And the winner is...
I stand by my earlier prediction about who won't be the next president of the United States.
“Trump will not win.”
I said those words for the first time in September. In the weeks since, I’ve said those words a lot. But, after saying them—often to incredulous faces—I remind people that I’ve been saying something similar since the former president garnered the nomination.
“Neither Trump nor Biden will be the next president.”
When I’ve said that, I’ve always received the same question:
“What do you mean? Those are the only two options,” they say.
Maybe not.
Things aren’t always what they seem
At the time, of course, I had no idea that Biden would drop out and be replaced by his No. 2, but I had a feeling that neither candidate would be our president in 2025. My opinion has not changed.
“Trump will not win.”
Originally, I had plans of writing an election-day article on why I think Kamala Harris will be the 47th president of the United States. (No, I’m not happy about that; I wrote about that here.) I changed my mind, however, for several reasons:
Jonah Goldberg of The Dispatch, pretty well summed up my feelings about this election cycle,
Republican pollster Patrick Ruffini wrote a masterful premorten that’s along the lines of what I would have liked to have written,
Nick Catoggio, also of The Dispatch, pretty much nails what I think will come next, regardless of who wins, and
Kevin D. Williamson, writing for the National Review in 2016, perfectly distills my feelings to a T, when he wrote, “Americans and Republicans, remember: You asked for this.”
Not why, but when
Naturally, folks ask me why I think we’ll have an entirely new president. I say it’s a gut feeling, garnered from the dozens of articles and books that I’ve read, the hundreds of podcasts I’ve listened to, and the seemingly endless polls that I’ve perused.
“It’s not why I think he’ll lose. It’s when I thought he’d lose.”
I watched the lone debate from a restaurant bar in Chicago. There was no sound, so all I could go off of was the vibes, energy, and feel of the interaction. Everyone seemed to agree that she had a much steeper hill to climb, owing to her administration’s flawed policies, her failed presidential campaign, her proclivity to speak in word salads, and the fact that few in the electorate knew much about her.
The former president, on the other hand, only had to appear…well presidential. Whatever thoughts anyone had going into the debate, this much was certain after his “they’re eating the dogs” comments: He lost it. He also lost the debate. Even worse, I thought, he lost the election.
My thinking
He was hovering around 46% of the electorate. He needed to appeal to a very small group, most of whom were skeptical about both candidates. But, while they were eager to see a Democrat that felt their pain on crime, the economy, housing, inflation, and immigration, they mainly needed him to assuage their angst that he’d use the office as a bully pulpit.
How many people, who were truly on the fence, going to vote for someone they saw as coming unhinged at that moment? I think it was less than the number of folks who saw her, listened to her, and thought “Hmmm… She did better than I expected.”
She had a much higher hurdle to clear; he bailed her out by appearing combative and unhinged.
I’ll be watching the results into the wee hours. Either way, I won’t be celebrating.