Is Trump’s campaign imploding?
Even though I’ve come to believe that Trump is a terrible candidate for the general election and would like to see him replaced by a viable conservative alternative, I take no comfort whatsoever in how poorly he seems to be doing right now. That’s because the prospect of a Clinton win fills me with deep alarm and even despair.
I have thought for a long time that both candidates would be very bad presidents, but in somewhat different ways. Lately, I have been leaning towards an exceedingly reluctant Trump vote, but I was hoping (not assuming, but hoping) that if he were to be elected—an event I think is extremely unlikely—he would be significantly better at the job than I feared.
So if his campaign is doing poorly, it not only distresses me because the prospect of a Clinton presidency distresses me, but because it indicates that, among other things, I could be correct in my assessment of his organizational skills as poor-to-middling in anything other than the narrow areas of his expertise, which are real estate development and self-promotion. Self-promotion helped him get the nomination; it may or may not get him the presidency (I think “not”). But it can’t make him a competent president, and running a country as its chief executive is not at all the same as running a business such as his.
It would not comfort me to be correct about this if he ends up as president. If he ends up as president I want him to be a much much better chief executive—and man—than I think he is.
Remember one of the main arguments for Trump in the beginning? The one all the Trump-supporters around the blogosphere were touting as his strong suit, that he wouldn’t be beholden to big money donors because he was self-funding? Some of the bad news about Trump concerns the fact that, although he may be self-funding at this point, it seems to be because he can’t get donors to give him money. And “self-funding” is a relative term, because it turns out (as many have long hinted) that he either won’t give his campaign much money, either, or that he can’t give his campaign much money because he’s neither as rich nor as liquid as he’d said he was.
If you want to see some of the myriad articles on this, go here. RedState also has a lot coverage of the funding story: see this, this (an especially interesting one), this, and this.
Trump’s campaign argument during the primaries has rested on four pillars. The first is his anti-immigration rhetoric. The second is his anti-PC-rhetoric. The third is that he’s less corrupt than the others, in part because he’s rich. And the fourth is that he’s a great manager.
His current money problems undermine those last two points. In the event that he somehow does end up winning it all, it will almost certainly be because of a fifth pillar: he’s not Hillary.
I don’t think it will be enough.
Your concerns are certainly valid. His campaign could be dubbed the “New Amateur Hour”. This morning I see that he is denying that his Kids are calling the shots.
Although off on a bit of a tangent, I will add one other concern; not a new one, but one that frequently resurfaces as it has in the past few days. He simply cannot respond to any stimulus in a tone that approaches Presidential.
The Orlando massacre is just the most recent example of his having to back away from, or clarify, his initial statement. “Oh no, I did not mean that the potentially drunk patrons in a night club should be armed; I meant (security) staff.” For Pete’s sake Trump (whoever Pete may be) think before you open your mouth the first time.
I wish I’d predicted much of this …
Oh..
Wait…
Perhaps not imploding but if not, going through growth pains. I suspect reports of greater involvement of Trump’s kids is true and may be beneficial. They’ll reduce gaffs, but risk preventing Trump from speaking frankly. How to do that while keeping him from sticking his foot in his mouth is the challenge.
The funding issue I don’t foresee as particularly troublesome. And he’ll delegate as President, so bringing on board good people will be critical.
I continue to think his chances rest upon whatever amount of assistance ISIS renders him.
You have to wonder how serious Trump really is about running for and being elected President. As has been mentioned, you don’t have to be a tin foil hat to wonder if Bill didn’t goad Trump into running; realizing that Hillary is a wretched candidate.
Goat screw all the way around. Well at least he’s not that awful Ted Cruz, right Republican party?
Trumps history is ubiquitous. I have went through a great deal of it, and have found very little to suggest, he ever has conservative ideas, unless he is trying to personally gain something, i.e. he found “the wall” only shortly before he decided to seek the republican nomination. His natural inclinations are leftist and authoritarian. We have seen this with his responses during the primary, such as the ethanol subsides, opening our libel laws, and speaking with the NRA to obtain support for denying people their ability to purchase firearms, when they appear on a watch list that deprives individuals of due process. For him to govern in any meaningfully different way than Hillary, he would have to have a road to Damascus moment, and I have not seen that, and do not believe it will happen. It is terrible to contemplate, but our choices, as of now, are between two liberal democrats who will lead us to the same destination, and it is not a city on a hill.
well, if the press spends two hours on his hands and 37 seconds on benghazzi, yeah, it seems he is doing badly
they want you to think its imploding… and they are very good and painting false images.. now we even have the rape we were waiting for… (it appears like clockwork when there is someone who has had a decent life and so has nothing bad enough that the left can control them and protect them in exchange for what they want)
“Voters who have relied on the network evening newscasts for information about the 2016 presidential candidates saw four times more airtime devoted to controversies involving presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump than to the scandals surrounding his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton,” wrote Rich Noyes
Analysts at the organization reviewed all 1,099 stories on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts that addressed the presidential campaign between Jan. 1 through June 7, including weekends. This was an enormous amount of content: 2,137 minutes of campaign coverage, or more than one-fourth of all evening news airtime during this period.
Mr. Trump was the subject of nearly half it, or 1,068 minutes. Mrs. Clinton warranted 583 minutes, and Sen. Bernard Sanders of Vermont, 366 minutes of coverage.
Forty percent (432 minutes) of Mr. Trump’s coverage was negative
Only 18 percent of Clinton’s coverage (105 minutes) was spent discussing similar controversies
[they cut the article down to delete the disparity, so you have to go to the actual study now to read what you cant read you could have read before.
Benghazi attack drew only 77 seconds of evening news airtime from January 1 through June 7
Clinton’s participation in a racially-charged comedy skit with New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio 51 seconds
conflict-of-interest scandal surrounding the Clinton Foundation a paltry 44 seconds (and half of that came from Bernie!)
Clinton’s e-mail server scandal was the most-covered candidate controversy of the primary season 47 minutes of airtime
The only other Clinton controversy to crack the Top 20 was discussion of Bill Clinton’s past adultery and alleged mistreatment of women – a topic only covered because it was brought up by Trump.
Violence at some of Trump’s rallies (31 minutes)
racially-charged criticism of the judge in the Trump University fraud case (27 minutes)
history of liberal policy positions and shift to the left on some issues (24 minutes)
sexist rhetoric and charges of crude behavior with women (22 minutes)
Hillary Clinton: her big money speeches to Wall Street banks, and her refusal to release transcripts of those speeches (7 minutes, 35 seconds); and her reliance on massive campaign contributions from the wealthy (6 minutes, 50 seconds).
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
and you guys think that you form good ideas of whats going on? above is measured… you let me know whether you knew it was THAT BAD, and if people can correct a skew of that degree.
how much of what you think you know do you really know when they do this?
wish i could put up an image, maybe neo would help:
http://newsbusters.org/s3/files/styles/blog_body-100/s3/images/trumphillarycontroversies.jpg
Scott Adams
Trump fired Corey Lewandowski yesterday. Is that bad or good?
Well, if you are on the Clinton team, you try to frame it as campaign chaos, and evidence that Trump doesn’t hire the best people.
let’s look at the firing through a persuasion filter
If you are Paul Manafort, and you want to send a clear signal that the Trump campaign plans to do a post-convention pivot to a more presidential vibe, what’s the best way to do that?
Answer: Fire Corey Lewandowski.
But the timing of the firing cleverly turned it into a persuasion signal. Firing an advisor who is that close to you is a strong move. And it actually fits the story that Trump is good at hiring. Wait, what?
Here’s why.
A very-rich entrepreneur recently told me that the secret of hiring a good team of people is being ruthless in firing your mistakes. Lewandowski was the right guy for the primaries — evidently — but perhaps not a good fit for the general. If Trump can fire a close advisor and personal friend in this situation, do you worry that he can do it while President?
Being good at hiring is only useful if you are good at firing. No one can hire perfect people who stay that way through all situations. When the situation changes, or the people change, you have to prune. Trump pruned Lewandowski at what appears to be the right time for the signal it sends
more at scott adams blog..
Persuasion is the only battlefield that matters. Facts and reason are not important to the outcome of this election, or any other.
and he ends with:
I endorsed Hillary Clinton for my personal safety because I live in California. I write about Trump’s powers of persuasion and it would not be safe to be mistaken for a Trump supporter in my zip code. Plus, I’m a top-one-percenter, so I don’t want to rock the boat. Things are good for me right now. You folks might want some change, but not me.
I wanted to see bho’s college transcripts in 2008, now I want to see djt’s tax returns. The donald needs to show us just how YUGELY wealthy he is so we will know he is the genius of finance he wants us to believe him to be.
GB,
Your comedic flare is showing, “so bringing on board good people” made me laugh. The donald should announce at the convention that he will bequeath his nomination to Ivanka.
Junius,
I thought the same thing last summer. Then I thought he did not really want the nomination and was on a mission to mess up the gop primaries. Now I think djt is totally unhinged. The trumptantrum will definitely be YUGE either at the convention or come November.
Guccifer 2.0
In addition to a “standard” $225,000 fee, Clinton required a “chartered roundtrip private jet” that needed to be a Gulfstream 450 or a larger aircraft. Depending on its outfitting, the Gulfstream jet, which costs upwards of $40 million, can seat 19 passengers and “sleeps up to six.” Clinton’s contract also stipulated that speech hosts had to pay for separate first class or business airfare for three of her aides.
As for lodging, Clinton required “a presidential suite” and up to “three (3) adjoining or contiguous rooms for her travel aides” and up to two extra rooms for advance staff. The host was also responsible for the Clinton travel party’s ground transportation, meals, and “phone charges/cell phones.”
Additionally, the host also had to pay “a flat fee of $1000” for a stenographer to create “an immediate transcript of Secretary Clinton’s remarks.” The contract adds, however, “We will be unable to share a copy of the transcript following the event.”
I wanted to see bho’s college transcripts in 2008, now I want to see djt’s tax returns. The donald needs to show us just how YUGELY wealthy he is so we will know he is the genius of finance he wants us to believe him to be.
you realize that the tax returns of a politiican would be more benign than a investment real estate capitalist…
for instance… what of his wealth is in a trust? or do you think its not in a trust so if he dies the government takes more than half of it? the trust pays taxes.. and do you think he pays himself a large salary, or that his main company provides things like a company car, a company apartment, and more?
then there is the 1031 exchange law that allows you to sell property and roll it into a larger one without gains taxes… and more.
none of these are illegal, all are openly available to the people not to lazy to know, or those wealthy enough to pay a top tax man…
the larger issue for trump is whether the publid will deem his legal actions to be moral actions. i had already heard someone this morning try to make him into a horrible man for buying properties during the housing collapse and that he was a vulture for doing it… is that true? is buying low and selling high what vultures do?
your also going to find in his tax returns that a lot of the bad things he invested in, only licenses his name. ie. trump steaks, he licenses his name, makes money whether they fail or not, and all the risk is in the people that did the deal with him. but he gets the blame as if he ran things.
the OTHER part of it is his taxes are not going to be 100 pages, but more like 30,000 pages due to all the foreign stuff.
and another point… his taxes reveal his business and that is something that raises risk for him… its not the same for an average investor or politician as their actions are not equivalent to their taxes, but trumps is.
so there are all manner of differences, and if he does reveal them openly, you can be sure that he will be hit financially as different tax states will infuence those that do deals with him and who have not revealed their lives and have advantage.
but since he has been audited almost every year for decades and by hostile forces, you can be sure he doesnt have anything bad.. he has stuff that is questionable as the tax law is that way and courts answer the questions that such interpretations require.
its all moot for trumps taxes..
and if you think you can read 50,000 pages of tax law covering forms and things normal people have no idea even exists and then go “ah ha” and find something, your not sane… i know a lot of tax law and i know i wouldnt spot much.
heck.. by show of hands how many out there know about the real estate 1031 tax-deferred exchange rules?
so he can make 10 million on a property and pay no taxes because he bought something larger and similar..
would the public understand the legal law and say ok?
or will they be surprised that such things are the norm and part of business they can take advantage of? my wife and i plan on doing that if we create a business. and my sister been using that in buyhing houses for rentals..
ignorance is costly but people dont know
Artfldgr,
Waiting for djt to ‘pivot’ is like waiting for Godot. It ain’t going to happen in this galaxy. Perhaps Manafort can help djt negotiate the development of a string of luxury golf courses in the Ukraine and Crimea. 😉
Bob,
If Trump is a liberal democrat with leftist and authoritarian ‘inclinations’ then how would that lead him to discover ‘the wall’? Which begs the questions; do you think, if elected, he will continue to allow the borders to remain open? To allow Muslim migration to remain unchecked? To allow the obscene trade balance with China to continue to grow to even higher levels? That he will be as dedicated a foe of the 2nd amendment as Hillary? That his administration would be as infested with Muslim Brotherhood operatives as Obama’s? That as President, he will vigorously deny, as does and will a Pres. Hillary, that the source of Islamic terrorism is Islam itself?
Do you assert there to be no difference between a Pres. Trump and a Pres. Hillary?
parker,
The likelihood of Trump bringing on board unqualified people is a significant concern, until the alternative is considered; the people Hillary will bring on board… incompetence is to be preferred to malevolence.
Artfldgr, thank you for reminding us that HRC is a greedy, sleazy woman (I almost typed lady). Dare I say that you are preaching to the choir?
One of our problems is that the character of HRC, while beneficial to Trump, may not over ride his own deficiencies. Another problem is that HRC’s campaign will be very well organized and well funded. If anyone can make a silk purse out of a “you know what”, they will do it. Finally, HRC goes in with several natural constituencies, in addition to the historical nature of her campaign. I fear that with no attractive alternative, a lot of women will just buy the “glass ceiling” argument. Trump has no natural constituency. If, in addition to his many other negatives, Trump cannot organize and fund better than it seems at present, we are going to hurt–bad.
I have now just about reached the point that my last hope is that Trump does not take the Congress down with him. I have not contributed to the RNC in a long time–I do contribute to individuals–but, I think I will now. They have their work cut out for them.
Artfldgr,
I am not the ignorant dolt you assume me to be. Mrs parker and I are not billionaires, but we are (without bribes and political connections) worth a couple million. And we started with no inherited nest egg. So I think I can understand djt’s tax returns. His failure to be forthright indicates to me that he is wealthy, but not a billionaire, one of his top bullet points on his imaginary ‘presidential material’ resume.
Oldflyer,
I have never contributed to the RNC, I give money to individual candidates. The donald, if not rejected at the convention, will most likely give the progressives control of the US senate, take away from the republican majority in the US house, and possibly flip the major gains the gop has made in state legislatures during the reign of team obama.
IMO only fools ignore djt’s potential down ticket drag.
Ironic, isn’t it — the only guy who could be nominated AND beat Hillary is the only guy who can screw up his campaign enough to lose to Hillary. To paraphrase what the Chinese say (actually, I’ve been informed by usually reliable sources that this is urban legend, the Chinese don’t actually say) we live in interesting times.
Anyway, it appears his kids have taken up the task of reining the Donald in. I hope so, they seem pretty level-headed. (Full disclosure: my daughter thinks she might have been in an 18th Century English Novel class with Ivanka at Penn, but it was a 9:00 o’clock class in a small, dark, room, and my daughter was asleep most of the time, so she’s not sure.)
I vowed I wasn’t going to discuss NeverTrump-ismo again, but, let’s face it, I’m weak.
Bob – the Donald wouldn’t govern any differently from the Evil Empress? Seriously?
http://www.globalmbwatch.com/2016/06/14/white-house-appoints-latest-advisor-tied-to-us-muslim-brotherhood-zaki-barzinji-is-grandson-of-us-muslim-brotherhood-founder/
https://action.rjchq.org/press_release_20160610/?utm_source=Iterable&utm_content=20160620-video-anti-israel-voices-in-democratic-party-platform-process-10806&utm_campaign=Soc&utm_medium=Image_Body_Insert&utm_term=Anti_Liberal-Hillary-Clinton
What is it about the Evil Empress and the so-called Democratic Party that you don’t get?
OMG, the Donald is going to talk to the NRA! The horror, the horror!
First, he didn’t say he was “speaking with the NRA to obtain support for denying people their ability to purchase firearms, when they appear on a watch list that deprives individuals of due process.” Second, the NRA has already called for some type of limitation on gun purchases for people on the terrorist watch list, and third, I guess the thought never occurred to you that in order to win, ANY Republican candidate has to get at least SOME Independents and Democrats to vote for him, or at least stay home.
What? You mean the guy actually wants to WIN the election instead of being appointed the Messiah of “True Conservatism?” I’m shocked! Shocked!
Boy, we really are determined to prove we ARE the Stupid Party!
The only good thing to come from a Trump loss is the*possible* education of Trump supporters. We weren’t joking when we complained about his electability.
Matt_SE
You can fix ignorance. The other problem is not so easy to fix. Bit fixing ignorance will be a good start.
Richard Saunders,
As others, on various forums, have noted, djt may be surprised to be the presumptive nominee. Messiah? In the sense as the messiah of destruction he has succeeded.
Yup, that dumb SOB is doing everything wrong. Except for getting more votes than the other guys.
Michael Dukakis got more votes than the other guys too. Remind us again what his presidency was like.
Roy Lofquist:
As I’ve said many many times, winning the primary race is a very different animal than winning a general. Different number of opponents, different type of opponent. Different press bias and press agenda. Different amount of money required. Different group of voters with different beliefs and different priorities..
And now, there are no “other guys” in the race.
Oh and except for having a national organization (ground game) and having hard money to pay for ads. And having a strategy? Other than that he is running a brilliant campaign. I’ll have to look up that word, brilliant, it may not mean what I think it means. Inconceivable!
“Artfldgr, thank you for reminding us that HRC is a greedy, sleazy woman (I almost typed lady). (Oldflyer @4:21]
It has already been reported that Hillary Clinton’s server was undoubtedly hacked by Russian hackers. Now comes word that the Clinton Foundation was also hacked by Russians (H/T Instapundit).
The woman is internationally compromised and blackmail-able by adversaries of our county. Who in their right mind needs any other reason to keep her out of the oval office?
“51 dissident State Department Foreign Service Officers (FSOs), the Dissent 51, signed a Dissent Channel cable savaging the Obama Administration’s Syria policy . . . .
[snip]
So what do these CIA, FBI, NSA and U.S. military “mid-level” professionals do if the FBI finds evidence of a crime and there is no indictment?
Massive leaks of ignored but incriminating evidence is a probability, a strong probability. If that happens, Clinton, her campaign and her mainstream media propagandists will face one of the greatest political damage control challenges in the history of U.S. presidential campaigns.
The Link (H/T Instapundit):
http://observer.com/2016/06/revolt-by-security-diplomats-define-hillary-as-the-weak-candidate/
Neo,
Yup. You’ve got the conventional wisdom down pat. You might recall that the CW has been telling us every week for the last year that we will soon be “rid (me) of this turbulent priest”.
Now, it might be that it’s just the luck of the Irish, except that he’s German. Maybe he’s just smarter than the average bear, in showmanship if nothing else. And if he is maybe he’s smart enough to take Hillary apart piece by bloody piece.
I’m not betting anything on this one. It makes more sense to buy lottery tickets.
For decades, we’ve heard a constant refrain, louder from the left, that there’s too much fat cat money in politics.
Now Trump is broker than Bernie, while Mrs Clinton has a vault of Wall Street money that Scrooge McDuck would envy.
And what do we hear from the left?
Crickets.
Roy:
“You might recall that the CW has been telling us every week for the last year that we will soon be “rid (me) of this turbulent priest”.”
Nope they were telling us that Cruz was Satan or worse and that Trump was a clown. Trump is still a clown and they have to live with it. The clown beat the other Republicans with the help of the media. So now the clown is up against a ruthless well financed opponent with the backing of all the media save Fox. And now the clown is failing.
Good thing you’re not betting.
OM,
All the gold in Christendom couldn’t sell the Edsel.
OM – I’ll put $100 on Trump getting more than 100 electoral votes at 5:1. Fade me, boys and girls!
Roy Lofquist – Trump is half German, half Scottish, since his mother was an immigrant from Scotland So Germany only gets half the blame..
(It’s my impression that she was one of those mean, grasping people, who have never recovered from a poverty-stricken childhood. Even so, she doesn’t seem to have been a crook like his father.)
Jim Miller,
Interesting. Perhaps you might share with us your personal evaluation of Barbara Bush, or Trig Palin, or maybe JFK’s father.
Richard Saunders,
You’re shameless. I’ll bet you’ve already laid that bet off over at Kos,
Richard Saunders:
I prefer miracles, finding a winning lottery ticked. That and Trump’s odds are about the same.
The real questions is what to do after Trump looses, and worse if the takes the rest of the House and Senate with him. What do you plan to do? Convention of States? Or just blame those who didn’t support Caesar-Lite?
Roy Lofquist:
You call it “conventional wisdom.” I call it “common sense based on observation.”
Will gladly take your bet Sir Richard Saunders. You name your bid and I will take your 5 to 1 odds. Trump, if he survives the convention, will take perhaps 10 states all with electoral votes in single digits.
PA, OH, FL, CO, NC, GA, etc…. yeah djt to the alt-whatever rescue.
Donald doesn’t know which way to point the claymore, today’s example
http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/06/21/cant-make-donald-trump-questions-hillarys-faith/
M18 Claymore mine, antipersonnel operator or tripwire activated.
How to spin this one? The non-Fox, non-Trumpart, non-Drudge media will have no trouble making the case that Trump’s campaign is a con and crooked. Legal beagles will have to decide if it is criminal.
http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/06/21/trumps-dead-broke-campaign-paying-trumps-companies-lot-money
There ain’t no cure for the djt summertime blues. You trumpians bought it, now you own it. Ashes and dust, we all fall down.
RS,
I neglected to mention your paltry $100 did not sound interesting. How about you offer $1,000?
Considering how much farther he’s come than Jeb, on a shoestring budget, I wouldn’t count him out.
In fact, every time I keep seeing gloom and doom pronouncements about Trump, I’ve found that stepping back and actually looking at the facts proves that not only isn’t Trump that bad, he’s actually got a better record than Hillary and Obama combined. For example, claims of racism… the man has been in the public eye for thirty years now, and nobody even tried to accuse him of racism until he ran for President against the Democrats? Not even when he was rich, and hated for that? To me, that’s really more proof of the saying, “A racist is anyone that wins an argument against a liberal,” than it is proof that Trump is a racist.
Or the fact that some of his businesses went bankrupt (4 while he was actually running them, and three more that went bankrupt after he sold them off). Sounds terrible, until you realize that he’s running another 200 successful businesses right now. How many of the “renewable energy” businesses Obama forced the Treasury to invest in went bankrupt? Remember Solyndra? Turns out “only” five went bankrupt… out of the 25 he invested in. That’s a 20% failure rate, compared to Trump’s 3.5% failuire rate. And who would you rather go to for financial advice, a man with experience running over 200 businesses, and has both succeeded and failed, or one who loudly trumpets his 20 successful businesses and tries to convince you he has never failed at anything?
And now we have Hillary making the same assumptions Jeb made, and somehow that’s supposed to prove Trump is doomed. I think I’m going to take a “wait and see” on this one, too.
You know, it is a sort of dance. And this year, although way more high profile and sensationalized, is just like every other cycle. It’s the same dance we saw with past candidates, this year the dance is on steroids as the media spent so much if it’s life force on Obama and senses its own approaching death.
First step: The Republicans allow the gargantuan, but biased, media to force feed them a nominee.
Second step: Once our candidate secures the nomination, the media swivels the gun turret around and begins the slow and awful project of destroying him in the general election.
Third step: We lose. Dems win. Or, alternative ending, we wind up with a media-created RINO.
Parker — my wife would kill me if I bet a G, but I’ll go to $500. I’m not going to name individual states, the bet is still he doesn’t break 100 electoral votes, and you’re willing to give me 5:1 if he does. Last chance to back out, Nathan!
Any agreement between the Clintons and Trump would have been “spike the Republican primaries for us as a favor, if you win the primaries, then you’re free to do as you wish”. Very simple, especially since Trump himself didn’t think he would be capable of so much support in the primaries. Yet he never runs for something he thinks he will lose.
Geoffrey:
No, I do not assert that there will be no difference between them, there will be no real difference to most of their policies, or to the situation we find ourselves in. Yes, he will keep the borders open. Remarks from the past clearly demonstrate this, and the wall is nothing more than a ploy. What was in the interview with the NY Times that he did not want seen? Ask yourself another question: why would an avid supporter such as Murdoch give such advantageous coverage and special privileges to him if he was indeed rabidly anti immigration? Yes, he will make a deal on Muslim immigration. With the trade issue there will be a difference, but there will be no effective difference in the outcome: either a severely depressed economy, or total collapse. As to your last two questions, again while there will be some differences in policies, the outcome will be pretty much the same, a bad foreign policy and further erosion of our ability to respond to events in a way that providess a favorable outcome.
If you choose to believe his rhetoric, then yes, there is a possibility of something better. He is always right, but he is always wrong, as he is consistently on both sides of everything. You have to look beyond his words, examine his actions, and especially his natural inclinations, I have for many hours, because I desperately want an alternative to Hillary, he is not. Anyone else in the primary would have been, on a scale from barely to much, and I would have supported any of them. But I will not vote for either him or her.