The Popcorn Stand: Election all about paralysis through analysis
Paralysis through analysis. That’s what we got throughout the endless campaign and that’s what we will continue to get. For the next several weeks, months, years, we’ll get enough talking heads to tell us what Donald Trump did right, but mostly the post-mortem on everything the Democrats and Hillary Clinton did wrong.
It will be just like all those talking head shows on all the sports channels except they will be talking head shows on news channels.
Want some insightful analysis. Here it is. Donald Trump got more votes in the areas he needed to than Hillary Clinton did. That’s it. That’s all I want to hear.
Although evidently, Clinton may actually win the popular vote. Or at least that’s what I’ve been told. As soon as it was announced Clinton called to concede, I tuned out politics and that will last for weeks, months, maybe years.
Of course, just like John Madden with his telestrator (which I’ve written here before was his shtick that got pretty old), we will hear the talking heads break all the minutia down just like the sabermetrics people do in baseball why Donald Trump was so much more popular than Mitt Romney in rural areas in this country.
Again, you want some more insightful analysis. Donald Trump was more popular in rural areas than Mitt Romney. That’s it.
The one sabermetrics guy I do think is helpful once every four years is John Kings. He kept pointing out the 1,000 votes here and the few hundred votes there Trump kept getting was adding up.
As I’ve written before, I’ve never been a fan of Donald Trump — and this was long before he ever seriously entered politics. He’s the Howard Cosell of politics. If you don’t tell him how great he is, he’ll tell you how great he is.
But he actually may make a decent president, I have no idea.
I don’t have any paralysis through analysis insight for that one.
— Charles Whisnand