PotusGeeks Book Review: The Making of the President 2016
Veteran author and self-described "conspiracy theorist" Roger Stone is the first out of the gate with this post-election season's round of post-mortems of the 2016 campaign in his January 2017 book The Making of the President 2016: How Donald Trump Orchestrated a Revolution. Stone is the guy who accused Lyndon Johnson of being the "mastermind" behind the JFK assassination. He's also a long-time Trump supporter, and without apology or seeing this as any sort of negative, he highlights the strong similarities between his guy and Richard Nixon, not because of any common paranoid tendencies, but because of Nixon's ability to draw support from "the silent majority", something that Stone argues accounts for Trump's surprising victory.
This book really has four gears: (1) one in which Stone chronicles the 2016 presidential campaign (including the primaries and nomination process for both parties); (2) Stone's analysis of why Donald Trump won (more so why Hillary Clinton lost); (3) portions where Stone smites his political enemies (mainly Republican insiders like Ted Cruz and campaign consultant Ed Rollins, as well as mercurial Trump supporter Corey Lewandowski), and (4) sections of the book where Stone makes the circumstantial case for a number of serious allegations. (These included Bill Clinton's alleged paternity of African-American Danney Williams, accusations of criminal conduct on the part of the Clinton Foundation, as well as accusations that Hillary Clinton's Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin, was a spy for Saudi Arabia.) The latter two "gears" are the least enjoyable sections of the book. It is in the former two where most of the lessons from the 2016 election can be learned.
Stone argues that, failing to learn from the lessons of 2008, the Clinton campaign stressed its candidate's experience at a time when what the nation really wanted was change. Voters were angry with the status quo and with career politicians. He cites the fundamental mistake of the Clinton brain-trust as being that it assumed it would retain the same support that Barack Obama had in the two previous elections, failing to appreciate growing voter dissatisfaction with declining incomes, job losses due to outsourcing, the failure to make Wall Street accountable for corporate greed, and fear of the future as many Americans neared retirement. Stone argues that all of this mattered more to voters than political correctness. It is ironic that a billionaire real estate investor was the candidate best able to profit electorally from anger over growing income disparity. But voters showed an intense distrust of Washington politicians on whose watch these problems continued to worsen, and by understanding what was really on voters' minds, Stone makes the case that Trump was able to draw enough support from former Obama voters, especially in blue-collar regions of traditional blue states.
Stone also explains why election polling was wrong, operating on the flawed assumption that voter turnout would match the demographics that it did in the two previous elections. He says that Trump pollster Tony Fabrizio's model was more in tune with the final results, because Fabrizio saw what others missed. It was Fabrizio who saw a path to victory in midwestern industrial states previously written off and who urged Trump to double-down on them, advice that proved to be prescient.
Stone also addresses the controversial issues of alleged Russian interference in the election, as well as mainstream media bias, calling the consistent reports that Trump could not win the election "the biggest piece of fake news". Stone argues that the effect of internet news sources are underestimated, and also notes how Trump himself had the ability to change the narrative on any story "in 140 characters or less" through his use of Twitter. Stone also rejects the suggestion that Trump's loss of the popular vote delegitimizes his presidency, noting that all of this difference can be found in California and New York, and that the Trump campaign strategized to win the electoral college, playing by the rules that the Constitution provides.
One weakness of this book is that while Stone constantly points out the negatives of having Hillary Clinton as the Democratic candidate, a central theme of this book, very little is said about Donald Trump's positives. Stone simply concludes that Trump is a winner. But he cautions that unless Trump shuns Washington insiders and GOP establishment in favor of fresh thinkers who lack either DC or Wall Street greed motivators, the 45th President is less likely to succeed. He likens Trump to Harry Truman, someone who ignored predictions that it was impossible for him to win, and who won the presidency by plain speaking and by listening to what voters had to say rather than by telling them what they should think.
This book will raise the blood pressure of Clinton supporters and Trump opponents. It's target audience is mainly Trump supporters. But for those wanting to take a dispassionate and objective look at what just happened, with a view to learning from the past, it is an interesting analysis of how the Trump campaign snatched victory from the jaws of defeat, provided that one is willing and able to discern those parts of the book that are an accurate chronicle of the election from those parts in which the author makes his less convincing arguments.
This book really has four gears: (1) one in which Stone chronicles the 2016 presidential campaign (including the primaries and nomination process for both parties); (2) Stone's analysis of why Donald Trump won (more so why Hillary Clinton lost); (3) portions where Stone smites his political enemies (mainly Republican insiders like Ted Cruz and campaign consultant Ed Rollins, as well as mercurial Trump supporter Corey Lewandowski), and (4) sections of the book where Stone makes the circumstantial case for a number of serious allegations. (These included Bill Clinton's alleged paternity of African-American Danney Williams, accusations of criminal conduct on the part of the Clinton Foundation, as well as accusations that Hillary Clinton's Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin, was a spy for Saudi Arabia.) The latter two "gears" are the least enjoyable sections of the book. It is in the former two where most of the lessons from the 2016 election can be learned.
Stone argues that, failing to learn from the lessons of 2008, the Clinton campaign stressed its candidate's experience at a time when what the nation really wanted was change. Voters were angry with the status quo and with career politicians. He cites the fundamental mistake of the Clinton brain-trust as being that it assumed it would retain the same support that Barack Obama had in the two previous elections, failing to appreciate growing voter dissatisfaction with declining incomes, job losses due to outsourcing, the failure to make Wall Street accountable for corporate greed, and fear of the future as many Americans neared retirement. Stone argues that all of this mattered more to voters than political correctness. It is ironic that a billionaire real estate investor was the candidate best able to profit electorally from anger over growing income disparity. But voters showed an intense distrust of Washington politicians on whose watch these problems continued to worsen, and by understanding what was really on voters' minds, Stone makes the case that Trump was able to draw enough support from former Obama voters, especially in blue-collar regions of traditional blue states.
Stone also explains why election polling was wrong, operating on the flawed assumption that voter turnout would match the demographics that it did in the two previous elections. He says that Trump pollster Tony Fabrizio's model was more in tune with the final results, because Fabrizio saw what others missed. It was Fabrizio who saw a path to victory in midwestern industrial states previously written off and who urged Trump to double-down on them, advice that proved to be prescient.
Stone also addresses the controversial issues of alleged Russian interference in the election, as well as mainstream media bias, calling the consistent reports that Trump could not win the election "the biggest piece of fake news". Stone argues that the effect of internet news sources are underestimated, and also notes how Trump himself had the ability to change the narrative on any story "in 140 characters or less" through his use of Twitter. Stone also rejects the suggestion that Trump's loss of the popular vote delegitimizes his presidency, noting that all of this difference can be found in California and New York, and that the Trump campaign strategized to win the electoral college, playing by the rules that the Constitution provides.
One weakness of this book is that while Stone constantly points out the negatives of having Hillary Clinton as the Democratic candidate, a central theme of this book, very little is said about Donald Trump's positives. Stone simply concludes that Trump is a winner. But he cautions that unless Trump shuns Washington insiders and GOP establishment in favor of fresh thinkers who lack either DC or Wall Street greed motivators, the 45th President is less likely to succeed. He likens Trump to Harry Truman, someone who ignored predictions that it was impossible for him to win, and who won the presidency by plain speaking and by listening to what voters had to say rather than by telling them what they should think.
This book will raise the blood pressure of Clinton supporters and Trump opponents. It's target audience is mainly Trump supporters. But for those wanting to take a dispassionate and objective look at what just happened, with a view to learning from the past, it is an interesting analysis of how the Trump campaign snatched victory from the jaws of defeat, provided that one is willing and able to discern those parts of the book that are an accurate chronicle of the election from those parts in which the author makes his less convincing arguments.