To an objective viewer, it is curious that Donald Trump has such upside down numbers with the minority community, women, and moderate Republicans. Hillary Clinton has not provided any rational explanation for the comingling of Clinton Foundation interactions with the State Department. This type of scandal would sink almost any other candidate. However, after months of demonizing Trump through distorted ads and her surrogates in the press, Hillary’s campaign has succeeded in painting Trump as a danger to our nation that makes him unfit. Sounds like the work that helped defeat Mitt Romney in 2012. Clearly, his crude and non-nuanced comments play to this theme. But, can the Trump campaign finally respond in a way that makes him acceptable to these groups?

The Trump campaign must focus him on the issues and avoid inflammatory language (“bigot”), the stuff of Democrat candidates. The media avoids any discussion of the California KKK support for Clinton, but this has become routine. If the campaign points out the differences on the issues, there is every reason to believe that Republicans can be successful. The undecided voters generally prefer a dignified or “Presidential” candidate.

The press suppresses negative material related to Hillary, claiming it is repetitive, already disposed, and boring, while replaying contradictions and questionable statements from Trump’s mouth. Which is more dangerous to the nation, poor public pronouncements by Trump or the selling of access to the State Department officials by the Clinton Foundation? As more e-mails emerge on this issue will the press finally do their job? Will they report that the Clinton server was scrubbed by “BleachBit” (not a cloth) intended to make the hard-drive unrecoverable by the FBI?  Why would innocent personal material be so carefully removed? Where are the investigative reporters on this question?

Trump opposes the failing ObamaCare, while Hillary endorses it. He should detail what his legislation would eliminate and what he would keep. Clearly the reduction of federal mandates would lower the cost and provide greater choices. He has stated that he would not support allowing “people to die in the streets” demonstrating his compassion. Trump should run ads on this issue contrasting the differences.

Trump opposes the globalist foreign policy of some Republicans and Democrats. He should articulate his strategy for use of force and contrast it with Hillary’s errors in judgment while in office (including Libya, Egypt, Syria, Russia, and Iraq). A well-placed ad on this subject will help reassure the undecided, including younger citizens who worry about endless Middle East wars; these are the type of people looking toward Libertarian Gary Johnson.

The fear of financial insecurity among the younger educated population and women can be answered by a clear growth program. Contrasting the differences between the two candidates’ tax plans and regulatory programs will give these people a chance to weigh the differences. Workers displaced by the loss of manufacturing jobs may already see Trump as an alternative, due to his trade policies. Again, ads will allow the Trump campaign to break through the press stranglehold.

Attempts to attract minority voters should focus on the pain within the communities. Providing enterprise zones in these neighborhoods to encourage private business and private sector jobs within these areas as opposed to more government spending on welfare programs (Hillary’s approach) will encourage ownership and wealth accumulation. Law and order affects such movements, but should not be offered in a way that can be played as racism. Trump must point out the lack of safety for so many minority victims. Cuts in federal help for local police departments, which Hillary would continue, has contributed to this problem. He should continue visits to minority communities and request their support and offer proposals.

Independents oppose the establish order within the political parties. This is Trump’s best argument for their vote. He is an outsider from the Washington elite. Hillary is the epitome of this establishment. He can tout his economic success through the private sector, while Hillary has gained financially through her and her husband’s public positions.

Trump has not spent enough on ads in the swing states. He must dip into his personal wealth now; he can fundraise and reimburse himself later. The Republican Party is divided partly due to his personality, partly because he is not a strict “Constitutionist”, and partly because he came from the outside to destroy the aspirations of established politicos. His Court appointments would be preferable to Hillary’s for any conservative. He is a capitalist compared with Hillary’s progressivism. He would attempt to improve the Veterans Administration, unlike Hillary. He does not distain the military or police as the left does. He should continue outreach to hesitant Republicans and help unify the party.

Perhaps the most crucial tactical issue for Kellyanne Conway is to build the necessary ground game to get the vote to the polls. The polling data shows some tightening of the numbers, but Trump’s campaign must make the case that a Johnson vote is wasted. Bill Clinton never managed 50% of the vote, but won twice as Ross Perot helped divide the opposition vote. Hillary is counting on this strategy as she is unpopular.

The media has not published polling data with enthusiasm as it tightens. Reagan was a great communicator as he found ways to jump over the media against a sitting president. Will the Trump campaign find a path to do the same?