OPINION:
As we approach the end of an election cycle, it is probably time to make some predictions. I have two to offer.
Given the closeness of the survey work to date, pretty much any prediction — or no prediction at all — would be defensible. But fortune favors the bold.
This race has been former President Donald Trump’s to lose for the last 10 months or so.
The consistent closeness of the survey research; the uncertainty as to whether opinion researchers have cured their underestimation problem concerning Mr. Trump; the favorable issues context; the uncertainty of the extent of voter hesitancy concerning Vice President Kamala Harris; registration trends in Pennsylvania, Arizona, Georgia and North Carolina; and the slight but measurable Democratic erosion among Black and Hispanic voters all suggest that if the election were held tomorrow and run 100 times, Mr. Trump would probably win 56 to 58 of them.
An important validation of that belief is Ms. Harris’ willingness to do interviews with Fox News and Joe Rogan. Campaigns use those high-risk, high-reward tactics only when they believe they are losing. If Ms. Harris and her advisers thought they were winning, the smart play — and they are smart players — would be to play it safe.
The case for a Harris victory is not quite as strong. Ms. Harris’ campaign has consistently argued that Mr. Trump is a threat to democracy itself and that abortion access is the essential question of this cycle. It is possible that those will be sufficient to drive turnout in swing states. It is possible that Mr. Trump is seen as too old, too authoritarian or too divisive to run a successful presidential administration. It could be that voters are just tired of him.
A victory for Mr. Trump is probably for the best. The intellectually flaccid and philosophically nomadic Ms. Harris has not run a directed, focused campaign. A Harris administration would likely be equally lost at sea, pulled in different directions by the various factions of the Democratic Party.
That said, a second Trump administration — whatever you may have heard — would not necessarily be less chaotic than the first one.
History is not on Mr. Trump’s side. Presidents have historically had a bad time in their second term. When the Great Depression deepened in Franklin D. Roosevelt’s second term, we slid toward war. Harry Truman got hopelessly lost in the Korean War. George W. Bush wandered aimlessly further into his war. Richard Nixon resigned midway through his second term. Barack Obama struggled to deal with a Republican Congress that seemed impervious to his genius.
In short, Francis Scott Fitzgerald was probably right, at least for the presidency: There are no second acts in American life. Sequels are never as good as the original.
That’s not to say that Mr. Trump isn’t the right choice. He is. But a significant chunk of life is spent setting one’s expectations appropriately.
• Michael McKenna is a contributing editor at The Washington Times.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.