Is Trump the Frenchman Leaving the Cafe to Lead the Revolution?
A few years ago I heard a quote that goes as follows: "A Frenchman was sitting in a café, drinking his coffee with friend(s) when all of a sudden a revolution ran past the café. The man said to his friend(s), "There is my revolution, I must go lead it."" What happened tonight in the Senate makes me think Trump might actually be the Frenchman in the café while TV pundits think he is the man who started the revolution. As Republicans started to be announced as the winners in Senate seats I began to think, "Wait, weren't these people already expected to win these seats anyway." "Did Trump go to campaign in states were Republicans were likely to win knowing full well these people had a high chance of winning, but if he showed up, TV pundits would claim Trump was the genius who gave these vulnerable Republicans their victories?" Did Trump actually campaign with/for any Republican that had a real chance of losing to a Democrat? That may have been the real part of Trump's strategy. The real reason Trump did not campaign in many, if any, House races may have been that he already knew Republicans were going to lose the House, but keep the Senate.
TV pundits are writing up Trumps strategy as he cared more about making gains in the Senate and realized he could be more useful in Senate races. I am beginning to think Trump's real strategy was to look like he made an actual difference. Would the results have been any different if Trump had not campaigned for the candidates for which he campaigned? Did Republicans win any Senate race they were not supposed to win?
I think the campaign of 2018 proves what many have thought about Donald Trump. He is nothing more than a massive fraud. Me calling Trump a massive fraud is not sour grapes; it is me just looking at the results and thinking Trump did not actually help the Republican Party. However, he made TV pundits the think he is the smartest guy in politics.
