As Americans move through the silly season of politics, a couple of major issues remain to be decided before the real campaign starts. One, are the Democrats interested as a party to move substantially to the Left to court young voters, and, two, are Republicans willing to allow Donald Trump to redefine them as radical conservatives? On both counts, the answer pivots on whether the respective party establishments are strong enough to turn the momentum back towards the middle where modern politicians love to be: not too hot, not too cold. The flamboyancy of a Trump and the radical newness of a Saunders are commodities that seem to be troubling to those who believe that status quo is just fine if you want to win elections with around fifty-one percent. Frankly, for old-timers like myself, this style of politicking has becoming very predictable and boring. The traditional issues such as taxation, immigration, global warming, healthcare, entitlements, and education too often break down along partisan lines. So, along come two political mavericks who aren’t your typical politicos in terms of where they line up on policy, influence, and vision. While Saunders would want to make government a bigger and more complex part of the political equation, Trump would want to reduce that influence by expanding the power of the executive to make speedy and effective decisions. Both models, while having some merit in addressing longstanding problems such as voter apathy and gridlock, neither involves any commitment to reaching out to understand the other side. Hence, the continued perpetuation of polarized politics bordering on demagoguery and widespread confusion. I have never seen such a confused electorate in all my years of following politics, as currently seen in the United States and Canada. People seem to be more aware of who and what they don’t want rather than what they do. Ergo, Trump and Saunders receive incredible support as the default candidates in the primaries because the alternatives no longer look viable when it comes to dealing with critical issues. Both these candidates provide easy solutions to perplexing problems which, on the surface, seem appealing because they appear to be resonating with the disaffected voter. Here’s the rub on this unexpected political backlash or firestorm: these extraordinary reactions to the status quo usually trigger reactions of their own, and this is what we are seeing this past week in American politics. As one who has been opposed to Trump from the beginning, I have been waiting for the moment when his enemies coalesced around a unified position and blocked his road to the nomination. Like eagerly waiting for any important outcome, this particular process is full of angst, anticipation and longueur that will probably last right to the convention this summer in Cleveland. Trump will likely be taken down because of his patent inability to reach out to minorities, women, independent voters, and guarantee a GOP victory in the Senate but that doesn’t mean it won’t get interesting in the interim as to who will ultimately be the standard-bearer. On the other side, Clinton will likely win the Democratic nomination because of her widespread appeal to Latinos and Blacks, but that doesn’t imply that she won’t be politically beaten up by a very dirty and exhausting campaign. For the next couple of months, my attention turns from tracking the sensational exploits of Trump and Saunders to following the intrigues with the respective party establishments as they come to grips with reality, clouded by troubling uncertainty. Trump and Saunders have, after all, been intriguing sideshows whose duration may very well be coming to an end because they don’t have enough moxy to take it all the way: revolutions and demigods usually go that way by running out of steam before they can deliver what they promised.