Trump’s Real Bond: We the Fat People
The indisputable way to explain the 2016 U.S. presidential election result.
A week after the spectacular failure of major polling firms, it is time to look for other perspectives on why the election turned out the way it did.
One can certainly analyze political factors, e.g., the fact that many voters out of a job, sadly, in the Rust Belt, want to believe that the President elect will bring back all the steel mills that closed in the past decades.
One can also conjure up more subconscious factors that sometimes come to the fore. For instance, the mayor from West Virginia who, tired of an “ape in heels” in the White House, rejoices at the thought of having as a First Lady a classy former centerfold of GQ magazine (Hey! no such thing as a stupid job, only stupid people, as they say in France).
But instead of attempting to go for a possibly perilous descent into the psyche of the American heartland, why not try a simple explanation.
This explanation is based on the scientific conclusion that any traveler across this great continent can draw every day, i.e.: The girth of the populace is inversely related to the proximity to the coasts. And lo and behold, maps do not lie:
One could object that the Rocky Mountain States tend to disprove this theory. But I would argue that the density of the population in this area is such that the lack of MacDonald’s significantly alters the parameters of the experiment. Thus these states should be counted out.
On this basis, one can safely come to the conclusion that the majority, on November 8, simply liked what they saw, which is what they see every morning in their mirror: a rotund figure.
This figure might rank only a 2 or 3 on the President-elect’s personal metrics, but is such a welcome return to the golden days of Taft and Cleveland, an invitation to gorge oneself on fast food and carbonated drinks.
What a relief from George W. or Barack and their annoying addiction to the practice of sports and maddening obsession with keeping in shape!