While Pakistanis have other more important issues about which to worry, given the sad state of relations with the United States, the presidential elections here remain one of concern. Suppose, for example, a Trump presidency might treat Pakistan as Trump is treating immigration. Would that not be a sure means of making this relationship even worse? For those who have missed it, Donald Trump has vowed to build a wall on the Mexican border and make Mexico pay for it. He also has promised to round up on day one of his presidency approximately five million of the “worst” illegal aliens in America and kick them out of the country. The visit of Trump to Mexico and his extraordinarily clumsy speech on immigration that followed last Wednesday may have reinforced his base, if elected, he has set in place a non-declared war with Mexico. According to reports, after the visit, the Mexican president declared that Mexico would never pay for the wall. Angered by the comment, Trump said he then penciled into his speech the certitude that Mexico would pay for the wall. This is not 1846 and the Mexican-American War we won. Nor is there a single chance in the world that Mexico would pay for this great wall Mr Trump would build to seal the border with south. America does have thousands of miles of seacoasts as well as a longer border with Canada. What would Trump do with those? No one knows how many Pakistanis may be living in America illegally. There may be none. And the focus has been mostly on Mexico as well other arrivals from south of the border. However, the tenure of the election remains important. The larger issue is why, despite all the nonsensical and often contradictory comments he makes, is Trump still competitive in the presidential sweepstakes? To many journalists as well as outside observers, this question begs a good answer. Defeating 16 presidential aspirants in the primary, several of whom were far more qualified, with bluster, blather and insults was a remarkable feat. Now, in most polls, the gap is closing with Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. The answer is strikingly obvious yet hidden in plain sight. Two of the most powerful human emotions are love and hate. Neither candidate is winning in the love category. The unfavourability ratings of both are at the Guinness Book of Records levels. Hillary Clinton is disliked, and in some cases hated, seen as untrustworthy, morally conflicted with competing interests and incapable of telling the truth. As bad, she is a Clinton and will never eradicate that stain and memories of Bill. Trump, however, is the beneficiary of this hatred. The reason why Trump so far is making it a race far closer than it should be is clear. Perhaps a majority and surely a large plurality of Americans are fearful and worried about the future for themselves, their children and grandchildren. The middle and lower classes are beset with the rising costs of health care, schooling, living and virtually every other economic category. Wages are not keeping pace. Working two jobs often is not enough to pay the bills. Meanwhile, the one percent is getting richer. Hedge fund managers, Wall Street bankers, high technology CEOs and people with large stock portfolios are making tens, hundreds and even thousands of millions of dollars a year. To many, the system is rigged. And while the Clinton Foundation may not have broken a single law or broached any ethical standards, it is widely seen as a sign of this corruption. Fear translates into anger. This is as true on the battlefield as it is in kitchen tables across the nation. Anecdotally, millions of Americans are angered with the failure of government to govern. One example: Zika is on the march and Congress refuses to appropriate money to contain it. When the president is forced to rely on executive orders to bypass Congressional gridlock, he is obviously assuming dictatorial and unconstitutional powers. The success of Trump’s entire campaign will be based on mobilising this anger, hostility and, in some cases, hatred against the status quo and use it to overwhelm Clinton, the do-nothing-differently candidate. Hence, and this is the key point, IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE WHAT TRUMP SAYS. Many Americans are neither listening to nor interested in the messages that are often incoherent and always contradictory. Flip-flopping does not adequately describe the quicksilver like quality of what Trump says. Trump supporters only care about the messenger. And to win, the messenger must harshen his attacks against “Lyin’ Hillary;” question her physical and mental health and stamina; challenge the Clinton Foundation as the reincarnation of Tammany Hall corrupt Democratic politics of the late 19th century; and demand a special prosecutor for investigating the e-mail scandal to send Clinton to jail. The ensuing six weeks to the election will no doubt see the nastiest political campaign since campaigns were recorded. The Willy Horton ad used against Governor Michael Dukakis and the Lyndon Johnson “daisy” commercial ending with a mushroom cloud implying Senator Barry Goldwater would start a nuclear war will be mild by comparison. Energising and intensifying hatred will be the only means by which Mr Trump can sufficiently tar Mrs Clinton to eek out a victory in November. What can the Clinton campaign do? In some ways, she has a George H W Bush problem in reverse. How could a president with a 90 percent approval rating in late 1991 lose to a “womanising, draft dodging, pot smoking” opponent? Similarly, how can a candidate with Hillary Clinton’s resume lose to totally flawed, likely incompetent, loud-mouthed buffoon with absolutely no experience in government? In the tension between love and hate, when one of those emotions is at best tepid, the outcome is certain. In this case, tragically, hate can win out. Fear, manifested as anger, is powerful. Trump has tapped into this vein of seeming political electoral gold, but knowledgeable people realise that vein will turn out to be fool’s gold. And the nation will have to wait until 2020 until we get two candidates who deserve to be president by virtue of their character and disposition, experience and judgment. The writer is UPI’s Arnaud de Borchgrave Distinguished Columnist. He serves as Senior Advisor for Supreme Allied Commander Europe, the Atlantic Council and Business Executives for National Security and chairs two private companies. His last book is A Handful of Bullets: How the Murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand Still Menaces the Peace. His next book due out next year is Anatomy of Failure: Why America Loses Wars It Starts