What happens if Trump wins?

'Please tell us how to spot a 'good' banker/businessman from a bad one'

One yardtick is, if they are supporting Trump, they must be good.

'Any comment on his team of bankers and billionaire businessmen?'

Good people, a very competent team.

We all know Trump has an exceedingly high IQ, but he can't run everything by himself, so he is going to need help from good people like that top-notch team of gurus.

Those are some of the good ones.

Aren't they unicorns?

'especially those dreadful Wall Street types'

Those are some of the good ones.

Please tell us how to spot a 'good' banker/businessman from a bad one. Especially when it comes to financing and advising presidential candidates.

No, that is why the Establishment tries to scare them over Trump

Isn't Trump trying to scare voters over Hillary?
Even threatening of civil unrest in case she wins.

Any comment on his team of bankers and billionaire businessmen?

'People are interested in what Trump has to say because it's car crash stuff. Interest is not always approval.'

I agree and that is why the media broadcast it live, hoping for car crash entertainment.

'especially those dreadful Wall Street types'

Those are some of the good ones.

People are interested in what Trump has to say because it's car crash stuff. Interest is not always approval.

'I thought Sanders and Trump were both anti-Establishment? Surely more important than left-wing/right-wing distinctions?'

They are, but they disagree on lts of issues like climate change, so it is a big divide. Some Bernie supporters won't vote for Hillary because she is Establishment. It remains to be seen how many of those will vote for anti-establishment Trump. If they are big on climate change they won't, but if they are big on trade and jobs, they pssibly will.

Trump's team of advisors. Good to see he's broken free of The Establishment, especially those dreadful Wall Street types.

www.npr.org/2016/08/05/488825863/trumps-names-wall-street-and-real-estate-titans-as-economic-advisors?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20160805

'The media, which is apparently working against Trump constantly by distorting the things he says, has given him unprecedented coverage.'

Yes because to the utmost annoyance of Davos and Jeb Bush, people are interested in Trump, which is why CNN's Republican debate got 24 million viewers this year as opposed to just 1 million 4 years ago when Romney was in it. The media is a business and needs high ratings and its competitors are giving Trump airtime, so they have to too or they will lose viewers.

'Hillary's speeches have gone unreported'

Because fewer people are interested in listening.

The rallies are now old hat. Everyone has seen Trump and heard all his jokes, so the novelty has worn off and they don't broadcast them so much any more, but they do interrupt their live schedules if he says anything big.

I thought Sanders and Trump were both anti-Establishment? Surely more important than left-wing/right-wing distinctions?

They can't broadcast every one of his rallies.

Ah, but they have. This is the first one not to make it to broadcast. The media, which is apparently working against Trump constantly by distorting the things he says, has given him unprecedented coverage. Hillary's speeches have gone unreported, but Trump's every word has been shown more or less. Until now.

Yes, Bernie is left wing, he is not going to back Trump, even though he agrees with him on some issues like trade.

'Claig, your link is hopelessly out of date, and relates to his campaign for the nomination rather than for president.'

Yes, I know, but it is still relevant. He is the anti-establishment candidate, opposed by the establishment, whereas Wall Street backs Hillary and even lots of Republican bigwigs back her over Trump.

'His most recent rally wasn't even televised.'

He does a rally nearly every night. He is about the only candidate that the networks interrupt their schedules for in order to broadcast any live rallies. They can't broadcast every one of his rallies.

'Rallies are meaningless in electoral terms'

I agree, but they are an indication of enthusiasm and popular support. One man and his dog turned up at a Jeb Bush rally whereas thousands turn up for Trump.

Sanders has once more urged his supporters to stop Trump. The 9% who aren't already backing Hillary against Trump, that is. He doesn't think Trump had anything in common with him.

Donald Trump would be a disaster and an embarrassment for our country if he were elected president. His campaign is not based on anything of substance — improving the economy, our education system, healthcare or the environment. It is based on bigotry. He is attempting to win this election by fomenting hatred against Mexicans and Muslims. He has crudely insulted women. And as a leader of the “birther movement,” he tried to undermine the legitimacy of our first African American president. That is not just my point of view. That’s the perspective of a number of conservative Republicans.

Claig, your link is hopelessly out of date, and relates to his campaign for the nomination rather than for president.

Trump has had a catastrophic week. His party is looking for ways to distance themselves from him to save their seats in the House because his polling is so appalling. (Yes, yes, yes, they are the Establishment.)

Rallies are meaningless in electoral terms, but turnout at his rallies are falling anyway. His most recent rally wasn't even televised.

Oh dear, now Lord Haw Haw and Trump as Hitler. Will the scares never end?

Lovely that MN has its very own Lord Haw Haw for the Putin era. Looks like a full-time job.

'By the same reasoning you can't buy voters. '

No, that is why the Establishment tries to scare them over Trump, the same way they tried to scare them over Brexit. But they keep losing because the people have changed to being anti-establishment, which is why Corbyn and Bernie had such high support too. There is nothing the Establishment can do, Davos is davostated. As the Telegraph reporter wrote

"traditional political techniques and wisdoms have lost their potency and that the elites of every country were too slow to realise"

By the same reasoning you can't buy voters.

At least it's more difficult than rally participants.

'Hillary is after voters, not rally attendees.'

So is Trump and so was Bernie, but Hillary had the support of Democratic superdelegates to beat Bernie and his voters.

You can't force people to go to rallies. It is not a Blairite Labour Party worker type stunt, because some of Trump's rallies were 35,000 people travelling for miles and queuing for hours. You can't buy that, you can't do a Blairite spin stunt with rounded up Labour apparatchiks, it is real.

Wall Street can buy politicians, but it can't buy voters or rally attendees.

"Hillary Clinton is Wall Street's preferred candidate: Financial execs pouring millions into her campaign to beat Donald Trump"

www.salon.com/2016/05/09/hillary_clinton_is_wall_streets_preferred_candidate_financial_execs_pouring_millions_into_her_campaign_to_defeat_trum/

Claig, Hillary is after voters, not rally attendees.

Claig, are you familiar with the term circular argument?