, let us not forget that the electoral map tends to greatly favor Democrats.  All Hillary has to do is to win all of the states that she is expected to win and add one battleground state

Perhaps you enjoy talk of battleground states. Well, there’s a scenario for you, too. First, pick the six “closest” swing states (VA, NH, IA, OH, FL, NC). Got it? Now understand that New Hampshire excepted, Clinton only has to win one of them in order to reach the requisite 270 electoral votes to win.

It remains my contention that the establishment will do whatever they have to do to keep Donald Trump out of the White House.  And now that the general election looks like it will be much closer than anticipated, we may get to see what lengths the establishment is willing to go to in order to get rid of a “problem candidate”.

Hillary Clinton is an utterly evil and extremely corrupt politician, but the establishment absolutely loves her.  She would say and do just about anything to get elected, and the establishment knows that she will do their bidding.

So we shall see what happens between now and November, but personally I don’t see any way that this is going to end well…

This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.
  • wehaveseenthisb4

    “… trying to destroy everything that America once stood for …” Disagree that shark was jumped a long time ago. RE: Detroit.

  • andrew1212

    The following is quite off-subject…but I thought I would post anyways because it asks some questions about the election.



    Ever notice the charges never stick–there are never consequences.

    No consequences for Hillary…Debbie Wasserman Schultz actually gets and upgrade to Clinton’s campaign.

    Corrupt media gets to profit $15 BILLION off the storm surrounding the federal elections of 2016…maybe the CIA knows no one in the USA cares about these corrupt politicians–so they have to fan the flames.

    Did the CIA or the U.S. State Department pay any price for earlier revelations?

    Maybe the only victims of wikileaks are enemies of the U.S.

    Why doesn’t wikileaks publish hard to find books?

    Why aren’t there any documents about 9/11?

    Why does wikileaks–which isn’t even in the U.S.–allow the U.S. government censors to OK their releases (as they did with the new DNC-Clinton releases)? That makes zero effing sense.

    How can a man in a room which the CIA-NSA-DIA all know exactly where he is continuously outsmart a military-intelligence sector which has spent billions and billions of dollars to, among other things, read and have access to every electronic communication on the planet?

    Maybe Michael Hastings was going to out wikileaks–so they whacked him…Maybe Michael Hastings was going to out Edward Snowden as a fake CIA operation so they whacked Hastings.

    Maybe by releasing the info thru wikileaks–the U.S. government gets to play the victim card (like it so often does). When you’re the victim the world cries for you–you can make demands on other governments much easier because they are sympathetic.

    Does the world really believe the U.S. government couldn’t take down a website if it wanted to?

    • wunsacon

      >> Ever notice the charges never stick–there are never consequences.

      Yes. My guess is it’s because we foster and have a culture of selfishness. Well, though *staffed* by people with a range of virtue, a government *run* by people “in it for themselves” doesn’t work to enforce the rules unless it profits from enforcing them.

      >> Does the world really believe the U.S. government couldn’t take down a website if it wanted to?

      And how would that look? How would it look for one of Uncle Sam’s criticisms against China to become applicable to itself?

  • Brockland A.T.

    Trump 2016.

    Why? The alternative is Hilary.

    • Carl_Herman

      Prison for both parties’ “leaders” in 2016.

      Why? The alternative is ongoing Wars of Aggression, Bankster looting, and only lies.

      • Brockland A.T.

        … Trump hasn’t done anything yet but flap his big mouth.

        Given the strong laws against hate speech, if Trump were guilty of some infraction on that count someone would have successfully charged him by now.

        Trump’s day job as real estate billionaire has put him at odds more often then not with the banks, because banks are no-one friend but they really aren’t your friend if you can beat them on occasion. The Big Banks and Trump probably don’t like each other very much.

        Whether or not Trump becomes an active warmonger is in doubt. That’s why the Democrats have become the party of neoconservatism and the so-called foreign policy elite of the Republican Party (neocon globalist warmongers) have joined the assorted thugs of team Hilary.


        • Charlie Primero

          So you will support Wall Street’s candidate instead; a known murderer, war criminal, and bankster shill?

          • Brockland A.T.

            You’re attempting the tu coque fallacy against myself, (appeal to hypocrisy) in a manner that that can only promote Only Hilary (eeew).


            Hilary is Wall Street’s candidate and the candidate of the far more putrid warmongering neoconservatives. I’ve clearly advocated strategically voting Trump 2016. In other words, I’m solidly in the Never Hilary camp.

            I’ve also been one of the few posters recognizing Jill Stein (Green Party) as the moral choice, and was one of the first to do so consistently from thread to thread. Jill Stein reminds voters what sane looks like, and also recognizes that some people cannot vote strategically even if their lives and the lives on others will likely depend on it.

            The simple pluralty vote math remains.

            Never Trump = Only Hilary

            Never Trump + Never Hilary = Only Hilary

            Jill Stein (Green Party) = Likely Hilary (subject to the above equations rendered moot should Jill Stein miraculously go viral).

            Democrazie neocon partisans will not stay home and the Democratic Party is for all intents and purposes the party of neoconservatism in 2016. The neocons have clearly sided with Hilary.

            Donald Trump is not a neocon and all that stands between a President Hilary Clinton neocon shill administration for 2017 and everything it can do based on Hilary Clinton’s factual record as a neocon warmongering war-criming shill.


            Says Robert Kagan, Neocon High Guru: “If, as I hope, Hillary Clinton is elected, she is going to immediately be confronting a country that is not where she is,” he said.

            “She is a believer in this world order. But a great section of the
            country is not and is going to require persuasion and education.”


            Require ‘persuasion and education’… indeed…

            The Neocons even recognize, Hilary is not the People’s choice (according to national polls, Bernie was – before he sold out) and Hilary is advocated not to respect the substantial opposition of the American People to neoconservatism.

          • wunsacon

            Charlie, I suspect you misread Brockland’s comment. He opposes Hillary.

  • Carl_Herman

    What a shameless “straw man” way to start an essay, Michael Snyder, when Michael Moore has more “hits” than “misses” in his public work to point to game-changing crimes of the .01% elite.

    You make some good points, but miss these:

    1. Elections are not elections when there is no paper-trail to count from electronic voting machines.
    2. Hillary, the DNC, and corporate media stole the primaries.
    3. The biggest issues include both Left and Right arms of one political body supporting lie-started and unlawful wars, bankster looting in the trillions, and ongoing corporate media lying.

    I could go on.

    Anyway, you inspired my comment by opening with such an “anti-journalist” lie that demands explanation with documentation if you’re going to make it.

  • wunsacon

    Michael Snyder,

    I suspect you chose your opening rhetoric to disarm potential R-wing readers that you haven’t started siding with MM generally:

    >> Michael Moore is a radical leftist that is trying to destroy everything that America once stood for

    But, America “once stood for” such items as genocide, slavery, child labor, undrinkable rivers, poisonous air, etc. And it retains some of those or other unfortunate characteristics. Accordingly, trying to change it has been and can continue to be a *good* thing. Therefore, your contrarian opening rhetorical statement distracts/detracts from the rest of what is probably an otherwise fine article.

    • Charlie Primero

      America and Western Civilization fought hard to end genocides, slavery, child labor, undrinkable rivers, poisonous air, etc.

      It is absurd to wag your finger at Americans for remedied past faults while the exact same maladies CURRENTLY exist in parts of the world suffering from the lingering effects of Marxism like China, Congo, Venezuela, et al., and the growing effects of Islam.

      You are like the fat, rich kid who bitches that his parents provide him with too much food.

      • wunsacon

        You’re misreading history.

        >> the lingering effects of Marxism like China, Congo, Venezuela

        More like: Lingering effects of countries that revolted against colonialism and gained independence in the 1940’s, 1970’s, or 2000’s — TWO HUNDRED years later than the USA and thus start with a disadvantage — and don’t have an endless supply of land to steal from one group of technologically disadvantaged humans and can’t steal an endless supply of labor from another group of technologically+politically-disadvantaged humans.

        You are the fat rich kid who concludes the poor are poor because of their choices and forget that your great grandpa robbed them and that your dad and his friends keep trying to re-colonize them again.

  • wunsacon


    For s***s and giggles, go to the Alternet website and look at how they pivot off of the recent DNC/DWS debacles. (“Independent” or “progressive” media, aye?) But, then, visit the comments section and you’ll see their readers are “having none of it”. (The readers there almost uniformly criticize/hate Killary. The *few* “regulars” that support Killary post such short / weak rebuttals that I have to wonder whether they’re paid.)

    I’d add to the comment section there except that an Alternet moderator — citing RawStory’s TOS — banned me there.

  • People only flock and do not reason or evaluate folks. Thanks government planation schooling!

    Jul 7, 2016 The Close Relationship Between Donald Trump and the Clintons

    Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton act as if they are arch enemies. But is it all just politics?


  • Kansas_Voter

    “the electoral map tends to greatly favor Democrats. All Hillary has to
    do is to win all of the states that she is expected to win and add one”

    That’s true for a generic democrat, but Hillary is so widely hated that she can’t be counted on to carry the states that Obama won and Trump is such a wild card that you can’t expect him to lose the purple states that a generic republican would lose.