One of the problems in predicting the US presidential elections this time is the entry of Donald Trump. Nobody thought the Republicans would make him their presidential candidate, but that is exactly what he is. At the Republican convention last week, many of the powerhouses of the party failed to turn up – John McCain, Mitt Romney, the three Bushes (George W, George HW, and Jeb), John Kasich, and Lindsey Graham – and those who did (Ted Cruz) failed to endorse Trump.



The roll-call of absent past presidents and recent presidential hopefuls tells us that the GOP is deeply divided. It is easy to convince yourself that if top Republicans refuse to back Trump, he is will lose to Hillary Clinton in November. Clinton may not be liked in her party, but Trump is disliked more in his.



Not surprisingly, many commentators are forecasting not only a Clinton win, but a clean sweep (read here and here). Back home, Times of India columnist Swaminathan Aiyar has predicted that “Trump will not just lose, he’ll be thrashed.” His prediction is based on the assumption that more Trump-haters in the Republican camp will stay at home on election day than Hillary-haters among Democrats.



That’s rash, for even America’s poll pundits are keeping their fingers crossed. Nate Silver, who runs the fivethirtyeight portal on electoral math, said in a tweet after the Republican National Convention: “Don’t think people are really grasping how plausible it is that Trump could become president. It’s a close election right now.”



Silver points out that from huge leads of six or seven percentage points in June, Trump closed the gap to just three points. Three percent can be explained by sampling errors, and this is not due to any “convention bump” – the phenomenon where candidates get a lift in their popularity ratings around the time of their party conventions. Trump was closing the gap even before the Republican convention. In the run-up to the convention, at least three polls showed Trump marginally ahead of Clinton. Among them: LA Times/USC, which showed Trump ahead 45-42, Gravis (51-49), and Rasmussen (43-42).



While Real Clear Politics, another election website that tracks poll trends and averages them out to indicate the broader direction of public sentiment, shows a 44.6-42.7 percent tilt in favour of Clinton, in America’s electoral college-determined elections, this may not be enough to guarantee victory. The fight is likely to go down to the wire and will be won in a few battleground states. Real Clear Politics predicts that, as of today, Clinton can be reasonably sure of 209 electoral votes and Trump of 164, with 165 votes in the “toss-up” category. The winner needs 270 electoral votes.



The key states in the toss-up category are Florida (29 electoral votes), Pennsylvania (20), Ohio (18), Georgia (16), North Carolina (15) and Virginia (13). Clinton’s choice of Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia as her Vice-President candidate is said to have been determined by the need to get at least one of the undecided states in her favour.



However, the reason why Trump cannot be written off has nothing to do with what the number-crunchers have to say about his chances of winning. This election is not a conventional one that will test two parties and their candidates against a set presidential template. It is different.



Here’s why.



First, Trump is not a traditional Republican candidate. In fact, it would be truer to say that he is the anti-establishment candidate, an outsider who has established his independence from power blocs and projected himself as the “voice” of voters who have lost faith in both parties. So even though major Republican leaders have cold-shouldered him, he may be garnering votes from across the aisle, from both disaffected Republicans and Democrats.



And he is moulding the Republican party in his own image. Writing in The National Interest, Robert Merry says Trump has captured the Republican party and is taking it in new directions “based upon a new vision of political opportunity spawned by fast-changing national and global realities. Trump made clear that, if elected, he will govern as no Republican has governed before. And, if he is defeated, he still has redefined the party. Like (Barry) Goldwater, he is far more than a mere radar blip. There will be no going back.”



Trump’s policies steer clear of the economic Right and the Christian Right, key constituencies in the Republican party. He seems to be less in favour of free-market and free-trade than his party. On terror, immigration and law and order, he is further to the right than his party. But on social issues, and trade, he is to the left of his party.



Trump has effectively redefined the party. This was obvious when he got gay businessman Peter Thiel to speak at his convention, and talked of his own support for the LGBTQ community, which was targeted by a gunman at Orlando last month. He wants to build walls to keep illegal immigrants out, and also wants to tear up multilateral free-trade agreements, preferring to do “individual deals with individual countries.” He also appealed to the country’s isolationist streak when he said America will not send its soldiers to fight foreign wars, or to indulge in “nation-building”. He is also less anti-Putin than America has been so far, suggesting that he is moving America out of its Cold War rhetoric.



Second, we are vastly underestimating the impact recent incidents of Islamist terror, both in Europe and on American soil. American invulnerability to terror has now been shattered with several incidents from Orlando to San Bernardino to Boston. So, when Trump caters to the fear psychosis engendered by terrorism, he will surely tap into both the Christian right’s basic Islamophobia and the increasing sense of vulnerability Americans feel about terrorism. Barely a fortnight passes without some terrorist attack surfacing in Europe or America. Obama’s soft approach to Islamist terror will be seen as Hillary Clinton’s vulnerability, and Trump will surely drive home his advantage.



Third, it is necessary to discount media assumptions about Trump’s unelectability. Remember, the American media – like India’s – tends to be liberal-biased, and Trump is on their hate list. So when American columnists write him off, it is entirely possible that they are indulging in wishful thinking.



The liberal media couldn’t predict Brexit, couldn’t see the Modi wave, and is still in denial of the Right-wing surge across Europe.



Their antipathy to Trump may thus not be indicative of the underlying sentiment in the country. It is worth noting that the American voter has grown tired of mainstream political parties, and, right now, Trump is the only one who represents a shift from the elite consensus of the past that has landed America in an economic mess.



So, don’t discount the possibility of President Donald Trump.

