Yea….this caused me to re-read Trent’s article.
It really doesn’t deal in hard fact very much, which is probably why nobody “took him down.” What the article does is take a list of occurrences, for the most part, and assemble them into a here’s-how-Trump-won timeline. It;s subjective and speculative.
How does somebody take that down? Stomp their feet and say “I disagree, but I can’t prove I’m right any more than you can?”
To wit, here’s what Trent essentially wrote:
- The Wikileaks releases mattered to people. (Hard to refute)
- The Clinton campaign wasn’t pretty on the inside (I don’t think ANY political campaign is pretty on the inside. Again, hard to refute.)
- The DNC rigged the primary. (Depends how you define “rigged”, but there’s little question that the DNC leaned Clinton and provided her benefit.)
- Hilary never should have been nominated in the first place. (Well, that’s a subjective opinion)
- Liberals live in an echo chamber. (Scores of articles have been written in the last few years how both political persuasions are living in echo chambers, where people are not commonly exposed to ideas they disagree with. So, this is hard to refute as well.)
- Trent wrote: “What I found was millions of great Americans who had been disenfranchised, normal people like you and I, who did not recover from the Great Recession. They’re pissed off about Obama Care, endless wars, trade deals that have killed jobs, higher taxes, a rigged economy–and, they are not wrong.” (All that was pretty much backed up by the exit polling).
- Bernie would have beaten Trump. (That’s an opinion. No way of knowing that).
- Trent wrote: Democrats let Hillary hijack the DNC, and use her corporate money to push everyone around. Meanwhile, she used Correct The Record to poison the minds of people online into isolating themselves with paid Hillary trolls. Had Democrats paid attention to the leaks they would have seen the mountain of evidence that told the world that Hillary rigged the primaries against Bernie Sanders, and was illegally coordinating with Super PACs like CTR. She should have been disqualified. The evidence is on Wikileaks.org.”
(I BELIEVE Trent is correct on a good deal of this, although I have to admit that I didn’t actually read the Wikileaks material, but relied on 3rd party analysis. Obviously, that bit about “illegally coordinating” is a statement only an attorney ought to be making, and the “disqualification” statement is another opinion.)
- The media lied and told the country that Hilary was a shoo-in. (Although they did say that Hilary was a shoo-in, I don’t think they lied. Nate Silver showed how statistically, winning the way Trump did was a surprise, but not outside of the margin of error of the state polling.)
- “The technology that was supposed to bring us together has driven us farther apart”. (That’s an opinion, of course, but I think it’s very well grounded in evidence. See “echo chamber” commentary above.)
- Trump may be more liberal than Hilary on certain issues. (That’s actually correct, if you look at the campaign platforms line by line)
- The media focused on propaganda and never dove in to who Trump really is. (I don’t agree with this one. But, again, it’s an opinion, not subject to a fact-check.)
- Trump beat the establishment and did something historic. (Pretty much true).
- This is all a big wake up call to wake up and come together (Opinion, but I wouldst have any argument with it.) :-)
So…..where would the big “fact checking” be in a piece which is basically a lot of subjective assembly of events and opinions?