> But the article isn’t about re-litigation of that election, or the next one. It starts from the premise that the result of the election was unprecedented, and

> But the article isn’t about re-litigation of that election, or the next one. It starts from the premise that the result of the election was unprecedented, and that someone like Trump would not have had a chance in earlier times. I'm supposed to blindly believe everything I read in highly pollical magazine like that one? Millions of people loved Trump because of the way he spoke so directly to them, and not like a typical politician. There is nothing at all "unprecedented" in that election...inferior candidates have been losing elections since the beginning of the US. That article was so full of FUD and wrong-headed nonsense I had to refute its assertions.