Part 1—Liberal and mainstream denial: We'll grant you, it was only one vote. That said, it might start us on a shining path—on the road toward understanding how we managed to get here.
The vote was cast by Angie Hartman, a 50-year-old Pennsylvanian. Margaret Sullivan describes the vote in today's Washington Post.
Sullivan interviewed voters in Luzerne County, Pa. Located in northeastern Pennsylvania, it's part of the Scranton–Wilkes-Barre–Hazleton Metropolitan Statistical Area.
Disaster struck in that statistical area. Here's the way Hartman voted:
SULLIVAN (2/13/17): Angey Hartman, 50, lives about an hour away in Benton, where every day she walks to the newspaper box to buy the Bloomsburg Press Enterprise.Sullivan offered an underwhelming piece about where voters get their information and what they think of those news orgs. Along the way, she offered that profile of one of the votes which sent Donald J. Trump to the White House, dragging Bannon and Miller behind him.
An antiabortion Christian, Hartman voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. But she flipped from blue to red after deciding that Clinton was untrustworthy and weak on national security.
“I didn’t want to feel like she’d be lying to me,” said the stay-at-home mother, whose autistic son attends Luzerne’s community college. Her husband, a laborer at Girton Manufacturing in Millville, voted for Trump, too, she said.
Hartman is not on Facebook and doesn’t watch cable news. Like many others, she relies on her local newspaper and on broadcast TV: Channel 16 and ABC’s “World News.”
Hartman's vote was just one vote. That said, it may not be a bad place to start if we want to figure out how we managed to get here.
According to Sullivan, Hartman voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. This time, she voted Republican. She voted for Donald J. Trump.
“I didn’t want to feel like [Clinton would] be lying to me,” Hartman is said to have said. Hartman's vote was one of the votes which turned Pennsylvania red.
Hartman's explanation for her vote strikes us as highly striking. Imagine! Candidate Clinton was running against the greatest dissembler the political world has ever seen. And yet this voter, like many others, was so concerned about Clinton's perceived lying that she says that this perception helped determine her vote.
Clinton was running against Candidate Trump—but she was seen as the troubling liar! On the one hand, this can be seen as a wondrously comical fact—as the latest practical joke engineered by Homer's Olympian gods.
It could also be a starting point for the "autopsy" our own team needs to conduct, but almost certainly won't.
How can a person run against Trump and get rejected for lying so much? The answer to that remarkable question takes us back many years.
How can a person run against Trump and be perceived as the liar? The answer involves decades of lazy, inept, self-dealing behavior by the mainstream American press, and by the career liberal world.
Just think of it! The liberal world lost an election to Donald J. Trump because its candidate was perceived as the liar! Let's offer the analysis you're likely to see almost nowhere else:
A political movement has to be completely inept to lose an election that way. Who could possibly be that inept?
We liberals come to mind!
Eight years ago, the Republican Party conducted an "autopsy" in the wake of its election defeat. Dems and liberals badly need to conduct a such a study now.
We aren't likely to do that, of course. Almost surely, our vast, overweening self-regard will keep us from even imagining a fact which is blatantly obvious:
We got here through acts of laziness, incompetence and fraud—acts committed by Us Liberals, not by Them Over There.
These acts stretch back twenty-five years. Our mainstream press corps was deeply involved in this misconduct too. Like us, they're currently plowing ahead in a state of self-dealing denial.
We liberals love to blame The Others. Like dumbkopfs through the annals of time, we're very strongly disinclined to take a look at ourselves.
Somehow, we managed to lose Hartman's vote. Over the course of the next few weeks, we're going to review a few of the ways we amazingly managed to do that.
Tomorrow: Let's start by taking it slow and easy:
Stanford Law School professor speaks out—concerning the look of Trump's ties!