The hard Trump truth here is that no segment of America—from Southeast San Diego to the slums of Miami’s Liberty City—has suffered more from a flood of illegal immigrants taking their jobs and depressing their wages than from lower-income African-Americans. Notes U.S. Civil Rights Commissioner Peter Kirsanow:

“Immigration accounts for 40 percent of the 18-point percentage decline in black employment levels in the last several years [and] an 18-point decline is hundreds of thousands of blacks without jobs. . . . In addition to depressing black employment levels, illegal immigration—frankly any low-skilled immigration—tends to drive down the wages of jobs that are available for black Americans.”

That’s why Fox News’s Geraldo Rivera sees gold for Trump at the end of the racial rainbow:

“Trump may get as much as 25 percent of the African American vote. . . . He’s anti-immigration, the immigrants perceived by black Americans to being in direct competition to them.”

#4: Big Labor Will Carry Hillary

“This TPP sets the gold standard . . . to open free, transparent, fair trade.” — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, November 15, 2012

“Americans’ anger should be directed . . . not at Muslims or Hispanics. But at any politician who would vote to approve this proposal to further lower their wages, destroy their jobs and diminish their economic opportunity.” — Leo Gerard, International President, United Steelworkers, December 14, 2015

Big labor has been as slavishly dependable as the black vote in backing Democratic presidential nominees. This goes all the way back to the days of FDR’s New Deal, and conventional wisdom has it that history will surely repeat.

This may well be true, but the far more salient question is whether union leaders can dissuade large swaths of their rank and file from defecting to Trump—much the same way blue-collar union workers once moved en masse against their leadership to the Reagan Democrat camp.

The two key canaries in this pivotal poll mine are Richard Trumka, head of the AFL-CIO, and Leo Gerard, who oversees the powerful United Steelworkers. Gerard has dismissed Trump as a “private-jet-owning one percenter” who would rather blame Muslims and Hispanics. Trumka has warned “a President Trump would spell disaster for the working class” and dismissed him as “a house of cards.”

These Trump roasts notwithstanding, both Trumka and Gerard have been burned multiple times by the Clinton brand. Bill Clinton signed Big Labor’s Antichrist of NAFTA in 1993, and Hillary lobbied Congress for it as first lady. Bill Clinton shoehorned China into the World Trade Organization in 2001, while then AFL-CIO secretary-treasurer Trumka was correctly warning from the steps of Capitol Hill that the deal would decimate American manufacturing. And it was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who engineered the passage of a 2012 South Korean trade pact that has almost doubled America’s trade deficit with South Korea while destroying seventy-five thousand American jobs—Gerard has called it “putrid pie in the sky” resulting in “more jobs lost” and “no exports gained.”

Ultimately, the real question may not be whether the leaders of Big Labor support Clinton but rather how many of their own rank and file desert her, given that Trump’s advocacy for cracking down on unfair trade practices is so perfectly aligned with labor interests. In sharp contrast, the best a “trust-me” Hillary Clinton can promise across the union halls of America is that after betraying labor on NAFTA, China’s entry into the WTO, the South Korean trade pact and the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership, she won’t stick a knife in labor’s back yet a fifth time.

#5: Clinton Will Bury Trump with the Women’s Vote

“The 2016 vote is going to show the largest gender gap of any election in our history.” — Paul Waldman, Washington Post, March 17, 2016

This may be the most violent battle of the sexes ever witnessed in politics—the presidential election equivalent of Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner in The War of the Roses. The central question is whether the male tidal wave that continues to build for Trump can wash over any corresponding female tide for Clinton.

In both the 2008 and 2012 elections, Obama captured 57 percent of the women’s vote. In this election year, Hillary may well break the 60 percent barrier for the first time since Lyndon Johnson did it against Barry Goldwater. That’s another key pillar of the conventional Beltway wisdom predicting that Hillary will win in a landslide.

But suppose an even greater percentage of men break for Trump? Clinton’s major “trust problem” extends even to women. That alone may hold down her numbers among women voters relative to a generic candidate vying to be the first female president of the land.

The Trump standard for running up the male vote here may well be Ronald Reagan, who captured 59 percent of that demographic in his trouncing of Walter Mondale in 1984—and Trump could surpass the 63 percent mark hit by Richard Nixon’s burying of George McGovern back in 1972. We will be looking at a major upset if Trump’s men turn out in record numbers while Hillary’s female support turns out to be indeed less ardent than expected.

#6: The Disloyal Republican Opposition Will Sink Trump’s Campaign

“My hope is that Trump will lose by a landslide, and the party will come to its senses.” — Max Boot, May 8, 2016

“Those conservative writers and thinkers who have for nine months warned the base that Mr. Trump is not a conservative should consider the idea that a large portion of the Republican base no longer sees itself as conservative, at least as that term has been defined the past 15 years by Washington writers and thinkers.” — Peggy Noonan, April 28, 2016

The battle going on for hearts and minds of the Republican Party intelligentsia is well bracketed by Boot’s defeatism, juxtaposed against the evolution of Noonan’s thinking over the course of the Trump campaign.

From Day One, self-anointed keepers of the neoconservative flame, like Boot, Rich Lowry at National Review, John Podhoretz at Commentary, William Kristol at the Weekly Standard, and Karl Rove and Paul Gigot at the Wall Street Journal, have unmercifully flayed Trump as a closet liberal given his renunciation of neocon causes like free trade and Bush’s Middle East wars.

In sharp contrast, Peggy Noonan’s thinking has clearly evolved in considering that the fault may lie more with the Beltway commentariat’s stunning misperception of what matters to real voters in that vast stretch of “flyover country” between Georgetown and Beverly Hills. Ultimately, the outcome of Peggy Noonan’s intellectual struggle may be a far better leading indicator of a Trump defeat or victory in November than the rants of neocons increasingly out of touch with an American anger that their very own flawed policies helped spawn.

For his part, Trump has not sought to politely cleanse the likes of National Review, Commentary, the Weekly Standard, and the Wall Street Journal of its affinities for free trade, open borders and nation building, but rather give these stiff neocons a full-scale enema. No wonder they both hate and fear him. The only remaining question is whether they can mortally wound him.

In this Republican “Never Trump” vein, there is also the chorus of establishment politicians who continue to rain invective down upon Trump—to the delight of the Clintonites and Democratic Party. The most high-profile of these Republican Clintonians include a Mount Rushmore of failed presidential candidates: Mitt, Jeb, Ted, and the two Johns—Kasich and McCain. It’s an open question as to whether the Republican base will heed the warnings from this usual suspects or see them as just a bowlful of traitorous sour grapes.

#7: Loose Lips Sink Campaign Ships

“There is a frustration that he is playing by different rules, but there is a belief that it has got to catch up to him.” — a Clinton Aide to the Financial Times, May 11, 2016

One of the biggest mistakes of both the political elites and Trump’s opponents during the Primary Election was to assume that Trump’s “beautiful wall,” “ban on Muslims” and “bomb the shit out of them” rhetoric was costing him votes rather than addressing the gut-level angst of Republican voters. Still, this conventional wisdom lives on.

The working assumption amongst much of the media (as well as the Clinton campaign apparatchiks) is that Trump’s unscripted comments will eventually cause his candidacy to implode. The only question is when—and which journalist or issue wins the Trump dead pool.

This “loose lips sink campaign ships” presumption is debatable. After all, much of Trump’s popularity stems from his willingness to say what he thinks, even (or especially) if it offends the politically correct. It was precisely his shoot-from-the-lip candor that resulted in the largest number of Republicans ever voting for a candidate in a presidential primary—and we can expect massive Republican, Independent and Reagan Democrat turnout for Trump and his candor.

That said, if Trump simply stays focused on his four aces of the economy, trade, immigration and national security, it is equally true that he will surely play a winning hand. On the other hand, if reporters or the Clinton campaign are able to take Trump off message, his four aces may be beaten by a full house of spin.