Would you trust Trump with the bomb?

A politician’s aversion to dealing in hypotheticals is perhaps the strangest irony in a racket awash with them. His job is to repetitively sell his hypothesis to the voting population; his singular goal is to convince us that if we vote for him, he will make our lives better, safer and filled with endlessly flowing milk and honey. Going further, these promises will be delivered upon in his first day in office, if, hypothetically speaking, we uphold our end of the bargain.

{mosads}But more often than not, he refuses to answer questions about specific policies or the choices he would make in sticky situations. He chooses instead to hide behind the premise that he doesn’t engage in hypothetical conversations. Or, as Michael Scherer put it, he chooses “to hide behind big words.”

Also prominent in a politician’s world, and in politics as a whole, is the presumption that national elections are won in the 4 percent of voters that can still be swayed. Forty-eight percent vote one way, 48 percent the other, regardless of candidate. The nation’s political leanings have been forged from molten steel and hanging chads. It is from this longstanding belief that I’d like to float a hypothetical of my own.

Picture yourself on Election Day next November. Perhaps you consider yourself more conservative than not. You’ve voted for the Republican candidate in every presidential election since turning 18. Some candidates have been more appealing than others, but you haven’t missed your chance to choose, protest vote or otherwise. And now alone in the booth, you see for the first time concrete proof that this circus, this degradation of the process, is indeed real. The choice is between any of the three-headed hydra composed of Democrats Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden, and … Donald Trump? Yes, it’s really happening.

A few days ago, talented conservative commentator and journalist Jonah Goldberg made one of the more compelling argumentsagainst a Trump presidency. The best estimate from my untrained eye is that Goldberg dedicated about 2,000 words to explaining his dismay. But none were more powerful than the seven he strung together in a sentence to hypothetically ask: “Would you entrust him with nuclear weapons?” (A question that CNN moderator Jake Tapper then posed in Thursday’s debate.)

Which leads to my yet still imaginary scenario: How many millions will ask themselves Goldberg’s question once the curtain closes behind them in the booth? Four percent? Twenty percent? More? How many will ponder the now famous 3 a.m. call and wonder if Trump would miss it, choosing instead to tweet insults about random supermodels?

And more important still, how many Republicans won’t even show up on Election Day?

Trump has laid claim to millions of extremely energized and impassioned supporters. The genesis of their support lies primarily in the thought that Trump will “do great things.” On that belief, on that hypothetical, his supporters have grabbed onto a reason to believe. But can Trump find a way to grow his base beyond those true believers if he becomes the Republican nominee? Because not doing so almost assuredly means he and the Republicans will lose. Over the next 14 months, can Trump win over the trust of the many that base their opinion of him on the uncertainty in contemplating the answer to Goldberg’s question above?

Conventional politicians claim not to engage in hypothetical conversations while their very existence depends upon those conversations occurring. Trump not only doesn’t engage in them, he bulldozes straight past. So it is left to the rest of us to address the “what ifs” that none of them will. And once alone in that booth with nothing more than lingering questions and a choice to make, will enough Republicans entrust Donald Trump to safeguard their future?

Hale is a freelance writer who lives in San Antonio with his wife and three children.