The mainstream media and polls proven wrong, there were a few knowledgable folks who accurately predicted a Donald Trump victory into the White House, with substantiated reasoning to back their claims. Two of the well known figures are liberal film maker Michael Moore and American University history professor Allan Lichtman. Moore correctly read the mood of the Rust Belt and predicted a Brexit mentality coming out of those states along with a host of other grounded reasons. Lichtman made use of a self-designed predictor system that consists of a series of true and false statements, and whose result has always proven accurate for every presidential election held since 1984.
Additionally, an article written by Nathan J Robinson - editor of Current Affairs - expanded on the likely prospects of a Trump presidency. Written in February this year, long before even the presidential nominees were decided, Nathan rejects the polls and bases his predictions purely on the personality cults and histories of the candidates in a well laid out thought pattern of campaign play and dynamic. I still have reservations of the 'what-if' Bernie scenario for exactly the reasons he posits, but in hindsight it may have been worth the risk for the Democrats.
Here are a few excerpts from his essay:
"Trump’s political dominance is highly dependent on his idiosyncratic, audacious method of campaigning. He deals almost entirely in amusing, outrageous, below-the-belt personal attacks, and is skilled at turning public discussions away from the issues and toward personalities (He/she’s a “loser,” “phony,” “nervous,” “hypocrite,” “incompetent.”) If Trump does have to speak about the issues, he makes himself sound foolish, because he doesn’t know very much. Thus he requires the media not to ask him difficult questions, and depends on his opponents’ having personal weaknesses and scandals that he can merrily, mercilessly exploit.This campaigning style makes Hillary Clinton Donald Trump’s dream opponent. She gives him an endless amount to work with. The emails, Benghazi, Whitewater, Iraq, the Lewinsky scandal, Chinagate, Travelgate, the missing law firm records, Jeffrey Epstein, Kissinger, Marc Rich, Haiti, Clinton Foundation tax errors, Clinton Foundation conflicts of interest, “We were broke when we left the White House,” Goldman Sachs… There is enough material in Hillary Clinton’s background for Donald Trump to run with six times over.The defense offered by Clinton supporters is that none of these issues actually amount to anything once you look at them carefully. But this is completely irrelevant; all that matters is the fodder they would provide for the Trump machine. Who is going to be looking carefully? In the time you spend trying to clear up the basic facts of Whitewater, Trump will have made five more allegations."........."It’s easy to see that Trump has every single advantage. Because the Republican primary will be over, he can come at her from both right and left as he pleases. As the candidate who thundered against the Iraq War at the Republican debate, he can taunt Clinton over her support for it. He will paint her as a member of the corrupt political establishment, and will even offer proof: “Well, I know you can buy politicians, because I bought Senator Clinton. I gave her money, she came to my wedding.” He can make it appear that Hillary Clinton can be bought, that he can’t, and that he is in charge. It’s also hard to defend against, because it appears to be partly true. Any denial looks like a lie, thus making Hillary’s situation look even worse. And then, when she stumbles, he will mock her as incompetent."........."Trump will capitalize on his reputation as a truth-teller, and be vicious about both Clinton’s sudden changes of position (e.g. the switch on gay marriage, plus the affected economic populism of her run against Sanders) and her perceived dishonesty."
The prescients
