My Take On Last November

Hillary Clinton and John Podesta plot campaign strategy.
Photo credit: Metro Goldwyn Meyer

My Take On Last November


This diatribe is off the top 'o my head. I'm not going to use "facts 'n figures", etc.. This is only a retelling of how I experienced last Novembers' miracle.

How the heck did Trumpus Maximus win!? ... But then, how did Clinton lose?

1. From the start, Clinton had a LOT of baggage going in. Folks already had a gut full of her co-presidency of the '90s and the accompanying fireworks of which she was NOT the wide eyed innocent. Her stint as Secretary of State during the Obama regime didn't sit well with a lot of folks either. The Benghazi affair, deleted emails, "What difference does it make?"/evasiveness and doing private business on the companys' time and dime. There was no way she could get out from under such an interesting past.

The negatives Mr. Trump had ...

"GRAB 'ER BY THE PUSSY! GRAB 'ER BY THE PUSSY! EEK! EEK! EEK! EEK! HE SAID GRAB 'ER BY THE PUSSY!"

Man, if that's the worst they could come up with ...

Yeah there were other personal negatives on him, ranging from his personal life, business dealings, tax matters and his blunt manner (Actually a plus!) but they seemed trivial compared to Clintons' "trail of bodies".

The lefts' referring to him and his supporters as fascist, nazi, racist and whateveraphobes really had little effect. Such terms have now pretty much lost their meaning except "I hate you because you disagree with me". These idiots wouldn't know what fascism was (The means of production being privately owned but dictated to by the state.) if Mussolini himself kicked them in the nuts.

And they wouldn't know what racism was (The inner feeling and outward expression of support and unity with those of ones' own race.) if I bit them on the ass.

2. Clintons' communication problems didn't help her either.

A. She didn't really to like talking to people. Didn't like answering questions. Press conferences (Except toward the end.) she avoided as much as possible.

Mr. Trump LOVES to talk. Press conferences, arranged or on the spot, he'd jump right in.

Clinton would give a speech, disappear for awhile, have a rally, disappear awhile ...

Trump was all over the place! Seemingly in more than one place at a time. At least three speeches/rallies a day. He was out hustling, selling the product.

B. While both had FUCK YOU attitudes, Mr. Trump was at least saying FU to the right people such as the Democrat Party, Wall Streeters, elitists, left media, the Republican Party (This endeared him to a LOT of disaffected republicans.) and coprophages like the failed Manchurian candidate, John McCain.

Clinton, on the other hand, FUed the wrong people.

You DON'T go to the heart of coal country saying you're "going to put coal miners and coal companies out of business". What that said to a LOT of folks was she was going to keep/put them out of work. Condescendingly saying how important the environment was but you're going to have them working in "green industries" somewhere down the road (Maybe ... perhaps ... might ... If ever I get around to it ...) doesn't help either. While it certainly was a nicer way of telling all those working stiffs to go to hell, it didn't help her campaign any.

Pennsylvania and West Virginia went red as a consequence.

You don't say (In regard to Trumps' MAGA slogan.) America is already great and that's why you'll continue the policies of the previous administration. Lots of folks already had a heaping helping of that the past eight years. They weren't looking for another four plus.

You don't go calling your opponents supporters "a basket full of deplorables" (Thus giving a new slogan to the other side!). A large number of folks who were sympathetic but hesitant about Trump before, got knocked off the fence and into MAGA over that one. Backtracking and saying you only meant half of your opponents supporters came too lame and too late. Both halves and then some thought you were talking about them.

C. Using the old tried and true method of the "capitol hill shill" (Used in the past by politicos from both sides of the aisle.), Clinton speechified, seemingly more to "groups" and special interests, about how she was right and her opponent wrong using long winded diatribes and at times talking over every ones' heads.

Trumps' style was definitely atypical. He'd directly address peoples problems and made it seem like he was talking personally to working people. "YOU ... are worried about your family, the future of YOUr children. YOU're concerned about safety, national security, terrorism. YOUr job, pay check, taxes, take home, etc.".

The style was simple, direct and ... repetitive. Saying the same things over and over.

This drove both left and right nuts. Not realizing that Mr. Trump was NOT campaigning. He was advertising. Carefully listen to a typical thirty to sixty second radio/TV ad and note how many times the product/solution they're selling is mentioned by name.

I also found his hand gestures and facial expressions interesting. While folks listened with their ears, their eyes were focused on hands and face thus making it easier for the message to register in their minds. I don't know if Mr. Trump was consciously using this "hypnotism" or not but it was fascinating as well as effective.

Trump could be hypnotic whereas Clinton would bore or put people to sleep ... except when she was doing her more than excellent Margaret Hamilton impersonation ("I'll GET you my pretty ... AND YOUR LITTLE DOG TOTO TOO!").

3. Crowd sizes:

CNN (Commie News Net) and other propaganda outlets assured us that crowd size at speeches and rallies were no factor in determining the elections' outcome. They correctly cited that Mitt Romney drew larger crowds than Obama in 2012 but still lost.

Howsomever ...

Romney had nowhere near the crowd sizes that Mr. Trump had and Ms. Clintons' were nowhere near that of Obamas'.

In the interest of "fairness", PMSNBC and other alt left media would not turn the cameras around on the crowds. I had a better picture of how things were from alternate print and vid sources on the net. You know ... the "nazis" at Brietbart, the "conspiracy mongers" at Infowars, that "fascist" Drudgereport and all those You Tube "anarchists". They would turn the cameras around.

I'd never seen anything before like it! While Clinton had trouble putting butts in seats at high school auditoriums, Trump had no trouble at all getting OVERFLOW crowds at stadiums and airline hangers. Yeah ... Those huge buildings they park jumbo jets in to get serviced.

The photos of "huddled masses" in front of auditorium stages at Clinton "rallies" were sad and pathetic. Sometimes the combination of the numbers of her paid entourage and the media locusts would rival that of her supporters. The cancelled rally in Florida where Kaine, her running mate was to speak ... Only EIGHT people showed up.

Trump spoke at noon one day at the county fairgrounds in my area. They were turning people away at 10:30 AM.

All through the campaign, media mouth(y)pieces kept declaring that crowd size doesn't translate into votes.

Large numbers of people don't drive for miles/hours to hear someone speak in the full knowledge of a one in four chance they'd be turned away ... and not vote.

4. Wikileaks:

No matter who "hacked" the DNC and others the fact of the matter is that what was in those E-mails was true.

A. Collusion of the Dems and the media to pump Clinton at the expense of Trump.

Dems SHOULD be mad ... but not at Trump. The meat puppets had the rank and file absolutely convinced of Clintons' inevitability. THEY had them believing the throne had already been set up in the White House and the crown and ruby slippers all shined and ready.

So much so, some of them stayed home on election day thinking their votes weren't needed. A lot of them now are out there smashing windows and being the useless little punks they are. So how the hell does that help?

B. Manipulation of the polls:

I read articles about the pollsters oversampling of Dems in order to "weight" their results. I only consulted two polls, LA Times/USC (With its interesting criteria.) which had the two neck and neck and sometimes Rasmussen. The fact the pollsters couldn't reliably gauge the influence and number of "new voters" (Some of whom hadn't voted since the Reagan era!) also had me wondering.

C. The screwing of Bernie Sanders in the primary run:

Yes, there was a "never Trump" movement. What is less well known was the "never Hillary" faction.

Whereas the the anti-Trumpers were party "higher ups"/officials and hacks the anti-Hillary bunch were from the Dem rank and file, many pulling for Sanders.
Clintons' trust issues made many skepticle. The leaks only intensified that. When Sanders lost the nomination a large number ended up voting third party or even Trump (Who said some of the same things about Wall Street as Sanders.).

Sanders "drinking the Kool-Aid" (Jimmy Jones Party Punch!) and backing Clinton made him seem like just another shill to many who then lost faith in the Dem party.

5. The debates:

Of course the alt left "lugenpresse" said Clinton walked away with all three. Bull!

A. The first one had Trump holding his own.

B. As for the second one ...

History has shown the conservative candidate will lose the election if he does not have the support of two groups: Gun Owners and Evangelicals.

Mr. Trump had the gun owners solidly behind him long before the second debate. The National Rifle Association endorsed him BEFORE the Republican National Convention (With Romney, it wasn't until October!) and the rest weren't far behind.

The evangelicals were pretty much with Trump by then but there were still quite a few fence sitters in that quarter. Mr. Trumps' forceful stating of his positions on and Ms. Clintons' rather callous answers to the question about late term and partial birth abortion knocked them right OFF the fence and cemented that faction in the Trump camp.

The "bitter clingers" won big that November.

C. In the third debate, on being asked by Chris Wallace about the deleted E-mails from her stint as Secretary of State, she clumsily ducked the question and wouldn't answer. This didn't sit well with those watching.

6. Enthusiasm:

I've worked at the same place, a university, for the past ten years. This college is no exception when it comes to places of higher learning being hotbeds of indoctrination into the wonders and glories of leftist non-wisdom and bullshit.

The place is covered in "rainbow safe zone" stickers. So it should come as no surprise that the support for Obama was through the roof there.

In both 2008 and 2012 elections, the enthusiasm for that socialist asshole was incredible.

"OOOOOO! ... Our first black president!"

Faculty 'n fools couldn't get enough of him. Posters, get out the vote drives, rallies, etc.. Young  Democrats and other subversive on-campus organisations reserving conference rooms and lounges for meetings and watching the debates.

You get the idea.

2016 ... Nothing.

No, "OOOOOO ... Our first WOMYN president!"

The campus was pretty quiet. Sure, the odd student would make some snide comment about Mr. Trump at the lobby TV now and then and that's about it.

Shoot! Just the other day a fine upstanding "sexual non-conformist", fresh out of viewing a weekly film at the "Queer Film Fest" series in one of the auditoriums shouted a hearty FU! at Fox coverage of Mr. Trumps' recent rally in Pennsyltucky.

During the campaign there was evidence of they and Ms. Clinton being against something. But not really being FOR anything ... Except maybe the "same old, same old" of the past eight years.

Aside from a sign in the lobby on election day offering rides to polling places, I didn't see ANY activity.

I couldn't help but feel Clinton may be having trouble.

7. Last days of the campaign:

A. Whether or not Comeys' letters to Congress about additional Clinton/State Dept. E-mails influenced the election he knew he was going to be accused of supporting one candidate or the other no matter when he announced them. My guess is he decided to avoid criticism of not having announced as soon as he could instead of later. In my view he was only doing CYA and not because it was in support of Trump.

B. Clinton kept doing her comparatively sporadic speechifying (Though she did step up her frequency of press conferences.) while Mr. Trump, as usual, was continually on the hustle and getting his word out.

The weekend before election day Mr. Trump went to all the battleground states and then some. He looked like he wanted to win this one. Maybe it's just me but
Clinton hardly seemed to be mentioned much. Don't you want to win this one, lady?

C. The Wednesday before election day, it was announced the Clinton campaign cancelled the fireworks display that was to happen in the event of a Clinton victory. Did someone in her group know something we didn't?

D. Thursday before election day, a Drudge Report link led me to a You Tube presentation wherein a young lady mentioned that the Clinton campaign was withdrawing people and resources from the battleground states of Florida, North Carolina and Pennsylvania.

Was the campaign staff that confident (Arrogant?) that they didn't need to put that much effort in those important states?

It seems to have been the case considering Ms. Clintons' behavior late November Eight/early November Nine. After finding she was losing, she was in no mental shape to deliver a concession speech and did so much later that morning.

8. Election day:

I wake up, sweating bullets. Usual net reading no comfort at all.

Go in to work in the afternoon (nite shift). Nothing going to happen 'til about eight o'clock. Still sweating.

After eight, Clinton grabs an early lead. Northwest reporting in. Clinton grabs New York, pundits crow about Trump losing his home state (Leaving out the fact his "other" home state, Florida was yet to be counted.).

Of course New York went to Clinton. Fully expected that. No conservative has gotten NY in a looooong time.

About an hour later I glance at the lobby screen. Trump in a small lead that got bigger later which he maintained the rest of the night.

I go home at midnite thirty by which Mr. Trumps' lead was looking pretty good. Michigan, Pennsy and others still close.

I get on Fox streaming and Stormfront.

Yes, THAT Stormfront (Nazis! ... And KluKKers! ... And trolls! ... OH MY!)!

Seems a really hot thread in the Newslinks and Articles section was really going at it. They were practically in "chatroom" mode considering how quick the responses were coming in. Even the Trump haters were rooting for Trump!

So  ... Switching between the two, sweating out the results ...

Let's go Pennsylvania ... Trump leading ... not by much ... but ... he ... just might ...

Michigan looks even narrower. C'moooon Michigan! Go Wolverines!

Yeah, like I care. I'm supposed to be for the OSU Buckeyes but I never gave a dang about them either.

Still switching back and forth awhile. Notice some new entries on the Stormfront thread. Third to the last one:

"AP and Russian News have just declared for Trump. Wooo Hooo!"

Russian News? RT?

Going back to Fox, they're still waffling about the vote. Wallace and company commenting on the stillness of the Clinton NY headquarters and the exuberance at Trumps'. After about ten, fifteen minutes Fox finally gives it to Trump.

I never thought I'd see the day when Fox gets scooped by "Russian News".

9: Conclusion:

Keep in mind, this article is off the top'o my head. If things seem a little sketchy and inexact it's because of the time since and this is only from where I sat through the whole thing.

Right now, Mr. Trump is going through some rocky times, what with the incredible butt hurt the Dems are still going through. Along with the never-
Trumping whinos 'n RINOS like McCain, et al ...

Well ... With Republicans like these ... Who needs Democrats?

Keep in mind, Mr. Trump isn't this all powerful wizard casting spells to instantly make things better. He's only one man and the krap ain't over yet.

So let's get ready for 2018 and 2020. Volunteer, get involved and VOTE!

Jus' sayin ...


Note: My apologies to Margaret Hamilton (The 'Wicked Witch of the West" in The Wizard of Oz. MGM, 1939.) for use of the title photo. She was a GREAT actress!


Go to Jays' Tee Vee blog main page here. Ifn' ya sees articles under this 'un already, then yer already there ... MAGA!