Why Trump Could Win

The unfortunate reality of a Trump win on November 5th and what it means.

I've come to believe that Trump will win the 2024 election. But let’s be clear—this victory won’t rest on well-defined policies or a strategy to unify a fractured nation. No, this potential victory will be a direct result of his unrivaled ability to manipulate the political and social landscape through relentless propaganda and strategically deployed disinformation. This isn’t about bringing people together; it’s about dividing them so completely that rational discourse with his believers becomes impossible. His methods, from co-opting media to mobilizing disinformation, are crafted to appeal to the basest instincts of those who fear losing a world that has never really existed. And if he wins, it won’t be due to any well-intentioned policies; it will be due to lies, manipulation, and a carefully crafted image of himself as the nation's last and only hope— “I alone can fix it.”

What we would face this time, though, is on an entirely different level. His first term saw democratic norms severely tested, but there were still safeguards—both structural and cultural—that kept his administration somewhat in check. Now, after years of dismantling these defenses, what we face is a far bleaker outlook. Those constitutional protections, checks on power, and democratic guardrails are now eroded or outright dismantled. This sets a stage for his inner circle of theocratic nationalists, who are ready to exploit every fissure in our political system to advance a vision fundamentally opposed to the principles of a free and democratic society. Through the likes of Project 2025, Trump has enlisted groups like the Heritage Foundation to write an administration blueprint so ideologically extreme that it promises to transform government into a tool not for the people but against them. This time, those in power won’t just be loyalists—they’ll be true believers in the MAGA movement, individuals whose allegiance lies with Trump’s twisted vision of America, one that glorifies nationalism at the cost of reason, science, and basic human decency.

For those in swing states, and for every person who values the principles of democracy and freedom, this upcoming election represents a turning point. As we approach election day, we should all confront what lies at stake if Trump does indeed prevail. This isn’t just about policy shifts or budget allocations, or the economy, or the stock market; this is about a headlong descent into a society where authoritarianism is the rule. We’re talking about a future where his administration not only pursues those it deems “enemies”—be they political rivals, immigrants, or dissidents—but where the government itself transforms into an extension of Trump’s personal vendettas—a vendetta he has said he will pursue and carry out.
Imagine a country where mass deportations break up families without due process, where unchecked police brutality is rewarded rather than condemned, and where our private lives, bedrooms, and beliefs are policed. Imagine living in a country where criticism of the government could be met with imprisonment, where political opponents are silenced and punished, and where Congress members are forced to undergo tribunals reminiscent of authoritarian regimes. This isn’t a dystopian projection; these are all measures Trump has openly supported, indicating just how dangerously far he’s willing to go.

It’s astonishing that people refuse to take Trump at his word, brushing off his statements as if they’re just theater, distractions meant to stir the pot but not reflect true intent. Time and again, he has made it clear who he is and what he stands for. Yet many seem unable—or unwilling—to see him for what he plainly shows. To do so would be to reexamine their own life and the choices they have made, and the beliefs they have adopted therein. If we cannot take a person at their own word, then their word becomes meaningless.

This is the question we face: What do we choose to believe? The words he speaks, or some softened, wishful interpretation from others who insist he doesn’t really mean what he says? I said it before: Words matter. When someone shows you who they are, believe them.

This refusal to accept Trump’s statements as genuine intentions is a dangerous form of denial. He’s not speaking in riddles or vague metaphors; he’s often startlingly direct about his disdain for opposition, his admiration for authoritarian tactics, his love affair with dictatorial leaders across the world, and his vision of a nation shaped by force and control.

He openly champions leaders who stifle dissent, consolidate power, and silence criticism—qualities antithetical to democratic principles and the very freedoms America claims to uphold. His admiration isn’t reserved for those who foster open debate or respect civil liberties; instead, it’s directed toward autocrats who view opposition as a threat to be extinguished. This alone should disqualify Trump from holding office, as it reveals a mindset fundamentally incompatible with democratic leadership.

Yet, despite this glaring contradiction, his supporters turn a blind eye to it. They ignore, minimize, or outright deny the implications of his praise for oppressive regimes, as though his admiration for authoritarianism doesn’t reflect his own intentions. They rationalize his actions, downplay his words, and weave justifications to avoid confronting the uncomfortable truth: that the leader they champion sees democratic values not as guiding principles but as obstacles to his personal power.
By choosing not to see this, his base essentially enables a vision that erodes the freedoms and checks on authority that protect individual rights. This selective blindness isn’t just a personal compromise; it’s a compromise on the ideals of freedom and justice that should be at the core of any leader in a democratic society. Ignoring the obvious reality of what his authoritarian leanings represent is a conscious choice—a choice that could have consequences far beyond the here and now, impacting the very foundation of governance, law and order, and public accountability.

When Trump talks about “locking up” his enemies or cleansing government of those who disagree with him, he’s not just entertaining his base—he’s projecting his vision of what his rule would look like. Conversely, why should anyone with integrity trust a man whose word serves only as political fodder, if that’s truly the essence of his rhetoric? Trump’s own supporters can’t seem to take him at face value, tirelessly bending over backward to explain or defend every statement he makes. It must be exhausting to constantly rationalize away the very words he repeats with such conviction.

---

Final Words:

Trump’s political ambitions are inseparably linked to his personal stakes—specifically, his desire to avoid facing the mounting legal consequences that could land him in prison. Unlike most candidates who seek office to advance specific policies or ideals, Trump’s current campaign appears to be driven by a need for protection rather than policy. With multiple indictments and ongoing investigations, he faces the real prospect of criminal conviction. In this context, winning the presidency isn’t merely about reclaiming power; it’s a bid for survival.

As president, Trump would regain immunity from prosecution, shielded by the powers of the executive office, and thus avoid the immediate threat of incarceration. His platform reflects this desperation; instead of offering a vision for the country’s future, he focuses on dismantling the very institutions that hold him accountable. His rallies and speeches are peppered with attacks on the judiciary, law enforcement agencies, and any figure who dares to scrutinize his actions. He’s already stated intentions to overhaul the Department of Justice and pursue his prosecutors, effectively positioning the presidency as a weaponized office he can wield against those who challenge him legally.

If Trump wins, it won’t be a mandate; it will be a testament to the power of propaganda in a nation vulnerable to disinformation. It will be because a considerable portion of Americans have chosen to embrace a worldview fueled by fear and self-interest, clinging to myths that validate only their own grievances. These are, many times, beliefs crafted and cultivated through years of relentless disinformation, with Trump himself at the helm, a master manipulator who understands how to stir the ugliest, most divisive impulses within society, giving authority to those around us to be their worst selves and act upon their worst instincts, seemingly without a second thought. In so doing, he will have achieved what many feared—a transformation of American democracy into something unrecognizable, ruled not by just and fair laws that recognize our personal rights and freedoms, but by the whims of a leader who has shown time and again that he serves himself before the people.

This would be a win achieved not through merit but through the distortion of reality, a triumph rooted in his ability to stoke anger, confusion, and distrust in democratic institutions. Trump’s base isn’t mobilized by constructive vision but by a barrage of conspiracies and scapegoating that obscures the very real risks his return would pose to the democratic process. If this approach succeeds, it will reveal the depths to which he has manipulated a portion of the American populace, convincing them that his personal legal troubles are somehow theirs to defend, even at the expense of their own freedoms and rights.

What we would see in such a victory is the frightening power of a well-crafted narrative—one that preys on insecurities and convinces citizens that democracy itself is the enemy. Instead of honest debate, he leans on misdirection and misinformation, exploiting a weakened public trust to keep the focus on fabricated threats rather than his own quest to subvert justice. A win for Trump under these circumstances isn’t just a political outcome; it’s a troubling indicator of how easily the truth can be overpowered by a relentless and self-serving narrative that sees power not as a duty to govern but as a lifeline to avoid the consequences of his actions.


Jeff Green