One of the most interesting pieces we stumbled upon this week predicted the rise of Donald Trump – in 2011. Ironically the piece is authored by Ben Shapiro, who is openly opposed to Trump this election.Despite whatever Shapiro may have learned that turned him off to Trump in the meantime, the column is eerily prophetic in predicting the pattern by which Trump would rise.
What kind of candidate would dominate the election? To quote from the piece published in Townhall, Ben’s criteria is as follows:
If Republicans were to construct an ideal candidate, he would have to be rich beyond belief — Obama is going to raise $1 billion for his next election campaign, and no Republican candidate has the ability to come close to those numbers without deep pockets. The ideal Republican candidate would have significant name recognition with the general public — no Republican candidate has ever won the presidency without significant name recognition going into the primaries since Warren G. Harding in 1920. The ideal Republican candidate would have stage presence, an intimidation factor, and a willingness to play dirty.
So who fits that criteria? It’s pretty obvious:His name is Donald Trump. His slogan is ready-made: “You’re Fired.” He does not give a damn what the media thinks of him — he steamrolled Meredith Vieira during his NBC interview with her last week. He can self-fund to the tune of $1 billion.
Better yet, Shapiro writes, people believe that he can’t win. While he was trailing Obama by 20 points in a poll that showed the results of a hypothetical head to head between the two, “That disparity is attributable to the public perception that Trump is a loudmouth with no true interest in running. The moment he declares in earnest and gets on the campaign stump, his numbers will rise dramatically.”
That is exactly what we saw happen this election. The media practically cycled through the five stages of death in handling Trump, beginning with denial. We’re still waiting for acceptance.[Note: This post was authored by The Analytical Economist]