I don't understand that "betrayal" thing. Maybe someone closer to the stump can explain. But I got only about halfway through the New Yorker article before deciding that three things about it bothered me.

1. Again, it's all about personality not policy, and that is not the way (IMHO) to decide who should be president.
2. It continues to diminish discussion of policy (the thing that actually matters) by using the insulting-sounding term "wonk" in the same way that intelligence in school or university is denigrated by the use of the insulting term "nerd".
3. It really is not possible to give any serious consideration to a discussion of a presidential candidate that tries not only to assess whether he is "goofy" or not but also how that affects his worthiness as a candidate.

Bah!