WarSclerotic

If anyone had any doubt that the world is in the midst of a prolonged shockwave with no end in sight, the results of Tuesday’s U.S. presidential race should provide all the necessary proof. The impossible has become fact, and democracy has once again proved to be a volatile system, whose outcome will surprise you every time.

Again we learned that tracking polls are worthless, and that public opinion is a difficult thing to predict not only in the streets of the Middle East, but also on the streets of California or New York. Perhaps it is time to suspend such polls, which never cease to mislead the public.

A wise man told me that Western democracies are experiencing a crisis that is leading to the rise of extremist movements in Europe and of candidates outside the mainstream in the United States. The reasons are similar all over the world, he said: The public in each country expects the state to provide it with more than the state can, and there is no chance the state can satisfy the public’s demands without radically changing the system. The public disappointment is even greater if it turns out that newly elected officials cannot change harsh realities, as most campaign promises do not translate into the real world.

This pessimistic view is essentially correct. The massive backlash against governments that fail to meet their citizens’ expectations is something dictatorships and democracies share. In democracies, this sentiment is reflected on election day, while in dictatorships there are coups and bloodshed. Frustration over government dysfunction was the root of the unrest in the Arab world and the subsequent Arab Spring, and now it is driving some of the changes seen in Western democracies.

This was the case in Brexit, the British referendum to leave the EU that saw Britons vote en masse against the London-based elite and in favor of divorcing the 28-member bloc. In the U.S., the Republican Party did not hide its aversion to Donald Trump and the media and numerous culture icons rallied to prevent his election and ensure Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton made it to the White House, but the public vote contradicted the predictions made by leaders of public opinion.

The media played a key role in what led to the Brexit shock and the surprises noted after the 2015 general election in Israel and Tuesday’s elections in the U.S., and in all three countries the media proved detached both from the public and reality.

Israel, Britain and the United States have three different systems of democracy, and all three experienced this phenomenon. This is obviously not a healthy situation for democracy, as the public’s faith in media fairness and objectivity is vital.

Still, strange as it may seem, it is unclear what, if anything, can be done. It is unlikely that taking government action is the right thing to do.

The media, especially the classical media — print, radio and television — would be wise to do some soul-searching over the loss of its credibility, and with it the loss of its ability to influence the public. This is true for Israel and the U.S. alike.

On majorities and minorities

For many Americans, President Barack Obama’s term in office is coming to an end on a disappointing note. Much will be written about the man who shattered the racial glass ceiling as the first African-American president, but he will also go down in history as a polarizing president, whose term left American society worse for wear.

The smear campaign waged by the Democrats and Republicans during the 2016 presidential race reflected the deep rift and mutual loathing between two political cultures in the U.S., and Obama’s behavior did little to mitigate tensions. If anything, he probably made things worse.

One example for this was the fight over the nuclear deal with Iran, when Obama completely ignored Congress — and apparently public opinion in the U.S. — and signed an agreement he called the most important achievement of his administration, without even presenting it to Congress. This is not how you foster consensus or build confidence in the country’s political culture and institutions.

This should serve as an important lesson to democracies struggling with serious disagreements: Such disputes should be resolved through compromise, where even those who can impose their opinions give a little, so those holding the minority opinion do not feel completely ignored. It is also important not to make critical decisions without a solid majority.

In Israel, those who make tough decisions that defy public opinion are often lauded as “courageous leaders,” especially if said decisions coincide with the positions expressed by the media and ignore the damage such decisions inflict on society.

American society today is plagued by hatred that in part, at least, stems from not keeping the most important rule of all: The majority cannot flaunt its decisions and it cannot ignore the minority’s protest. Israel would be wise to remember this lesson as well.

With a firm Republican hold on the House and Senate, things should be easier for Trump. Nevertheless, the general hope — and prayer — in the U.S. is that even though he has a majority, Trump would still see himself as “everyone’s president,” as he said in his acceptance speech, and that he does not shun the Democrats, thus doing his share to heal the rifts.

Reigniting the American dream

There is one field where Trump will leave his mark for many years to come: the U.S. Supreme Court. The next administration will need to appoint judges to the bench, but in the U.S. that includes confirmation hearings. As Republicans control the House and the Senate, they will appoint conservative judges, which could tip the balance in the Supreme Court, which in turn will affect the delicate sway it holds over shaping the character of American society.

Trump’s election reflects Americans’ deep fear of immigrants, who many in the U.S. see as a threat to America’s national character. The same is true for the U.K., where much of the Brexit vote was driven by British concerns over EU immigration policies. For many Americans, this was a chance — perhaps the last chance — to delay this change.

Trump was carried to the White House by the neglect and abandonment felt by blue-collar Americans wary of the globalization they feel is pulling the rug from under their feet.

There is another America outside New York and Washington, away from the bustling urban centers on the West and East coasts, and away from Ivy League universities — places the average American finds it difficult to reach without being from a wealthy family or an extraordinary genius.

The American dream has stalled, and Trump’s victory reflects the public’s desire to resuscitate it. There’s no wonder this issue was raised in the president-elect’s victory speech, and it is a worthy and difficult task.

What the new president’s policies in these areas will be is an open question, as it is impossible to magically stop immigration and there is little that can be done about the millions of illegal immigrants already living in the U.S. It is equally hard to see the U.S. forfeit the leading economic positions globalization has given it, especially in the fields of finance and technology. If Trump was to launch a trade war with the world, the U.S. would be heavily affected.

These phenomena are not unique to the United States. They are evident in Europe as well, and they will affect next year’s elections in Germany and France. Do Brexit and Trump’s election herald a new historic direction in the international system with regard to immigration and economics? It is too early to tell, but the signs are stronger than ever.

I do not know how much the deterioration in the U.S.’s international standing affected the current elections, but Trump clearly faces several tough tests with respect to foreign relations. The main problem is that the U.S. has lost its credibility as a superpower. Obama explained time and again why he did not believe superpower status was important, but as far as the international sphere is concerned, this status means a great deal.

Restoring America’s superpower status is the only way the U.S. can continue to alleviate global tension and prevent the deterioration of relationships in which it has a vested interest.

The feeling that the U.S. has abandoned the world and that it cannot be counted on is shared by its allies worldwide, including in the Far East, where America’s allies must contend with China’s aggression. Trump will face tough questions in the South China Sea, but also opposite Russia’s growing power in the Middle East. Dealing with these issues, especially given the cuts in U.S. defense spending is no easy thing.

Israel should act now

As for Israel-U.S. relations, it is unclear whom the president-elect plans to name to the critical positions of secretary of state, defense secretary and national security adviser. Trump will most likely also replace the heads of various organizations with which Israel maintains constant and important ties, so until it is clear who he surrounds himself with, it is difficult to formulate an opinion.

Trump has basic sympathy for Israel’s needs. He knows and has worked with many people who are familiar with these needs and can ensure Israel’s voice is heard. The next two months, during which he will shape policy and formulate his team, are important to create working relationships and influence the policy design phase.

Israel has several important advantages: It is a stable country; it is not asking for the U.S. to send troops to its aid; and you cannot blame it for not paying a price for its own defense. Even the financial aid that Israel receives from the U.S., considerable at it may be, will be reverted back to American defense industries in a few years, so Israel was wise to agree to that stipulation in the recent defense aid deal, and it would be difficult for anyone to complain.

The new administration is likely to be harder on Iran, even if it does not renege on the 2015 nuclear deal. What remains to be seen is how much Trump would be willing to invest to prevent the Shiite power from becoming stronger, especially given its ties with Russia which, like Iran, is heavily involved in Syria.

The new administration will likely to be less strict with Israel regarding the Judea and Samaria settlement enterprise. The latter was a red flag for Obama, who made settlements and any construction in east Jerusalem a key issue in Israel-U.S. relations. That was a big mistake, and one can only hope the new administration would compromise with Israel on the issue, especially if the government remains committed to the two-state solution.

There is a long and complex learning curve ahead of us, during which everything will slow down until the new administration feels secure enough to decide on its next strategy. Trump’s first steps as president would be crucial, so that the world understands that it is not just the rhetoric that has change, but also the willingness to invest and make a sacrifice to protect us interests, as well as its allies worldwide.

Israel should gear up to tell all the president’s men, as early as possible, which private and public understandings Israel prefers, which issues need more robust American involvement, and where Israel would prefer the U.S. to take a step back.

The United States will continue to be Israel’s most important — some would say only — mainstay, but Israel must strive to improve its relations with the new administration. As solid as Israel-U.S. relations were during the outgoing administration, there is great room for improvement. The time to start is now.

It was in March, during the presidential primaries in Florida and Ohio, that I realized something about the 2016 U.S. presidential elections just wasn’t right. Miami was another stop along my journey providing election coverage in the most insane presidential race anyone had ever seen.

There were days when the hype was all about the giant wall Republican candidate Donald Trump had promised to build on the Mexican border to prevent illegal immigrants from crossing into the United States. Trump’s rhetoric was something no other candidate dared utter, and the media across the board declared he didn’t stand a chance. Even the GOP couldn’t relate to him. “When Nov. 8 arrives, Latino voters will get their revenge — if he even gets the nomination,” they vowed.

So I toured Little Havana, a big Miami neighborhood densely populated by Cubans. I expected to hear blasphemy about the billionaire candidate, but instead I met many who told me, without hesitation, that they would vote for Trump, who at that time was still against two other presidential hopefuls with Cuban roots: Florida Senator Marco Rubio and Texas Senator Ted Cruz. I was shocked. American media was painting Trump as public enemy number one to Latinos, but here I was, in the heart of a Cuban neighborhood, and I was finding the opposite.

It was then that I understood that we had to draw a clear line between reality and what we read in the papers, heard on the news and saw in the polls.

Teresa, a cashier at a local department store, said Latinos are both Catholic and conservative and that Democratic presidential nominees Hillary Clinton and her rival Bernie Sanders were just too secular. Beyond that, she said, she and her relatives are not interested in seeing any more immigrants enter the country. Life is difficult enough already, she explained, and they can’t make ends meet as it is.

I asked her if she didn’t feel any solidarity with them. “We have solidarity,” she said. “It’s reserved for family.” As you may recall, after Trump won in the primaries, Rubio dropped out and the rest, as they say, is history.

Ten days ago, I went back to Miami. The same media that had bet Trump would not last more than one or two rounds in the primaries was continuing to cover the elections and managing to get it wrong. Trump continued to speak about building a wall during his campaign rallies in Florida, and the pundits continued to claim that his chances of winning the presidency were slim to none. One week before the election, the New York Times magnanimously gave him a 5% chance of being elected president.

I arrived in Miami the same day as a scheduled campaign rally. I headed over and was again surprised to see women everywhere. It was right in the midst of Trump’s latest scandal — numerous allegations of sexual assault spanning decades, following the release of a lewd audio recording of Trump from 2005. Trump was blasted as a misogynist, the enemy of women.

But the women were there. There were Latinos as well. And even quite a few Hispanic women, a demographic combination that according to the polls, the commentators and every single expert could not possibly be pro-Trump. A woman named Miguella told me that the Federation of Cuban Women was endorsing Trump, I saw the stark divide between what was being published in the papers and the reality in the field.

Maybe that’s why Trump’s victory in the presidential election was not really a surprise or some phenomenon that negates the laws of nature, as many tried to claim. Trump had supporters across a wide and diverse range of populations. Amongst Cubans, he beat Clinton with an overwhelming majority of 55% versus her 42%. Remember, the pundits explained that in Florida, Latinos were flocking to the polls and that this made Trump’s chances of winning in this vital states quite slim.

A vote of fury

In the ballroom of the Hilton Manhattan this week, the audience erupted into joyful cries each and every time another state fell into their colorful candidate’s lap. One cry stood out from the others came when Florida, a national symbol of voter dissidence in the U.S. since the 2000 election, turned red.

The same was true with other states. In Pennsylvania, the story was similar. Commentators explained that the state had not fallen into red hands since 1988. The last Republican to snag it was George H.W. Bush, who won the state in part thanks to his predecessor, Ronald Reagan.

But in reality the situation on the ground was entirely different. While the American media chose to highlight the drastic decline in the unemployment rate, celebrating a record low in 40 years with reports claiming 5% unemployment, I saw the despair, depression and distress that lined the streets of Mayfair, Philadelphia.

Who would believe it? Americans, promised the American dream by a president who sits in the White House, are being shut out. No matter where I went in the small town, I met Trump sympathizers upon Trump sympathizers. I couldn’t understand how they were not being polled, but they did promise to make themselves heard come Election Day.

Pennsylvania, much like Michigan, does not hold early voting. Meanwhile, the media constantly cited the 40 Million voters who fulfilled their civic duty before Nov. 8, like trophies in the pocket of the democratic candidate. No reference to the rage brewing in those small towns, not a word on the fact that Clinton wasn’t offering hope or more importantly, any enthusiasm.

In terms of communication there was just one important thing: Clinton, despite the negative polls, was still held in higher esteem than Trump. The polls pegged her disapproval ratings at 54% , versus Trump’s 61%. But, of course, this figure proved inaccurate as well. No one really wanted Clinton as president, aside from her own family, and she was kind of forced on everyone in the Democratic Party. On the other hand, while there were some that disliked Trump, there were many who admired the man and the phenomenon.

It was enough to attend one of Trump’s rallies and just compare them to Clinton’s. The Democratic candidate had audiences in the hundreds who showed restraint, while the Republican candidate had a fandom that turned out in droves. Since I was at Obama’s last rally in the 2008 presidential campaign, which was a huge, exciting and even historic event leading up to the election of the first African American president in U.S. history, I wanted to check out Clinton’s final rally, to compare.

In 2008, Obama didn’t need anyone at all. This week, Clinton needed famous artists like Jon Bon Jovi and Bruce Springsteen, as well as her boss from her time as secretary of state. President Obama and the First Lady Michelle Obama were there, as was Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton, and their daughter, Chelsea. Later, by the way, Clinton went down to North Carolina because she had a feeling that something bad was going on among voters, and there, Lady Gaga joined the party.

Clinton thought that Beyonce, her husband rapper Jay Z or Lady Gaga could meet the cultural needs of all Americans. But in the small neighborhoods of Pennsylvania, Beyonce was the last thing on their minds. In the African-American neighborhoods in those states, people had trouble understanding why, after eight years of Obama, their children were still dying from crime, and they were still relying on food stamps instead of finding employment. But the Democrats and the media were adamant about maintaining their alternate universe, where everything was fine and everyone was voting, and voting right.

I left Clinton’s rally in Independence Square in Philadelphia and I saw how many left the event with me she still stood at the podium. I left in order to catch my train and they left because they saw what they came to see: the president and the first lady. And it was then that I understood that something really was wrong with the Clinton campaign. They claimed that the email scandal dogging her didn’t matter, neither did the Benghazi affair nor the millions in the bank, and not even WikiLeaks. But the feeling this week was tinged with a bitter taste. America hit the polls angry and reeling. They may not have liked either candidate but they were really vexed by one in particular.

Clinton was meant to be Obama’s successor, and he had failed them. Seventy-seven percent of the furious electorate chose Trump — a protest vote if ever there was one. The pundits failed to take that into account as well, as did Clinton’s campaign. They wanted to believe that Obama was the greatest thing since sliced bread. But this simply wasn’t true. The president’s economic policy doesn’t jive with the American spirit, with a nation that believes in a policy like Trump’s. The 8 million-person increase in Americans reliant on food stamps since Obama took office certainly didn’t help with national pride. We’re in America, remember?

Another claim also proved false: The media explained to us that educated people were voting for Clinton while the uneducated were voting for Trump. On the eve of the election, we learned that half of those with higher education voted for Trump. In other words, the pundits claimed that Trump’s voters needed to be white men, crude, uneducated, not particularly rich and living in the Rust Belt. But we found Trump everywhere we looked. The liberals may be the ones who were locked in. Even in Manhattan this week, I found that the man had quite a few supporters. At the newsstand, I wasn’t the only one who purchased a few copies as souvenirs, even when a young mother there looked at us with distaste and said, “I don’t let that kind of smut into my house.”

In the end, the election proved that while Clinton may have been the “right” choice, she was there at the wrong time, just as Trump was the “wrong” candidate at the right time. Only time will tell if Trump truly was the wrong candidate. This may be a good time to mention that during the election, there were some (though perhaps not many) who feared what Trump might do, but there were many more that feared what Clinton might do. And yes, that also made a difference.

Two terms and you’re done

Clinton was emotional as she gave her concession speech in New York Wednesday. She received applause but left the Democratic Party directionless. Sanders, the socialist, managed to undermine her candidacy and the foundations of the party. Her campaign often spoke about the problems in the Republican Party and predicted it would lose the House and the Senate in the parallel races on Nov. 8, but the end, the Republican maintained their tight grip on both.

Compassion for Clinton will soon turn to anger. She failed in two presidential elections (2008 and 2016) and if you examine voter distribution, the overall sentiment, and the person voters wanted as their candidate, you will conclude that the person who was supposed to lead the Democrats in this election was Joe Biden. But Clinton decided that it would be her. She was smug; she thought that she deserved it because “her time had come,” that the time had come for a woman to smash the glass ceiling, which for itself is certainly true. She was convinced that she could leverage Obama’s popularity, but she forgot that American voters were simply not excited about a third Democratic term, unless your name is Roosevelt, in which case they’ll go for a fourth as well. The last time that the same party managed to win a third consecutive campaign was when the Republicans won with Bush in 1988. Since then, it’s been two terms and you’re done.

Clinton also represented the past. Not just because of her name, but also because she was the kind of candidate that ran with programs, laws and detailed proposals — instead of on a vision. Trump, like Reagan and Obama, ran on a vision and knew how to pluck heartstrings, something that Clinton just couldn’t seem to muster. While she demonstrated knowledge and skills, both during the debates and during her rallies, she didn’t have the thing that makes the difference — that elusive thing that every American candidate needs to win the presidency. She needed to be larger than life.

Much has been said about the fact that both candidates in this insane rate were not particularly promising. Much has been said about the fact both had high disapproval ratings. The Wall Street Journal even ruled that these were the least popular presidential candidates in U.S. history. But when this was mentioned again and again, they forgot to take into account the fact that one of the candidates — Trump — had star power. After two terms with the Obama administration, during which many were left behind, it’s no wonder that millions saw Trump as a savior. Just as they saw Obama eight years ago.

Politico, yet another website that failed to predict the elections’ outcome, speculated that it might come a few days prior to the election but gave Trump a very tenuous path to victory. They admitted that they did not think that the “Trumpquake” would include aftershocks. But it did. And despite having been burned in the primaries, Politico didn’t learn their lesson.

There is no doubt that “Trumpquake” was an expression of protest. But it was also a revolt against the pundits, against Washington, against the establishment, the media, politicians; against anyone who tried to dictate the outcome to the America public; and against those who think that you need to abide by the rules – which, of course, are their rules. Trump has proven that you don’t have to be politically correct and you can still stay in the race. He was not endorsed by any major newspaper, unless you count the Las Vegas Review Journal.

Washington was furious when Trump, during the third debate, stated that he would not accept the results if he lost – claiming that it might indicate a rigged election. Later, he announced he would accept the results — but only if he won, of course. At Trump’s campaign headquarters, where staffing changes were a regular occurrence, they talked endlessly of rigged elections. Clinton might have experience as a senator and secretary of state under her belt, but in the 2016 presidential election, these were disadvantages. As far as voters were concerned, Trump had done more. While she toured the world on the taxpayers’ dime, he worked hard and built an empire.

The fact that university graduates were distributed equally among candidates only shows just how wrong the pollsters were. The contrast between his appeal versus her lack of charisma, particularly in swing states, which have high concentrations of minorities, made a difference as well. Clinton just couldn’t get the number of Hispanic, African-American and particularly young people that she needed. It’s true, at her rally that I attended this week, there were a lot of young people.

Trump defeated Clinton in the small towns of the Rust Belt in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, with huge margins.

She won fewer votes then the polls predicted, and as Trump’s campaign manager Kellyanne Conway predicted, we saw that even in the best cases, Clinton couldn’t make it past 45%. That’s when we realized that she was in trouble. There is no doubt that Clinton just couldn’t deliver.

But we must remember that Trump’s victory was not just a matter of luck or mathematics. He was a once-in-a-generation — once-in-a-lifetime, really — nominee. He managed to flip blue or light blue states that had long been stored in the Republican history books. Michigan since 1988, Wisconsin since 1984, Pennsylvania since 1988.

Pennsylvania in particular became the epicenter of Trumpquake. Now you can say that anyone who wins over the microcosm that is the keystone state can also be expected to win the presidential election.

History will focus on just how Donald Trump became the 45th president of the United States. Books will be written on this election, which will serve as the topic for many a thesis. Experts will take stock. This was a historic election that will be remembered hundreds of years from now. Trump was right when he told a group of supporters that ate lunch with him before the third debate that what would take place on Nov. 8 would be 10 times as huge as Britain’s Brexit.

The New Yorker magazine admitted their grave error this week. “We believed the polls more than we believed our own eyes,” they wrote. And that sentence summarized the 2016 election perfectly. Analysts and journalists chose to see the numbers, when what they should have been looking at were the people.

It is precisely because many forgot to look that they did not notice that something big was happening in America. And that’s precisely why they didn’t bet correctly on who the new tenant would be in the White House on Jan. 20, 2017. That’s right. That’s no lady, sir. That’s a man.

Preparations for President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration, which will take place on Jan. 20 in Washington, D.C., were already underway in earnest Wednesday morning.

Tuesday night, however, was a once-in-a-lifetime-night.

It was a night against all odds, against all prognostications, a night that ended nothing like it began. It was a night that will be remembered a thousand years from now.

Who would have believed that just one week ago The New York Times gave Donald Trump just a 5% chance of winning the election! What The New York Times and the rest of the global media didn’t understand is that Trump wasn’t a normal candidate, who can be analyzed with strange, perhaps even tendentious polls, rather a phenomenon: a once-in-a-generation candidate. We were told that only racists, misogynists, deplorables and the uneducated support Trump. Yet here we are, over 40% of voters with a college degree supported him. He received more support from whites without college degrees than any other Republican candidate since pollsters began measuring that statistic in 1972.

America experienced a new type of candidate: A celebrity billionaire who somehow touched the hearts of people across the country, people who are proud of old-fashion values such as “American exceptionalism.” Trump understood that there are millions of Americans who would rather work instead of receiving food stamps, which is the case for over 40 million Americans. From the penthouse atop his tower, Trump was able to sense the immense frustration felt by millions, those forgotten in the Rust Belt, in Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania, who decided to remind the world, and the Democratic Party, that they exist. Similar to the national referendum in Great Britain over membership in the European Union (Brexit), this time, too, the periphery reminded the elites that it exists. Or as Trump predicted: “It’s Brexit times 10.”

‘Congratulations’ in Hebrew

It really was Brexit times 10 — at least it felt that way from the Hilton Midtown hotel, where Trump’s supporters and aides had gathered. At around two in the morning, accompanied by his family, Trump appeared on stage. “Trump, Trump!” the crowd yelled in unison. The weight of the responsibility was visible on his face. Trump understood very quickly that he was receiving the most important job in the world. A moment before he began his speech, someone shouted at him in Hebrew, “Mazal tov” (congratulations), to which he responded with a “Todah” (thanks).

“I want to tell the world community that while we will always put America’s interests first, we will deal fairly with everyone, with everyone — all people and all other nations. We will seek common ground, not hostility; partnership, not conflict,” he said, adding that he would make all Americans proud. He commended Hillary Clinton for her “very, very hard-fought campaign.”

“Hillary has worked very long and very hard over a long period of time, and we owe her a major debt of gratitude for her service to our country,” Trump said. “Now it’s time for America to bind the wounds of division; have to get together. To all Republicans and Democrats and independents across this nation, I say it is time for us to come together as one united people.

Who would have believed? On Feb. 25, New York Congressman Chris Collins was the first delegate to publicly endorse Trump’s candidacy. At the time they thought he was crazy, that it was impossible.

Wednesday evening also began that way. The atmosphere and the prognostications weren’t particularly optimistic, partially because media claims that Georgia and South Carolina were “too early to call,” despite the fact that both states are unequivocally Republican. Then, however, it emerged that Hillary’s stronghold, Virginia, which voted twice for Obama, could slip from her grasp. Both camps chewed their fingernails while Trump’s campaign headquarters also received unconfirmed reports that the key states were falling to Clinton.

The fall of the blue wall

At some point during the night, though, Clinton’s “blue-light blue wall” was breached. While she was ultimately able to keep Virginia, in other swing states Trump was racking up victory after victory: in North Carolina, Ohio, Florida. If that wasn’t enough, his strides in Michigan prevented Clinton from winning that state, which had voted Democrat since 1988. ‭

And then came Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Before the elections Trump was ridiculed for campaigning in states that hadn’t voted Republican for nearly 30 years. Wisconsin hadn’t voted Republican since 1984. But the results proved he was right to expand his reach.

And Pennsylvania? At this point it felt as if time was standing still. When it became clear that Pennsylvania was almost his and was the only thing separating him from the White House, the crowd grew restless. “Call it, call it,” shouted the people in the red hats, demanding confirmation that Trump would be the next president of the United States. One after the other, the various channels and news agencies, such as The Associated Press, declared Pennsylvania red.

According to Fox News, which at that point was the only outlet saying Trump had won Wisconsin, a win in Pennsylvania meant that Trump had crossed the required threshold of 270 electoral votes. The network, however, wanted to make sure Pennsylvania was in fact his.

These were nerve-wracking moments. On the giant screens the crowd watched the developments unfold in the neighboring convention hall, not so far away, where the Democrats and Clinton’s campaign manager, John Podesta, were saying the race was close and a winner could still not be declared.

Even Wisconsin

And then came the wonderful moment when every network declared Trump the winner. That was that, Pennsylvania gave him the victory.

Pennsylvania, it has been noted, is also known as the Keystone State, aptly so apparently, and not just because the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were written there. Indeed, one gentleman standing beside me, named John, told me in a southern drawl: “This is our second revolution, today. A democratic revolution, with a Republican victory.”

During his speech, Trump hushed the audience, which had begun attacking Hillary Clinton, the detested candidate who was now a respected adversary — and this, too, is the beauty of the strong American democracy. Trump spoke about the millions who had been forgotten, those living in the Rust Belt who fell on hard times in the wake of “bad deals” that hurt Western and Midwestern states.

It was the Democrats who had pulled away from the people. “And this is exactly why it took us so long to get results from Michigan and Detroit, where so many African-Americans live,” Helen explained to me, holding a sign saying “Women for Trump.” The Democrats didn’t understand that the Obama coalition had collapsed because Trump began speaking at eye level with disappointed middle class voters.

At the entrance to the hall, a bust of Donald Trump looked straight at me. It was so uncanny that I didn’t even realize it was actually a cake.

But that was nothing, because Trump’s victory cake was kosher! It’s not a surprise, because Melissa, the chef who made it, is Jewish, as were many others in the crowd. Two of them, Jacob and Ben, didn’t stop cheering the entire night. Two young Jews from New York. “We are so happy he won,” Jacob said. “This isn’t just good for America; it’s also excellent for Israel. Here in New York we know a lot of people from temple who know him [Trump] or have worked with him. He’s a good man. And he loves Israel in a real way. He prefers us because he says Jews are a people who like to work hard.

“We now have a president who appreciates work, and this is exactly what America needs,” Ben told me. “You’ll see the work that will be done here. You’ll see how he makes America successful again.”

Donald Trump on Wednesday joined the line of presidents who never thought they’d ever reach the White House — impossible candidates such as the peanut farmer from Georgia, Jimmy Carter; the mediocre actor, Ronald Reagan; and the simple man from Missouri, Harry Truman. They are now joined by the celebrity and reality television show host from New York, Donald Trump.

Revenge on Obama

On my way out, amid all the police vehicles, fire trucks and ambulances that had blocked the hotel area, I again came across that cake. One after another, the police officers asked to take a picture with the cake, some of them placing their police hats on “Trump’s” head. They were followed by Trump’s supporters. Apropos hats: There were enough red hats in the convention hall for every mistaken pundit and journalist to eat.

I could only think: What sweet revenge for Trump! Three or four years ago he was humiliated by Obama at a party. Now he will sleep in his bed in the White House.