One of the things [Donald] Trump has done is tie into particularly what would be the sons and daughters of Reagan Democrats in places like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, who are voting for him because they feel both parties left them on the economic battlefield.

To me, the logical path then is where could have [Mitt] Romney maybe have won and didn't? And you look at Ohio, Florida. You're still not there. Now you have got to win either Pennsylvania or Michigan. And I think Pennsylvania is probably a little bit more doable than Michigan, but, again, neither one of those states have the Republicans won since 1988.

In fairness to the [Donald] Trump people, if you look at the most recent numbers, they're actually doing well in Ohio, winning, winning in a lot of polls in Florida, and now Pennsylvania and Michigan have both tightened. They're not ahead, but they have tightened. And that's a good trend.

In a state like Pennsylvania, the paradox is, to win, you have to get the conservative Democrats in the west, but you still have to do well with the collar-county moderates in the east. [Mitt] Romney did fine with the moderates, but not the conservative Democrats. Trump is doing well with the conservative Democrats. Now Trump has to seal the deal with the moderates in the east.

Pennsylvania might be a parochial state, but it's not a homogeneous state. So, even among just Republican voters, to be able to pull that off, when you have very moderate voters on one side of the state and more conservative in the middle, shows that Donald Trump has very, very broad support.

I think what it's to do is to make Donald Trump more likable.

What they're still unsure about, particularly some moderate Republicans, we know gender there is difference, I think Donald Trump has to seal the deal by letting people feel comfortable to vote for him.