The Washington Post is quickly trying to become the safe space for Donald Trump deniers, for the Trump-won-the-election deniers. I think the Washington Post is establishing itself as the safe space for anti-Trump delicate snowflakes to go.

I will be the first to admit that getting votes and getting an audience are two different things. For example, a politician really can't be elected if he's hated by half the people. A talk show host, however, can be an overwhelming national phenomenon while being hated by half the people.

To me there's nothing to get excited about with Hillary Clinton. I mean, maybe there's things to get excited about in terms of, scared of, opposition. But I don't think Hillary has this large army of devoted fans willing to go through fire for her.

Reagan won because he was real. He believed in America. He told people he was gonna make it great again coming out of a disastrous four years of Jimmy Carter and Watergate before that.

Every candidate has passive support. It's just people that are gonna vote for him no matter what.

Who do you think, as you gaze at the entire scene in Washington, who is it that's acting like a bunch of children? It isn't Trump. Who is it throwing the tantrums because they didn't get their way? Who is it acting like hysterical spoiled brats because their side lost the game? Who is it that's insisting, because they lost the game, that the rules be changed? Who is it that's acting like any average eight- to nine-year-old kid who's told he can't have any more Twinkies or whatever kids - marijuana; I don't know.

Agreeing on the "why" takes all the romance out of everything, takes all the seduction. Seduction used to be an art. Now of course it's brutish and it's predatory and it's bad.