If you're wondering why a certain, obviously ridiculous narrative about the 2016 election keeps flaring up, consider the following explanation:
A small group of people bet years and years of their professional lives on a particular politician and the promise of well-paid, high-profile gigs in a presidential administration.
That politician was assured a coronation in '08 but was bested by a junior senator. Eight years later, two more unlikely figures annoyingly got in the way and one of them improbably ruined the whole bet.
Anyways, if there's a point to any of this I guess it's just that no one should take the absurd narratives of a particularly strange cast of people too seriously. They're an expression of thwarted professional entitlement, not serious analysis.
The whole thing makes even more sense when you consider the absurd scale of the mythos these people built around their chosen leader: that of an epoch-defining figure of destiny who practically transcended politics.
2016 wasn't a defeat to these people. It was a reality-destroying cataclysm and, more importantly, one that could almost certainly have been avoided. So I think the prevalence of certain narratives and attempts to create weird folk demons makes sense, absurd and pitiable as it is
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
