A pundit on Fox News said, Trump flubbed during the primary and it didn’t matter. So why should it matter now?
But does the logic hold water?
Back during the primary when I’d turn on the television I’d see a debate stage full of Washington Republican politicians – and Ted Cruz and Donald Trump and Ben Carson. Like a lot of Republicans I was worn out with Washington Republicans – for years every time they made another deal with Obama the anti-Washington wave rolling through Republican politics got bigger and wider and deeper.
And no one on that stage sounded less like a Washington politician than Donald Trump.
The moment Trump opened his mouth and spoke that wave swept him up and because the wave was powerful his flubs didn’t matter – what mattered was whipping those Washington politicians.
But that election’s over and done now and a new election is underway and the other day a commentator on the radio pointed out that Obama got 65 million votes in 2012 – so Trump has to get 70 million to win this election. Then he added: Trump got 13 million votes in the primary so he needs to add another 55 odd million.
And on that rock the pundits’ seemingly logical solid assumption about flubs sinks into a wobbly analogy: Because the question those voters are asking themselves is how risky will it be to elect Trump – and those flubs make it look pretty risky.