When I used to analyze bad journalism, The Atlantic was one of the easiest outlets to tear apart. I don’t do much of this anymore, but every once in a while, an article is so ridiculous, that you can’t help but rip it for old time’s sake.

Like this piece of sophistry.

The article is a smug take on why X and right-leaning posters couldn’t get people to vote Republicans at the mid-terms.

The same reason why journalists couldn’t get the little people to vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Voters look at one thing: the economy.

Clinton had no economic platform. Trump did. He got the votes.

The same thing is true for social media: right-wing posters can’t make people forget that they could buy more two years ago and their jobs were more secure than they are now. 2024 had Trump have an actual focus on the economy, Kamala Harris didn’t, and people went with the candidate who talked about the economy. Trump wasn’t in office, and the promise was straightforward.

And then, two years later, people are losing their jobs as they can’t buy as much as they used to in 2024.

The promise of 2024 was broken. It didn’t matter what professional posters opined in 2026: people had the receipts and didn’t like the numbers. There was no sugar-coating this debacle.

It’s that simple. You can call people who don’t agree with “trolls” just as they can call your people “trolls”; it’s just a temper tantrum.

What counts is the bottom line.

Ronald Reagan asked the famous question, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?”

This is the question most voters ask themselves, but in November 2026, they asked, “Am I better off than I was two years ago?”

For billionaires, the answer was yes. For everyone else, the answer was a resounding no.

They flipped because the man in the White House arrived, but failed to deliver.

That’s all.

And no social media maven can spin that rot.