Another way of saying this is that many elite Jews were wrong. Jews dominate the American media. About half of the leading pundits are Jewish. Elite Jews help set the Overton Window in America. And these Jews had no clue about the rise of Donald Trump. No clue. And that scares many Jewish elites. <\/p>\n
Jews tend to have a distaste for populism and gentile nationalisms because almost by definition, such movements exclude Jews.<\/p>\n
While there is no reason to believe that Donald Trump will be hostile to Jews, I wonder if his rise presages the decline of Jewish power in America? <\/p>\n
I haven’t done a scientific study, but impression is that Jewish pundits and Jews in the MSM in general were about the last group to grasp the power of the Donald Trump phenomenon, and this says a great deal about them and how they see the world, and how out of touch they are with the concerns of non-Jewish Americans, particularly non-Jewish white Americans. <\/p>\n
America isn’t just a country whose primary purpose is to be user-friendly for Jews. America, like Israel and Japan and France, has its own mores and values and visions. It is not the purpose of America to serve Jews or Israel or blacks or Muslims or latinos. America was created by white Protestants. <\/p>\n
I can’t help noticing that the people with the most contempt for Trump and his followers in the following article are Jews — David Remnick, Nate Silver, Jonathan Bernstein. I’ve also heard Jewish pundits such as Dennis Prager and Bill Kristol pour on the contempt for Trump for months now. It seems like the most visceral hatred for Trump among both Republican and Democrat elites comes from Jews. Perhaps Jews are more sensitive to and afraid of seismic shifts like this one because Jews often see themselves as a tiny and defenseless people, and history’s perpetual victim of the goy’s rage and stupidity. <\/p>\n
From Politico<\/a>:<\/p>\n \nDavid Remnick, editor of The New Yorker, told his readers last summer that Donald Trump was running for president to promote his own brand and that the \u201cwhole con might end well before the first snows in Sioux City and Manchester.\u201d \u201cThe fact that so many of us, all of us, were wrong in predicting anywhere near the extent of his success so far, may be partly due to the fact we didn\u2019t want to believe those currents could be appealed to so well and so deeply and successfully,\u201d Remnick said. \u201cThe Fix\u201d blogger Cillizza was one of the first to acknowledge that he was wrong to say \u201cnever.\u201d Just a month after writing that \u201cDonald Trump is not going to be the Republican presidential nominee in 2016,\u201d he changed his tune, learning to never say \u201cnever\u201d in politics. Another way of saying this is that many elite Jews were wrong. Jews dominate the American media. About half of the leading pundits are Jewish. Elite Jews help set the Overton Window in America. And these Jews had no clue … Continue reading
\nThat was quite measured compared to James Fallows, the national correspondent of more than three decades for The Atlantic, who wrote confidently \u2014 and with his own bold for emphasis \u2014 \u201cDonald Trump will not be the 45th president of the United States. Nor the 46th, nor any other number you might name. The chance of his winning the nomination and election is exactly zero.\u201d
\nStory Continued Below
\nThose two mandarins weren\u2019t alone in dismissing Trump\u2019s chances. Washington Post blogger Chris Cillizza wrote in July that \u201cDonald Trump is not going to be the Republican presidential nominee in 2016.\u201d And numbers guru Nate Silver told readers as recently as November to \u201cstop freaking out\u201d about Trump\u2019s poll numbers.
\nNow all these journalists, and more, are coming to grips with their mistaken assessments. And some, too, are freaking out.
\nIn an interview this week, Remnick sounded both shocked and sad about Trump\u2019s success, saying it was \u201cbeyond belief\u201d and reflects an \u201cugliness\u201d that appeals to \u201cevery worst instinct\u201d in America.<\/p>\n
\nIndeed, the knowing skepticism about Trump\u2019s chances that Remnick expressed last summer was quite common throughout the journalism industry, from the most serious magazine journalists, writing with the voice of history, to most street-savvy, ear-to-the-ground bloggers: Trump had a polling ceiling; the Republican establishment would coalesce to bring him down; he didn\u2019t have a sufficient ground game; one giant gaffe would inevitably bring him down; and on and on.
\nBut barring an unprecedented convention floor fight, all signs point to the unimaginable. Trump most likely will be the Republican nominee for president.
\nSome columnists are still holding out the belief that Trump won\u2019t actually win the nomination \u2014 while acknowledging that their sweeping dismissals of the possibility were off the mark. And yet, others say we\u2019re witnessing a sea change moment in this nation\u2019s politics.
\nNow, months later, Fallows acknowledges he shouldn\u2019t have been so categorical, but warned in an email that Trump is an idiosyncratic phenomenon.
\n\u201c[E]veryone (including me) has had to learn that one or another line-crossings and rule-breakings that would have stopped any previous candidates allow Trump to keep rolling on through,\u201d he wrote. \u201cI think an underappreciated factor here is the combination of Trump\u2019s distinctive skill, and a changed nature of this cycle\u2019s primary. Trump\u2019s distinctive skill is not so much as a business executive, where his record is mixed, but as a TV performer. There\u2019s a particular set of skills that go with reality-TV competitions, and Trump is great at them!\u201d
\nThere\u2019s as much risk of \u201cover-learning\u201d the lessons of Trump, Fallows said, as ignoring them.
\n\u201cI think it\u2019s possible to observe what\u2019s happening, as it happens. But this year\u2019s circumstances \u2014 for the party, and for this man \u2014 are so unusual, in fact unprecedented, that I\u2019m cautious about drawing up any new rules. We see how the Trump era goes, and then, we\u2019ll see whether the landscape has been changed for the long term,\u201d he wrote.<\/p>\n
\n\u201cI had NEVER EVER seen a reversal in how people perceive a candidate who is as well known as Trump \u2014 much less a reversal in such a short period of time. I based my conclusion that Trump would never be a relevant player in the Republican primary fight on the ideas that once people 1) know you and 2) don\u2019t like you, you can\u2019t change those twin realities much,\u201d he wrote. \u201cThat was 100 percent true. Until Donald Trump proved it (and me) wrong.\u201d
\nSilver, founder of the FiveThirtyEight site, told an audience at the 92nd Street Y in New York in September that he didn\u2019t think \u201cTrump is very likely to win the nomination, in part because he\u2019s not really a Republican,\u201d and last month Silver put Trump\u2019s chances of winning the nomination at only about 50 percent.
\nNow, though, a new reality seems to be setting in.
\n\u201c\u2018With the exception of the 2016 election,\u2019 will be a common phrase in Ph.D. dissertations in 2044,\u201d Silver joked on Twitter last week.
\n\u201cThis time, we really might be in the midst of [a political realignment]. It\u2019s almost impossible to reconcile this year\u2019s Republican nomination contest with anyone\u2019s notion of politics as usual,\u201d Silver wrote this week. (Silver did not respond to requests for comment.)
\nFox News\u2019 Chris Wallace was more contrite, saying in an interview that Trump\u2019s success proves \u201cno one knows anything\u201d and that analysts should stick to analyzing, not predictions.
\n\u201cThis has really been a huge case of humble pie to everyone in my business, myself included,\u201d Wallace said. \u201cLord knows I didn\u2019t think Trump was going to run. When he did run, I thought he had destroyed his candidacy half a dozen times. So I think one of the things you learn is that you don\u2019t know as much as you think you know. That anyone who would be foolish enough to think that they\u2019re an opinion maker or opinion shaper, really, this has been a case lesson in the American people will make their own decision for themselves, and that\u2019s healthy.\u201d
\nBloomberg View\u2019s Jonathan Bernstein isn\u2019t so ready to admit that he was mistaken about Trump\u2019s chances. He has held for months that Trump does not have a serious chance of being the nominee. On Monday, he wrote it\u2019s still \u201cquite likely he won\u2019t be\u201d the nominee because many Republicans will band together to stop him even if he has a big lead after Super Tuesday.
\n\u201cSo in 2016, many but not all of the normal incentives pushing parties to unify won\u2019t apply if Trump is nominated. This leaves top Republicans with a difficult choice \u2014 and strong reasons to pull out the stops to defeat Trump before he grabs the nomination,\u201d Bernstein wrote. (Bernstein didn\u2019t respond to requests for comment.)
\nThere\u2019s still time for everyone, or no one, to be proven wrong. But whether Trump actually clinches the nomination, Trump\u2019s candidacy will likely forever change how future candidates are covered.
\nRemnick pointed to the Philip Roth anthology, \u201cReading Myself and Others,\u201d which raised the idea that in the United States, it can sometimes become impossible to write fiction \u201cwhen the craziness of American reality so outstrips the imagination of even the most freewheeling novelist.\u201d
\n\u201cWe\u2019re in one of those moments,\u201d Remnick said. \u201cIt\u2019s enough to say, obviously considering where we are, everyone was wrong. And this gives Trump great joy, I\u2019m sure.\u201d <\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"