The think tank here at Falling Downs called it three months ago.
Three months later the mainstream is beginning to acknowledge the possibility.
In between we've been treated to a lot of highly improbable speculation that either Cruz or Kasich could prevail over Hillary, but Trump couldn't. That line of reasoning was obvious hokum from the beginning. The tortured logic that led to such a fanciful conclusion was just wishful thinking on the part of a mainstream media that has long been little more than the propaganda arm for the Wall Street - Pentagon nexus that holds the levers of power in both parties, aka "the establishment."
What the msm is only grudgingly beginning to acknowledge is that the establishment has alienated a wide swath of American voters across the political spectrum. The more the media sense the impending overthrow of that establishment, the more they pile on the bullshit. For instance, it's impossible to go anywhere in the mainstream news universe without reading multiple accounts of "Putin's aggression" and how critical it is that America and her NATO allies do more to stare him down.
That's another way of saying we need to hand over tens or hundreds of billions more to the very same military-industrial cartels that have been working their miracles on American foreign policy for the last twenty years. One reason for the surge in support for anti-establishment candidates is that Joe Public finally sees this bullshit as the brazen fear-mongering that it is. Seriously, the US outspends Russia ten to one on military spending by we're still supposed to fear Russia every time a Beltway "defence expert" waves Putin at us?
Get outta here!
Unfortunately, there is no candidate on either side who is more closely identified with that big-money, big-military establishment than HRC. No, she hasn't been a serious alternative for Bernie's supporters and isn't about to become one going forward.
Trump, on the other hand, could be. Take for example his much ridiculed "Foreign Policy Speech" the other day. It was much ridiculed mostly by the same "experts" and their media cheer-leaders who have led America into one disastrous war after another... does their track record suggest that Americans should be heeding their advice?
I'm thinking it's their track record of stupid, bloody, illegal, fabulously expensive (but tremendously enriching for the likes of Raytheon and Lockheed Martin) wars that have made the anti-establishment candidates so appealing in the first place.
So Trump wants to go "isolationist?" The US could close hundreds of foreign military bases and still have far more than the rest of the world combined. I don't see the harm in that. Trump is also the first candidate for a major party to tell the truth about what the "free trade" agreements that have been in fashion for the last thirty years have really done to America's working class. That's another powerful reason that more American voters than ever before believe it's time for a serious change.
Those dubious relationships with "allies" wherein the costs are paid by one side and the benefits accrue to the other have long passed their stale-dates too. Sure, let Trump make some symbolic gesture like moving the embassy to Jerusalem, but why should wealthy and powerful nuclear-weapons-equipped Israel get one more penny from the US tax-payer?
These are of course all non-starters for "the establishment." They need the status quo. They need the current policies to keep the enemies to justify the massive arms spending to keep the profits rolling in.
Hillary Clinton is the candidate of and for the status quo.
The silent majority of Americans are fed-up with that establishment.
That's why Trump will bury her in November.