Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. (Agence France-Presse/Getty Images)

It seemed self-evident to many Republican opponents of Donald Trump that a candidate with the highest unfavorable ratings (around 60 percent, with only about 40 percent favorable) in memory, hugely unpopular with woman (loses in the latest CNN poll by 61 percent to 35 percent against Hillary Clinton) and toxic with non-whites (loses 14 percent to 81 percent) would not be competitive for the presidency. Throw in defections or non-turnout from even a segment of the Republican  electorate (he is getting only 84 percent of Republicans now, compared to 94 percent of Democrats for Clinton) and you have a full-blown catastrophe.

But there is more. Reports suggest Trump has little or no funding operation and donors are not about to open their pocketbooks. “Typically, money is the fuel that fires modern campaigns, and according to this metric, Trump is unlikely to be competitive,” writes Mark Hemmingway. “For one thing, fundraising is a responsibility that doesn’t look like it’s going to be widely shared by the entire GOP coalition. Aside from the Never Trump movement among grassroots voters, Trump’s polarizing path to victory has alienated a very necessary constituency in the party: big donors.”

Because Trump has said he will not self-fund in the general election (We thought he was worth $10 billion!?), he is going to have to fundraise. As CNN put it, “Throughout the primary race, Trump argued his personal wealth meant he was immune to the corrupting influence of money in politics, something central to his populist appeal.” That’s out the window.

So he does not have his party’s full support, loses women (even married women who Republicans have carried consistently, as Mitt Romney did in 2012 by a 53 percent to 46 percent margin), gets pummeled by minority voters and has shaky to nonexistent fundraising prospects. Oh, and his grotesque behavior, his upcoming fraud lawsuit concerning Trump University and past business failings and labor complaints essentially cancel out Clinton’s biggest weakness — ethics. Since he won’t release his taxes, Trump cannot very well holler about her non-transparency. It is almost as if you could not design a worse candidate for Clinton to face.

If you look at the electoral map, one can always find a combination of states whose electoral votes total 270 or more. Starting with the map this year, current polling has Clinton winning 347 to 191. Well, you say, if he flips Florida, North Carolina, Virginia and Ohio, he’d get 75 more electoral votes putting him close to 270. But how does he flip states without women and minority voters and the full support of his party — and without much money? It becomes preposterous at some stage to construct a scenario by which he could win (other than don’t be Donald Trump). There simply are not sufficient states with majorities of less educated, low income white voters for him to become competitive. Whom do we think women and minorities in diverse states like Florida and North Carolina are going to vote for?

All of these “paths” to the presidency also assume he is going to get better, not worse. But he’s already doubling down on his allegations that Rafael Cruz was in on the JFK assassination, tapping the hugely under-qualified Ben Carson to find him a running mate (with a tiny group of candidates even willing to run with him, we suspect), and put out his loopy plans for the first 100 days. Clinton has not yet begun the ad campaign nor have we seen him on the debate stage where he won’t be able to interrupt and carry on as he did with cowering Republicans on a crowded stage.) In short, 191 electoral votes could very well be the ceiling, not the floor. You can understand why donors don’t want to give him a dime. Maybe that is why Trump won’t self-fund.