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 truthsayer, 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 on Quora or anywhere else 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.

Now before I go any further, I should mention -- since I guess I have to -- that I do not like Mr. Trump. I did not vote for him in my state's caucus, and I can't imagine myself voting for him under any circumstances. I will never vote for Hillary Clinton for anything -- ever -- but my distaste for Mr. Trump is well established. But, it would be foolish to (as seems to be common on the answers here) allow my distaste for him pervert my view of the politics of this potential race.

--snip--

You will notice that I have given Mrs. Clinton the benefit of the doubt in states like Nevada, Colorado, Iowa and New Mexico, that have an huge Hispanic population, and would (in this hypothetical example) come out for her as they did for Obama.

There are reasons to think that wouldn't happen, and that other factors -- like explosive turnout among blue collar, middle class voters -- would change the calculus in those states. But, for the sake of this example, let's just make the assumption that Trump loses those states.

I also gave Mrs. Clinton Virginia, mostly on the strength of the voters in northern Virginia, and the weight that carries statewide. Again, there is a counter-argument to make there that I think is realistic and logical, but just to demonstrate his electability, let's give it to Clinton.

Even with all of those states going to 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.

--snip--

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.

--snip--

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.

--snip--

Let's talk about polling.

This is even more important today than ten or twenty years ago, as response rates to polls have fallen off a cliff, leading pollsters to rely increasingly on modeling.

If they get that universe wrong, disaster ensues. For example, two weeks before the 2013 Virginia gubernatorial race between Terry McAuliffe and Ken Cuccinelli, McAuliffe was ahead in several polls by double digits. One poll had him up 11 points. Another had him up 15 points. Another, 17 points.

On election day, McAuliffe did win, but he only won by 2.5%.

This has been repeated in state after state, with congressional races, Senate races, gubernatorial races, and even at the presidential level.

--snip--

Pollsters build models based on previous election cycles, who came out to vote in what years for which candidates, and they primarily base their assumptions on those facts.

When you build in the critical problems of increased cell phone only households, entire demographics of people (often conservative) no longer answering polls, and variations of the Bradley effect, you have a very difficult time polling anything accurately these days.

This is a particularly bad problem this year. We aren't talking about the stupidity of the "unskewed polls" that conservatives bought into in 2012, here. That was unscientific, irrational, and wishful thinking. This is something else.

The blue collar, working class voters I mentioned earlier have been actually staying home for several elections now. Models will be built this year assuming the previous few presidential elections are a real guide, and they aren't.

--snip--

Next, let's talk about demographics

Hillary proponents lean on demographics for their belief that she would win. The logic goes, she will win women, she will win Latinos, she will win African-Americans, and she will ride those groups to the Oval Office.

All of those can be true, but they don't mean she wins. In fact, if she won all of those groups by the exact same percentage that Barack Obama won in 2012, she could still lose.

How?

Turnout.

If turnout among those groups is even a couple points lower than it was for President Obama, she is in a world of trouble. If turnout among white, middle class voters is significantly up at the same time, she is really in trouble.

You see, it isn't the percentages of demographics won that matters.

Mitt Romney, for example, won more of the white vote than Ronald Reagan did. It just didn't matter, because there were fewer white people as a share of the total population in 2012 as compared to 1980 and 1984. Beyond that, the turnout numbers for white voters wasn't where it was for Reagan.

President Obama turned out historic numbers of young people, and ethnic minorities. That can not be overstated. People who had never voted. People who had never been engaged in the process. People who felt a deep and strong connection to the candidate.

Will Hillary -- a horrendously bad politician (something even her supporters admit) -- be able to turn those groups out at the same level in 2016? Maybe, but the likelihood is low.

And I need to reiterate just what a threat that defecting blue collar Democrats -- particularly union members in the working class -- are to Hillary. You really think they are going to vote for a free trader over the guy promising to restore the power of American manufacturing by slapping tariffs on imports and protecting American industry from foreign competition?

If you think that... well, you're wrong. That is a huge huge problem for Hillary, especially if Trump can demonstrate ANY ability to keep the Republicans home, and bring people together after the convention. It isn't actually a hard thing for him to do, and if he does it, she is in a lot of trouble.