There is one man who could doom Hillary Clinton's presidential chances against Donald Trump.  And there is no pressure that could be brought against him by the infamous Clinton Machine to dissuade him.

Conventional wisdom, which has had a terrible election season so far, still has Clinton easily defeating him. The media is awash with surveys and poll numbers that cast doubt on his chances of defeating her in this year’s presidential election, though some doubt is beginning to creep in. 

History does show that Republicans have labored under a “massive electoral map problem” for years -- since 1992 every Democratic nominee has won 19 states and Washington, D.C. (naturally) that total 242 electoral votes. Only 270 electoral votes are needed to measure the drapes in the Oval Office. That is the infamous “blue wall” that all Republicans have to surmount to win the presidency.  Then there are Trump’s daunting unfavorable ratings among broad swaths of Americans: independents, non-white voters and women. To mix the metaphors: he begins in a massive hole and from there he has to leap over a big blue wall.

But there is one man who has the potential to defeat Hillary Clinton and help Trump move into an even more famous house than Mar-a-Lago.

That man would be Mu盧･ammed ibn ﾊｿAbdullﾄ”, who, according to Muslims, was the last messenger and prophet sent by God to guide humanity. He is also the man whom Islamic terrorists credit for inspiring -- nee commanding -- them to commit acts of mayhem and murder.

Donald Trump has gained notoriety for his warnings regarding the risks to Americans coming from Islamic terrorists in America. Last December he called for a ”total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.”  The statement was made in the wake of the San Bernardino terror attack, but also after earlier warnings from Barack Obama’s FBI Director James Comey and his Director of National Intelligence that vetting for screening Syrian refugees was so weak that Americans were being exposed to risks from terrorists sneaking into America.

Trump later made controversial statements regarding how America has to change our standard operating procedures when it comes to dealing with terrorism (“take out their families”; “they can chop off heads, we can’t waterboard”; “we must watch and study mosques”).  His proposal for a wall along the Mexican border would also protect Americans, since Muslim terrorists have already been captured after they were smuggled over the border into America, and American Muslims have plotted with ISIS to smuggle terrorists into America.

After the Brussel’s airport and Parsi nightclub attacks, Trump declared on Fox News: 

“I would close up our borders to people until we figure out what is going on. Look at Brussels, look at Paris, look at so many cities that were great cities.”

Later, on MSNBC:

“Waterboarding would be fine and if they could expand the laws, I would do a lot more than waterboarding. You have to get the information and you have to get it rapidly”.

He also trolled Clinton by releasing one of his many tweets (he seems to have Tourette’s Tweet syndrome):

'Incompetent Hillary, despite the horrible attack in Brussels today, wants borders to be weak and open-and let the Muslims flow in. No way!'"

This presages the strategy Trump will employ during the general election: he will have the image of a man who will stand up to Islamic terror and protect Americans and not be hobbled by political correctness and timidity.

As James Taranto wrote:

The whole episode, it seems to us, is yet another testimony to Trump’s acute political instincts. He is alone among the candidates in addressing Americans’ anxiety that if our leaders are not careful, our country could end up like Western Europe, facing repeated attacks from a deadly internal enemy.

He has had to step back from some of his more incendiary comments, but they served a political purpose: his soundbites are seared into the minds of Americans.  He owns the issue of Islamic terrorism in the minds of Americans.  He might even be considered as a messenger and prophet in his own right.

How does Hillary Clinton compare?  What are her views towards the risks of Islamic terrorism being brought home to Americans?  Americans already have been victims of terrorism: the ever expanding death toll includes the World Trade Center attack (the first one), 9/11, Fort Hood, the Nashville recruiting center, the Boston Marathon massacre, the aforementioned San Bernardino murders --  with more to come. Americans have reason to be alarmed and Trump’s views have resonated with them. By contrast, Clinton has a rather blasé approach towards terrorism (not all of us have Secret Service protection).

One can imagine the Trump soundbites to come.

Of course, Clinton will inherit some of Barack Obama’s history when it comes to dealing with Islamic terrorism (his depopulating of Guantanamo Bay and release of terrorists, his trade of Muslim terror leaders for a deserter, his refusal to use the term “Islamic terrorism,”  his categorizing of Muslim attacks as “workplace violence,” and his sweetheart “deal” with Iranian mullahs that enriches their terror network and eases their path to accumulating a nuclear missile arsenal).

Clinton shares Barack Obama’s obtuse refusal to recognize and call out Islamic terrorism. She has explained away her refusal to use the words “radical Islam” lapsing into the politically correct blather about Islam being a religion of peace. But she has, without missing a beat, called Republicans her “enemy.”  Trump explicitly uses the term “radical Islam.”

Clinton wants to massively expand the number of Muslim refugees coming into America (weak vetting and the European experience be damned).

Clinton’s closest adviser, Huma Abedin (so closely do they cling to one another that their relationship has been described as “marsupial”  by New York Times columnist Frank Bruni). Abedin has Muslim Brotherhood ties.  Clinton’s security breach may extend well past her home-brewed server and her email controversy.

Her obsequiousness towards Muslims was on display when she appeared at a roundtable that extolled Muslims and mosques as bulwarks against terrorism in America (video). Thomas Lifson aptly characterized her performance as being akin to a bubblehead doll, nodding and nodding and nodding for more than three minutes as a spokesman tells us all how wonderful mosques and Muslims are as allies in the war on terror.  

While trying to cover-up her responsibility for the Benghazi disaster she seemed to give a pass to the terrorists who killed Americans serving their nation. Instead she knowingly lied and blamed a Christian Copt for creating a video that she wrongly blamed for inflaming Muslim passions. She lied to the families of the victims, knowing all along that Islamic terrorists (and perhaps she) were responsible. Her successor as Secretary of State, John Kerry, was roundly criticized for saying “there was… a rationale for the Charlie Hebdo terror attack” since the French satirical magazine had published an unflattering image of Muhammed. Clinton appears to have held the same attitude towards the Benghazi attacks-refusing to put blame where blame belongs.

How could Trump win the election against Clinton?  More accurately, perhaps, is how can Muhammed defeat Hillary Clinton and hand a victory to Donald Trump?

Terror attacks in America between now and Election Day will sharpen the differences between Trump and Clinton over issues of national security.  Trump already enjoys an edge over Clinton over who would handle terrorism more effectively. Terror attacks have boosted Trump’s poll numbers in the past. After the Paris and San Bernardino attacks, for example, his numbers rose and stayed stronger for weeks afterwards. Trump noted the pattern in December after the San Bernardino massacre when he commented

I’m going to protect people. And that’s why whenever there’s a tragedy, everything goes up, my numbers go way up because we have no strength in this country, we have weak, sad politicians”

The numbers bear him out. His support surges after terror attacks and the surge persists and increases over time. They do subside as time passes as other concerns rise to the forefront of people’s attention. Bu the effect on Trump’s level of support is undeniable.

Women have notably poor opinions of Donald Trump.  Yet women crave security for their loved ones.  Could terrorist attacks in America highlight Trump’s forceful approach towards threats to Americans versus the more “nuanced” and weak approach of Clinton’s?  Republicans have usually been the party most strongly with national security.

Politically there has always been concern that a so-called October surprise can decide elections. In foreign countries terrorism has changed political fortunes -- sometimes overnight (train bombings in Spain on the eve of national elections led to an expected victory by the incumbent party turning into a surprise defeat). European ruling parties are seeing their poll numbers plummet due to the massive rise in Muslim immigration and a rise in crime and terrorism that people link to the Muslim community.

The issue may be taboo, but Muhammed could defeat Hillary Clinton and lead to the inauguration of President Donald John Trump.