Due to the fact there is no mail service on Wednesday because of Veterans Day, we had to wrap up this edition of The Landmark a day early and get it dropped in the mail on Tuesday. It’s good practice for Thanksgiving Week, when we’ll do the day early program again so that you’ll receive your newspaper in advance of Turkey Day.
Let’s be intellectually honest with each other. Biden won. Trump lost.
All that’s left to be decided is the margin of victory.
Hey, where are all the people who told us the virus would disappear after the election?
Seems like it’s still here. I’m starting to think we’ve been sold a bill of goods on this, you guys.
Wait, so medical science is a real thing? I’m confused. Better turn on Fox News to get some straight answers.
If you’re hanging on to a thread of hope about the outcome of the presidential race, consider this. The current situation is not at all similar to Bush-Gore in 2000. In the presidential race of 2000, there was one state–Florida–left in doubt and the result in that state would decide who would be president. Recounting in that state centered around a margin of 500 votes. Yes, 500 votes.
That’s nothing like what we have in 2020. All told, hundreds of thousands of votes would have to be affected by whatever challenges are being considered. The projected outcome in multiple states–not just one state–would have to change for Trump to have a chance at capturing enough electoral college votes to swing the result in his direction.
Certainly any valid evidence of voter fraud should be investigated. Not the wild conspiracy theories, let’s leave that to Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson and Dagmar Wood.
I guess what I’m saying is that it seems unrealistic to be expecting the outcome to change. You have the right to rub it in my face if I’m proven wrong, however.
So you think Trump still has a chance to win? I think there’s a better chance you’ll see Nan Johnston and Ivan Foley holding hands while skipping down Parkville’s Main Street.
Not sure but I think I just referred to myself in the third person. My apologies to myself.
Trump can take solace in at least one thing: For whatever reason, the polls in each of the last two presidential elections have greatly underestimated him. There’s no denying it.
Somehow I doubt his ego is taking a lot of comfort in that right now, but still.
Trump lost because of a combination of several reasons. Here are some that jump out at me.
1. Highest on that list is the way he approached the COVID-19 pandemic. His plan seems to have featured a lot of bluster and not much substance. Some might say his plan was to have no plan. He disavowed scientists and health experts. He said the virus would disappear by Easter. Then he said it would disappear when the weather got warmer. This just in: Easter has come and gone. Warm weather has come and gone. The virus is still here.
2. Racial unrest after George Floyd’s death when protesters ran rampant in the streets and Trump’s divisive rhetoric–shocking, I know–did little to calm the situation.
3. When federal and local authorities gassed protesters in Lafayette Square across from the White House so Trump could stage a photo op at a church.
4. His embarrassing performance in the first debate, when Trump showed zero statesmanship or class, interrupting his way through a performance that turned off many voters who at the time were still willing to be swayed his direction. It was the final straw for a lot of people, especially many older voters.
Older voters typically don’t like constant chaos, which was a staple of Trump’s presidency. His refusal to chill and let there be periods of calm, the constant drama, his thin skin, persistent self-victimization. . .all these things were exhausting to many people. Older voters don’t like to feel mentally exhausted. Older voters typically prefer a person who is emotionally mature. Emotional maturity is not in Trump’s DNA.
There were some entertaining moments in the television news coverage of election night, which turned into election week.
One memorable moment for me came late on election night and happened in local coverage on Fox 4. I’m pretty sure I heard Fox 4 anchor Pat McGonigle refer to a rumbling, bumbling, stumbling talk by Barbara Bollier, a candidate for US Senate in Kansas, as “a stirring concession speech.”
McGonigle’s observation made me laugh. Had he just watched the same thing I did? I mean, I was working in the Landmark office at the time with the TV on in the background and the thing that drew my attention to the screen in the first place was an uncomfortable cadence in Bollier’s delivery. I stopped to look at the television and saw that Bollier was not speaking off the top of her head but instead was awkwardly reading from what appeared to be a notebook or other device she was holding in her hand. Her talk struck me as a lot of things, but “stirring” wasn’t one of them.
(Ivan Foley can be found uncomfortably listening to Barbara Bollier while waiting for the virus to disappear like we were promised. Email email@example.com)