Yes, it was too long, and it was redundant.
It had some clunky moments, like when he pledged to get rid of Obamacare.
People calling it “racist” have one really solid anecdote, about the immigrant who killed, was released, killed again, and is still at large.
But … it was Trump at his Trumpiest. He spoke of his issues in simple terms, and he sounded liked he believed every word. It was the best speech he can give. He rose to the moment.
NEVER doubt that he can win this thing. He absolutely can.
Video here. It’s really worth hearing.
Please share widely!
sabutai says
We definitely can see there what is working for the 45% of voters (or so) that say they plan to vote for him. I’m not really sure what the 10% undecided saw.
I always thought the nomination speech was, along with the debates, your strongest standing ground for a counter-narrative. Sarah Palin comes to mind — she was a lightweight who temporarily shook that off with a strong and smart speech. Trump, however, confirmed all the narratives, basically locking them in until November. Perhaps the undecideds will like that narrative. I am skeptical.
JimC says
Byron York, via Twitter:
Christopher says
…which reminded me in a lot of ways of their 1992, though with different issues coming to the fore. Sometimes I found myself asking the TV, “You guys realize the general public is watching this, right?”
JimC says
… but mostly earlier in the week. Last night was 2016 in a nutshell.
Or maybe the “salute” photo is. We’ll see.
Mark L. Bail says
in Tampa and knocked it out of the park. Trump’s speech was too long, too late, and too negative. People will vote for Trump for a variety of reasons, but I think most Americans don’t share this crazy, paranoid view of the world.
I was worried that conventions may not matter much anymore, but Variety reports that plenty of people watched it:
Peter Porcupine says
….how many do you think would watch the Democratic convention? Your enthusiasm gap just got wider. Some hard Bernie people might vote for Trump, but now most will just stay home.
Especially since their suspicion us pretty much validated by Clinton immediately giving her a cushy campaign job to land in. I know if I were a Sanders supporter, I’d be sure to turn out to be sure that DWS could continue to serve as a member of the new administration…
Christopher says
…just of bias where it should not have been. I doubt your prediction regarding Sanders voters will come to pass, but if they are really going to let petulance over internal party matters lead to acquiescing to the election of the most bigoted presidential candidate since George Wallace I don’t know what to say.
Peter Porcupine says
….to ignore signed neutrality agreementso. God knows how many verbal assertions, but I know you are a fan of documentation only.
And this is national, not Massachusetts. Corruption in most of the country goes beyond the legal, cash, or sexual crimes required here before a Democrat can be called corrupt.
Christopher says
If HRC were bribing DWS or in a financial arrangement with the DNC outside of what relevant laws allow in this regard that would be corrupt. DNC staffers failing to keep their mouths shut on whom they personally support is not.
terrymcginty says
… It’s really worth hearing? No. It’s just an obligation like wiping when you’re done. (Sorry I must speak truth here)