He should just read this!
Posted on 11/08/2017 8:57:15 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Richard Warnica: Everything I saw in person, over months, looked good for Trump. But I never fully bought into any of it — not the enormous crowds or the enthusiasm
I recently found a copy of the notes I made the first time I saw Donald Trump in person. It was at a rally in Des Moines, Iowa, in January 2016. Even outside, it was the strangest thing I had ever seen in politics. Hundreds, maybe thousands, were queued up in the cold. A who’s who of through-the-looking-glass Americana stretched over the yellow grass while reporters from all over the world buzzed the line, gawking at the scene.
There was a paradox there, even then, with the reporters, myself included. Trump was the biggest story going; we all wanted a slice. But at the same time, we were sure — we were convinced — that he wouldn’t matter in the end. His movement was something, I figured then. Trumpism was a thing. But Trump himself was definitely not. He was a carnival, a nationalist clown. But he wasn’t serious. He would never be the nominee, let alone president. That would be absurd.
How could I have been so wrong?
It’s been a year since Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton and I’m still struggling with that question. I’m not the only one. Since last November, “How Trump won” has become a publishing genre unto itself and a full-time journalism beat, up there with cops, courts and city hall. Very good reporters like Jane Mayer, Alexis Madrigal and Joshua Green have thrown themselves at the project. So have essayists including Ta-Nahesi Coates and David Frum. Politicians, including Clinton herself, have had their say. Even the guy behind Dilbert took a turn....
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalpost.com ...
After all the gibberish this guy wrote, he finally comes up with the answer at the end of his article.
“Everything I saw in person, over months, looked good for Trump. But I never fully bought into any of it — not the enormous crowds or the unbridled, unhinged enthusiasm. I dismissed all that as interesting noise.”
He ignored everything that he saw happening in front of him.
And there's your answer. The other choice was Hillary Clinton.
A year later and their heads are still spinning like Linda Blair’s in the Exorcist.
best
election
ever
Democrats never thought Trump had a chance
They are now energized more than ever to try and take him down
That includes voting against any GOP candidate in all elections til 2020
There will be no staying home except for blacks in off years
White liberals will turn out in mass for all elections
Read Scott Adams.
WE, the 63 million Americans who voted for President Trump are not a part of the we that you refer to Dick Warnica.
By the way, he's a snowflake looking Canadian who will never get it:
“She couldn’t fill a small high school gymnasium”
She had trouble filling a small hallway at one point.
“Read Scott Adams.”
This.
Comments...hmmm, well except for the fact that the author (1) admits his cluelessness during the campaign, (2) admits to his surprise at the election outcome, (3) admits to reading mostly, if not exclusively left-leaning sources to try to figure out what happened and why, and (4) admits to still not getting it, what more is there to say? The author spent all that time looking down on Trump and his supporters despite what his own eyes and experiences were telling him. He absolutely refused to understand the phenomenon. If that isn’t the very definition of arrogant bias, I don’t know what is.
The Clinton campaign missed the correct numbers because she and they dismissed us as an irredeemable basket of Deplorables. When one has that attitude about at least half the electorate, of course key trends will go unnoticed. The Left and its media shills still have that attitude about us. To which my response is most definitely impolite.
A far more salient question would be why so many people enthusiastically supported Hillary despite her decades-long record of deceit and corruption? A record now even more sordid with the revelations since the election. And we are just scratching the surface.
I had a pretty good idea that Trump would win it all about 2 months from election day.
I live in what the media thought was a "Battleground State" (it wasn't). Trump came locally, filled a 10,000-ish seat venue, and had 1000's more standing outside - in a thunderstorm - just to listen to his canned campaign speech over a loudspeaker.
Hillary showed up a couple of days later, spoke to a "women's group" at a primarily female college campus, and couldn't even draw 100 people. The event was "rescheduled" to a campus lunchroom (can't have the candidate talking to an empty auditorium), and she still only quarter-filled that. The MSM propaganda pics - close-up, of course, speaking to rapturous and attentive listeners - were in stark contrast to reality, where she's standing in front of a mostly-empty room, mostly-populated by press and other hangers-on.
At that point, I said, "If Trump doesn't shoot himself in the foot, he's got this cold."
How could you be so wrong, Mr. journalist?
You never took Trump seriously, and worked with other journalists to ensure that he became the Republican candidate, BECAUSE you didn’t take his supporters seriously either.
Finally, you NEVER expected him to actually WIN...because you and others like you literally cheated to make sure he lost.
That’s why.
Now, why are you like that? Sexually molested as a child or something?
Ping:
“Never did I imagine that Trump would win the Republican nomination, would install Bannon to run his campaign, or would defeat Hillary Clinton in the general election.”
“Only in hindsight, Green believes, “did it become clear that Bannon had a better feel for the American electorate’s anxieties than almost anyone else in the arena, save perhaps Donald Trump.”
For Green, Bannon is the biggest thing everybody missed about 2016. It’s not hard to understand why. The Bannon sketched out in Devil’s Bargain is an outlandish nutter who seemed to go out of his way not to appear credible. He trafficked, and still does traffic, in views about Islam and race and other issues that would have been disqualifying for a major political figure in an earlier era. His political ideas were drawn from such oddball sources as online gaming and ....
Ding, ding, ding - we have a thread winnah!
Profound...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.