I got a book for Christmas that was a compendium of New Yorker articles from the 1040s. There I found an article (in the Oct. 16 issue) by Richard Rovere written as he accompanied Thomas E Dewey on his electioneering campaign for the presidency in 1948.
It was interesting to see the confidence all had that Dewey would trounce Truman and the admiration for the professionalism of the Dewey campaign machine. This was contrasted with the old fashioned campaign of Truman. So I got interested to see what Rovere said after the election.
On another Christmas a decade ago someone gave me a set of DVDs with a facsimile copies of every New Yorker from 1925 to 2005, and I used that to get Rovere’s article in the Dec. 25 issue of 1948. The astonishment of the establishment was still evident in these pages as well as an interesting description of the elaborate inauguration planned for Truman. It seems the Republican congress was so confident of Dewey’s ultimate victory that it had funded an event worthy of the first Republican victory since Hoover. Another interesting note was that the establishment, in its surprise at the election results, had concluded that this must be a new Harry Truman and had speculated at length about the nature of this new being. Rovere concluded that this belief had faded in two months and that the realization had come that this was, in fact, the old Harry Truman. And so he was.
My conclusion from all this: You should avoid the idea that you may be able to predict what will happen in politics in 2016. It’s clear that the establishment is making it all up as they go along and is basically just confused. You’ll do better to wait till you can explain it all in 2017. You’ll be good at that.
In the meantime:
Can Trump win the nomination? yes
Could a complete buffoon become President? yes
Can Bernie take the prize away from Hillary? yes
Could a short, Jewish, socialist become President? yes
Can Jeb burst out of the pack and win the nomination? No
You’ve got to draw the line somewhere.