Posted on

Barry and the JTP

As many of you are aware, “The Goldbergs” is one of my favorite T.V. shows. It has been on for many years, and has avoided the temptation of resorting to off-color humor in an attempt to maintain ratings, which has been a risk for many other long standing comedies in the past. (Seinfeld, Mash, and Fraser are some of the most successful sit-coms that have also avoided this slippery slope.) Anyway I watch The Goldbergs because I find it amusing. I do not watch it because of any philosophical message that I might come away with, however the other day I saw a rerun of “Deadheads,” an older episode that also had the “swear-jar.” This episode dealt with the JTP (Jenkintown Posse), and Barry’s role as the de facto head of the JTP. (For those of you not familiar with The Goldbergs, Barry is the older Goldberg brother and the JTP is a small group of Barry’s friends. A word of advice: “Get familiar with The Goldbergs!”) In this episode Barry’s membership in the JTP is in jeopardy as he has become too pompous and controlling. This episode struck a chord with me because at the same time on another channel, Jim Acosta of CNN was making a fool of himself because he was being too pompous and controlling!
Make no mistake I think that Mr. Acosta is a jerk and I was wondering when and if any of the other White House reporters would afterwards comment on his behavior. But like “birds of a feather” I heard nothing until today when I read about an interview by Mediaite’s Larry O’Connor with CBS White House Correspondent Major Garrett. Mr. Garrett neither mentioned Mr. Acosta by name, nor alluded directly to his boorish behavior, but deftly used his backhand as he went into detail about the decorum and standards to which the White House press pool is expected to hold themselves.

“It’s [the White House] the most majestic political place in America – the White House. The only place second to that, in my experience, where I spent almost 15 years, is in Congress,” Garrett explained. “It can be rough and tumble there [in Congress]. It can be rough at tumble there at times at the White House but it is a place of institutional passage and commands institutional respect.”

Those on the left will counter that President Trump is also, at times, out of line, and I would agree, but that does not excuse the outlandish behavior of Mr. Acosta. Be that as it may, Major Garret is right. The White House press corp should act professional. They should respect the institution and the man the American people voted in to run the country. I do not recall anything similar occurring during Obama’s eight years in office, and that was not because everyone in the White House press pool agreed with him and his policies.

FYI: For those of you not familiar with The Goldbergs, Barry Goldberg did retain his membership and his standing in the JTP as he reversed his pompous and controlling behavior. However, to find out what happened with the “swear-jar,” you will have to start watching some The Goldbergs’ reruns!

Posted on

Not Forgotten

With the economy going great guns, the unemployment rate is down for everybody . . . everybody except for one group, the forgotten group of military spouses. Compared to a 5% unemployment rate nationally, the unemployment rate for military spouses is more than triple that, at 18%. The Department of Defense estimates that there are 641,639 military spouses, with 13% being dual military and with 87% of spouses being civilian spouses. Approximately 70% of these civilian spouses are less than 35 years old, and this is the forgotten group with high unemployment. One can understand why the unemployment rate is higher in this group as the active duty member is often deployed leaving the spouse as a functioning single parent. Likewise the fact that military families often move every two to three years makes the spouse an unattractive candidate for long term employment at any one company.

Blue Star Families, an organization that coordinates services for military families and spouses, has called on companies to do more to battle against a real problem for this forgotten group – military-spouse unemployment. Not all military spouses are the same as far as the likelihood of getting hired when their family is relocated. Whereas those in computer related fields as well as those in diverse parts of the medical fields have a much better chance of securing new employment after a move, oftentimes those families that are at the lower end of the military pay scale need the spouse’s income the most, and often these are the less well educated spouses. They need someone to get a clutch hit for them.
Stepping up to the plate . . . WalMart, who already in 2013 made a pledge to hire 250,000 veterans by 2020, and who are on track to surpass that goal next year.
On 11/12/18 as reported by the Associated Press, WalMart announced a new initiative called “Military Spouse Career Connection” under which they are going to start giving a hiring preference to this forgotten group of military spouses. WalMart already offers military veterans and spouses the ability to transfer from one WalMart to another when a military active duty spouse is transferred, and now it will be going out of its way to hire this forgotten group!
Kudos to WalMart . . . a home run!
Posted on

Nuff Said

Recently I was sent an article about a survey that was dealing with “presidential greatness.” Who and why would someone send me the results of such a survey? For starters the person who sent this to me, let’s call him, Jim, is a great guy . . . a hard working, smart, family man who, by the way, is very liberal . . . or perhaps, more precisely very very uber liberal. Based on Jim’s political persuasion what do you think that this survey about “presidential greatness” showed? (A hint – President Trump was not at the top of the list!) Nuff said !

Now even though Jim is a bright guy, I doubt that he did any research about who wrote the article, in which esteemed publication it was published, who participated in this “greatness” survey, and what were their political leanings.

Interestingly, the article describing the survey was from 2/18/18, and so the survey was obviously done prior to that time. In January, 2018 President Trump had been in office for one year. (I considered listing here all of Trump’s first year accomplishments, but I have enumerated them before, and in a more practical sense, I am limited here to 1,000 words or less!)
The article to which Jim was referring was from The Daily Beast. This is the same Daily Beast that “merged” with Newsweek in 2010. Nuff said !
The author was Emily Shugerman. No, I had never heard of her, so I looked up some of the titles of her other outstanding Daily Beast articles over the past month. (One was, “Moonlite Burning Ranch Brothel Owner Dennis Hof Divides Sex Workers, Even in Death.” Another was, “Home Abortion Hotline Pledges to Help Women Navigate the Law.”) Nuff said. Ms. Shugerman who is Daily Beast’s “gender reporter’ proudly proclaimed on her Twitter account in 2017, “I am a revolutionary . . . “ Nuff said !
Next I went to the actual 2018 Presidents & Executive Presidential Greatness Survey.
In this survey there was a response rate of only 53.1%. Does a response rate of only a bit over 50% say anything about the accuracy of the results of the survey? Nuff said !
32.5% of the responders identified themselves as liberal, whereas only 5.4% identified themselves as conservative. Likewise 57.2% were Democrats and 12.7% were Republican. Does this say anything about the fair and balanced nature of this survey? Nuff said !  (My guess is that the respondents were most likely college professors in which case the proportions and ratios of the respondents may be an accurate reflexion of that mileau.)
As if I needed any more info about this survey, there were some amazing responses concerning Barack Houssein Obama. He was judged to be the 8th greatest president of all time, up from #18 on the last survey four years ago! But even more amazing was the response to the question of which president should be next on Mt. Rushmore . . . Obama was #2 on this list! Wow!! Do I need to say, “Nuff said” again?
(FYI: The respondents to this survey put President Trump last on this list!)
At this point I would like to thank Jim for educating me on the subject of “presidential greatness.” Perhaps the next survey he should send me the results of could ask the question: “Which is the greatest baseball team of all time?” . . . asked only to the residents of Boston! The results would probably be as accurate and dependable as those of this “presidential greatness” survey!
Nuff said!
Posted on

Yikes II

To start this I need to reiterate the amount of the federal debt – $21,700,000,000,000!!

In the last piece I went over two general “categories” of government waste and irresponsible spending:
“It’s so unbelievable that I cried!”
“WTF, Are you kidding me!”
Today I am going to expound to the last two general categories of waste and irresponsible spending:
“The best laughs I have had in years”
“You can’t make this stuff up!”
The first time that I read through the list of items from which the following have been taken, I was actually laughing out loud! However, seriously how can they actually be wasting our tax money on this tripe?
I have arbitrarily divided the following into two sections . . . the first from different government departments and the second from individuals in Congress. Remember that the following examples are a mere drop in the so-called bucket!
Yikes!
“You can’t make this stuff up.”
-Federal funding into the 50 worst junior and community colleges (FY2017-FY2018,  Dept. of Ed.) – $923.5 million! That is an $18+ million reward to each of these schools for being a bad school!
-Federal payments, subsidies, and tax breaks for Ivy League Colleges (FY2010-
  FY2015, all Federal agencies) – $42 billion . . . That’s Billion with a B to some of the most affluent schools in America!
-Funding a frequently investigated childcare facility in Texas (FY2014-FY2016, Dept of  HHS) – $14.9 million. No, I do not know why this facility was “frequently investigated,”
  but I doubt that it was for its excellent care!
-Reframing beliefs about death and dying among Latinos
  (FY2015, Cornell Univ.,  NIH,HHS) – $883,000. I did not
  realize that Latinos had some special beliefs on this
  subject, but despite spending almost $1 million, I have not
  heard anything on the  news on this subject!
-Payments to gay Mexican prostitutes for safe sex
   (FY2015, Brown Univ, NIH) – $53K. I don’t even know
   where  to start on this one! Does anyone know anybody
   that went to Brown Univ. that might help us out here?
-Dystopian climate change voicemails from the future
   (FY2012, Columbia Univ, National Science Foundation –
   $5.7 million!) Granted I did not go to Columbia, but I
   have absolutely no idea what these millions were spent
   for!!
-Two sculptures for a V.A. facility that serves blind veterans
 (FY2016, Dept of Veteran Affairs) – $670,000
Yikes!
“The best laughs I’ve had in years!”
-Sex Ed for prostitutes in California (FY2016, B. Lee, D, Ca) –
   $1.4 million
-Mobile App for sex diary (FY2016, G. Napolitano, D. Ca) -$1
   million
-Study: Disease susceptibility of translocating tortoises
   (FY2016, G. Thompson, R. Pa.) – $ 360,773
-Virtual reality to teach children in China how to cross the
   street (FY2016, T. Sewell, D. Ala) – $183,750
-Virtual shoe fitting (FY2015-FY2016, M. Griffith, R, Va & A.
   Espoo, D, Ca) – $902,789! Apparently they can work
   across the aisle when they are wasting our money!
-Researching stigmatization of Danish smokers (FY2016, L.
   Barletta,R, Pa)-$330K
-Measuring blood pressure at black barbershops (FY2016,
   A. Schiff D. Ca) – $2.1 million. What about Latino or white
   barbershops?
Yikes!
For those of you who possibly think that I have made-up some of these, I suggest that you go to: www.OpenTheBooks.com and you will discover that “You ain’t seen nothin’ yet,” and Yikes! will turn to Yikes!
President Trump has directed everyone in his administration to focus on waste, irresponsible spending, and cut their budgets by five percent. Perhaps, just stopping the buying guns, ammunition, etc. for those government agencies that do need military-style weapons might be a good first step!
Posted on

Yikes !

This commentary is totally non-political. What you are about to read should have the same effect on everybody . . . male, female, conservative, liberal, black, White, brown, or green! Hopefully, after you read the following, you will forward it to everybody that you know, and perhaps even those you don’t know.
I had a difficult time trying to pick out the best title for this piece. The main contenders for the title were:
“The best laugh I have had in years.”
“It’s so unbelievable that I cried.”
“You can’t make this stuff up.”
“WTF, Are you kidding me.”
As I thought this over, I decided that all of these were applicable, as you will see.
Yikes!
To begin, most of us are aware that the federal debt is high. FYI – the federal debt is $21.7 trillion. These large numbers are now being used so frequently that we have become numbed to what they actually mean . . . a million here, a billion there, a hundred billion everywhere! To emphasize this point I spelled out what $21.7 trillion actually looks like
 . . .  $21,700,000,000,000.
Yikes!!
We can probably all agree that this debt is too high. We can probably all disagree about some of the reasons for this . . . taxes too low, somebody not paying his/her fair share, subsidies too high, etc., but I think after reading this, we will be able to agree that there is too much waste and irresponsible spending.
“It’s so unbelievable that I cried!”
Each of the following things made me cry, and by the end I was a sobbing idiot!
-Mistakes & improper Medicare payments (FY2004-FY2017) – $387 billion
-Mistakes &  improper Medicaid payments (FY2004-FY2017) – $234 billion
-Mistakes & improper payments distributed 20 federal agencies (FY2004-FY2017) –
   $1.2 Trillion
-Mistakes & improper student loans and grants (FY2016-FY2017) – $11 billion
-Use it or lose it spending (final week of FY2017, all federal agencies) – $50 billion
-Mistakes & improper farm subsidy payments (FY2004-FY2017) – $3.7 billion
-Farm subsidies into urban areas with pop.>250K (FY2015-2017) – $626 million
-Farm subsidies into America’s 150 most expensive zip codes (FY2017) – $4.8 million
-389 farm subsidy recipients of +1 million – $667 million
And the farm subsidy finale!! . . .
-Farm subsidies to 12 members of Congress (FY2017) – $637,059
At this point you are probably saying, “Only 637K! Well that’s not so bad!”
Yikes!
“WTF, Are you kidding me!”
Fasten your seatbelts for these next few, as although the amounts are “comparatively small,” they are over the edge.
-67 non-military agencies purchase of guns, ammunition, and military-style equipment
  (FY2006-FY2017)- 2.2 billion. I shudder to think of why these 67 different agencies
   need all of this stuff!
-IRS purchase of guns, ammunition, and military-style equipment (FY2006-FY2017) –
  $15.5 million. Can someone, anyone, tell me why the IRS needs any of this!
-VA purchase of guns, ammunition, and military-style equipment (FY2006-FY2017) –
 $17.5 million. Can anyone explain to me why the Dept. of Veteran Affairs needs any of
 this?
-EPA purchase of guns, ammunition, and military-style equipment (FY2014-FY2017) –
  $3.4 million. Help, again! But at least they did not need as many guns, etc as either
  the IRS or the V.A.
-Fleet of armored vehicles for The Dept. of Health and Human Services (FY2017) –
  $1.5 million. Why would this department need one armored vehicle? A fleet!!!!!
Yikes!
I can’t take it anymore, so I must stop for now.
However make sure that you read  the next piece, as it will include:
“The best laugh I have had in years.”
“You can’t make this stuff up!”
Posted on

Hope ?

Today while at the gym I caught a glimpse of a tee shirt that said in large letters “Reagan-Bush 84! The guy wearing the shirt had his back to me, but I kept an eye on him so that I could ask him about the shirt when he got off his exercise bike. That was the first Reagan tee shirt that I had ever seen, and so I was interested. When he finished, I caught his attention and waved him over to my treadmill. My first surprise was that he was Hispanic.

A Hispanic with a Reagan tee shirt! “Is this a sign of hope?”
He was young, and obviously could not have been alive in 1984. Since the shirt looked new, I figured that it must have been passed down to him, unused, from his father, and so I asked him whether the shirt had belonged to his father.

“No, it’s mine,” he said. “I was not alive in ’84. I am 19.”
A young Hispanic guy with a Reagan shirt! “Could there be hope?” I thought!
“I heard a speaker at school, and I liked what he said. The speaker was Ben Shapiro and I became interested in politics after listening to him.”
A young Hispanic college student with a Reagan tee shirt! “There is hope,” I thought!
“But the shirt looks so new. Where did you get it?”
He responded, “I searched it out, and bought it on Amazon.”
An enthusiastic young Hispanic college student with a Reagan tee shirt!  “Perhaps more than just hope,” I mused.
And to top it off, the gym that I go to is in California.
A young Hispanic California college student with a Reagan tee shirt!
I started to feel more than just hope, and actually began to feel confident about the future!!

Continue reading “Hope ?”

Posted on

Informative & Persuasive

Last week my granddaughter, P.K., and I were discussing writing. She is a freshman in high school and was relating to me what she was being taught. “There are two basic types of writing,” she said. “Informative and persuasive. ‘Informative’ states the facts, while ‘persuasive’ expresses an opinion, and they are separate.” Right on, I thought, and then I wondered when that dictum for students of writing changed.

For example, last week, I read an article on the front page of The Sacramento Bee. I would assume that if an article was on the front page of a newspaper, that article would be ‘informative’. Since I was visiting in the area, I had no preconceived notion if the Sacramento Bee was basically liberal or conservative, pro-Trump or anti-Trump. The title of this news article was “US will put asylum-seekers in tent cities.”

Was this going to be an informative news story or a persuasive opinion piece disguised as a news story? In the first sentence the writer of the article described President Trump’s television address as being “filled with tough election-season rhetoric.” Okay, well at least the writer, Franco Ordoñez, was not attempting to fool anybody into thinking that he was pro President Trump.

In the next sentence he spoke about the caravan of “migrants from Central America, including women, children, and the elderly, as well as men.” Whoa, big fella! In all the pictures that I have seen of this migrant caravan, the vast majority were men, young men. In a recent article from the Washington Examiner it was estimated that three quarters of the caravan were young men – with families and unaccompanied children making up only about 20-30%. Even the New York Times in an article about a week ago stated that “adult men traveling without children are the single largest contingent,” and Fox News has reported that 80% of the migrant caravan are men under 35 years old.
In the next paragraph señor Ordoñez continues his subtle editorializing by putting only certain of Mr. Trump’s words in quotes. Apparently he has a problem with “invasion” of migrants, troops that are assigned to “harden” the border, considering a rock thrown by a migrant as a “firearm,” and “endemic abuse” of the asylum system.  Here it appeared to me that the writer was again wandering from “informative” to “persuasive,” as I doubt that the author ever learned that using selective quotation marks in a news story was a part of “informative.”
Finally Mr. Ordoñez abandons any supposition that he is merely writing an informative news story when he refers to a recent ad as a “racially divisive political ad.” Admittedly I have not seen this ad, and I am pretty certain that the vast majority of the readers of The Sacramento Bee have not seen this ad either . . . but if your news is only from The Bee, you are probably convinced that the ad is truly “racially divisive,” even though that is merely the opinion of Franco Ordoñez, whoever he is!
Now let’s be clear. My comments are my opinion, meant to be hopefully “persuasive”. I am not pretending that what I write could masquerade as factual “informative” news. However, “opinion slanted news” masquerading as real front page news is not the same, and to my way of thinking the piece by señor Ordoñez is just another example of ”persuasive” pretending to be “informative!”
One final question: Does opinionated news pretending to be factual news fit into the category of “fake news?”
Posted on

The P.C. Police

I heard a story last week that boggled my mind. As I share it with you as best as I can remember, consider its potential ramifications.

In a racially divergent kindergarten class in a California city a little boy left his classroom without the permission of the Art teacher. The regular teacher was busy in another part of the school while the Art teacher and an aid were in charge of the classroom. After about 15 minutes they discovered the five year old boy in the boy’s bathroom, screaming, but he would not come out. He continued screaming for an additional 30-45 minutes. He still would not come out until finally his mother, who had been called at home, went into the bathroom and escorted him out. When I asked why the regular teacher, the Art teacher, or the aid did not go into the bathroom, I was told that these females were not allowed to go into the boy’s bathroom . . . unless there was an emergency! If my five year old son or grandson were screaming in the bathroom, I would expect someone to go in and get him out. The sex of the school employee-rescuer would make no difference. This would seem like common sense to me. Who in the world would think that getting the five year old boy out of the bathroom and back to his classroom was not the right thing to do? Apparently the “political correctness police!” And who make up the self-appointed p.c. police?

According to Yascha Mounk, writing for The Atlantic on 10/10/18, the p.c. police are not comprised predominately of either a certain age or a certain race, as neither predict those who show support for political correctness. So what, if anything predicts support for political correctness?

Consider the following groups and their opinion of political correctness:

Income: <$50K – 83% dislike; >$100K – 70% are skeptical about it

Education: Never attended college – 87% think that p.c. has grown to be a problem; Those with a postgraduate degree – 66% think it has grown to be a problem

Politics: Conservative – 97% believe that p.c. is a problem; traditional liberals – 61% believe similarly; however with progressive activists – only 30% see it as a problem.

According to polling samples, progressive activists are much more likely to be rich, highly educated, and . . . white. I would bet the farm that there are no progressive activists whose children attend this California city multicultural grade school, but it doesn’t matter as  according to them, they know best!

I will go out on a limb, and say that this same group of “we know what is best for the rest of you” has been instrumental in the banning of Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn in thousands of public schools across America. This despite the fact that it is one of the most revered classics of American literature. Recall that Ernest Hemingway once said, “All modern American literature comes from one book by Mark Twain called Huckleberry Finn.”

Are the p.c. police everywhere? “Almost, but not quite.” For instance on the other side we have Hillsdale College, where the p.c. police have little, if any, say and certainly no jurisdiction. At Hillsdale College they are working to safeguard the legacy of this treasured classic, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, along with the legacy of the man, Mark Twain, who is thought by many as America’s greatest author.

If we don’t watch out, pretty soon the p.c.police will be telling the rest of us which statues are acceptable to them and which ones will be to be covered, moved, or destroyed. Oops . . . they are already doing that!

If we don’t watch out, pretty soon the p.c. police will be trying to change the names of holidays! Oops . . . they are already doing that as Columbus Day is “Indigenous People’s Day” in more liberal areas.

I wonder what it would take to have Hillsdale College take over the administration of California’s city schools?

Posted on

Trying

The President and the First Lady came to Pittsburgh on Tuesday, Oct. 30, 2018 to show respect for those effected by the horrific massacre at the Tree of Life synagogue last weekend. The President was trying.

The presidential visit began with a motorcade into the city and a visit to the Tree of Life synagogue, where Mr. Trump placed stones and white roses from the White House in commemoration of those killed in Saturday’s attack by a gunman full of anti-Semitic rage shouting that Jews must die. The President was trying.

At the synagogue, Trump was accompanied by the first lady, Melania Trump, his daughter Ivanka Trump and son-in-law Jared Kushner. They were greeted by Rabbi Jeffrey Myers, the spiritual leader of the Tree of Life congregation, and Trump lit candles in a vestibule for each of the 11 shooting victims. The President was trying.

Later, Trump visited the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, spending about an hour at the hospital, meeting privately with four officers who were injured responding to the shooting, along with members of their families.
The President was trying.
An open letter to the president signed by more than 40 “members of the Pittsburgh Jewish Community” welcomed the president and expressed “gratitude to you and your administration for your unwavering support of Israel.” However, as the President moved around Pittsburgh, a largely Democratic city, the signs of discord were apparent, and of course a protest was planned for later in the afternoon. A protest against what?, one might ask. Was it a protest against a president who is unabashedly the most pro-Israel president in the last thirty years? Was it a protest because the President made this extra effort to come to Pittsburgh – not to condone violence, but to show sympathy for the victims. What exactly were the protesters trying to prove?
Clearly, not everyone in Pittsburgh was opposed to the visit. Even some of those who do not like Trump at all said he had no good choice, facing criticism if he came and criticism if he did not. Obviously he knew that those on the left would be critical, no matter what he did, but he was trying.
Locally there was an inter-faith vigil at Temple Adat Shalom. It was attended by over 400 people of different faiths. What a wonderful idea. The organizers were really trying. However the host, Rabbi David Castiglione of Temple Adat Shalom in his opening remarks immediately took out after President Trump. And this obviously anti-Trump rhetoric at a “never again” religious gathering was meant to accomplish what? What exactly was the rabbi trying to prove?
At this point to me these liberal responses are becoming quite trying!
Posted on

”I Didn’t Know That!”

Here in California many of the local newspapers seem to have a penchant for not reporting pro-Trump news, as to them, I guess, most pro-Trump news is apparently not newsworthy.

For instance, What do the following places have in common?

Erie, Pa
Johnson City, Tn
Topeka, Kansas
Rochester, Minnesota
Council Bluffs, la
Southern Mississippi
All of these places held rallies in early October – Donald Trump rallies.
“What, I didn’t know that!”
All of these rallies were packed, and in most, if not all, there is a near full overflow space outside for those without tickets. But these were just the rallies that President Trump held in the early part of the month. Later in the month there was a weekend rally in Elko, Nevada which drew 8500. Meanwhile Joe Biden held a rally in Las Vegas that drew only about 500 supporters, and prior to that Barack Obama held a rally in Las Vegas at UNLV’s Thomas and Mack Arena. BO’s rally drew about 2000 Democratic supporters. I did read about that in my local paper. However, what I did not read was that this arena holds 18,000! (Yes, you read that right . . . only 2000 in an 18,000 seat arena!)
“I didn’t know that!”
The largest recent Trump rally occurred on 10/22/18 at the Toyota Center in Houston, Tex. This rally was not initially scheduled for this venue, but was moved to the 18,000 seat arena because of the huge demand for tickets. Apparently about 100,000 had initially requested tickets! (Yes, you read that right . . . 100,000!!)
“I didn’t know that!”
In the middle of last week the President also held a rally at Central Wisconsin Airport in Mosinee, Wi. I could not find out how many attended this rally, but I do know that people began lining up for the Wednesday evening rally at 1p.m. . . . on Tuesday! On 10/27 there was another rally in Murphysboro, Il. The line to get into this rally stretched over one mile (see You Tube video). Thousands of people attended! Oh yeah, BTW, there were 75 Democratic protesters. (Yes, you read that right . . . 75!)
“I didn’t know any of that!”
Are these rallies effective? The purpose is obviously to excite the base and get them to vote. Not only will most of those attending these rallies vote, but there is also a significant “force multiplier,” including friends, relatives, and coworkers who will get fired up as they talk to a rally attendee.  Recall that Donald Trump, the candidate, held 323 rallies in 40 states during the 2016 campaign, and something worked then!
In the upcoming weeks before the midterm elections, President Trump will be holding rallies in eight states, including two in Florida, and another one in Montana. (Yes, you read that right . . . eight!)
“I didn’t know that.”
I am quite confident that the local newspapers will not consider any of these upcoming rallies to be “newsworthy.” So later when you do not read that Trump held a large rally in XXX,  you won’t be able to say, “I didn’t know that,” but rather “ I didn’t read about that!”