Analysis: In analyzing the Alabama Primary race,FAKE NEWS always fails...

8y ago Sep 30, 2017 at 11:24 PM

In analyzing the Alabama Primary race,FAKE NEWS always fails to mention that the candidate I endorsed went up MANY points after endorsement!

0:00 0:00

AI Analysis

Machine-generated analysis of the post above on 2026-03-11. Not written by the author of the post.

Danger Level

None

Narcissistic State

Grandiose

Authorship

Self-Written

Intensity

45%

Authorship Analysis

Self-Written

Indicators:

ALL CAPS emphasis on MANY and FAKE NEWS
defensive/reactive tone
stream-of-consciousness correction of own earlier post
Saturday evening timing ~7:24pm ET

Psychological Profile

▶ State

Grandiose State

Trigger: Narcissistic Injury — Defeat (Luther Strange loss in Alabama primary despite Trump endorsement)

Rage: Intensity 40% targeting media/Fake News

Proportionality

40%

Sentiment

-0.40

▶ Clinical

Malignant Narcissism:

Narcissistic

60%

Antisocial

10%

Paranoid

30%

Sadism

Defense Mechanisms:

rationalizationprojectiondistortion

Cognitive Complexity:

Complexity

30%

Cognitive Markers:

perseveration

Parasocial Techniques:

reframing defeat as victorymedia as enemy keeping truth from audience

Danger Assessment

None

Gaslighting Detected:

Reframes an objective electoral loss as evidence of endorsement success
Attacks media perception rather than addressing the actual outcome

Reality Distortions:

Implies media is hiding the truth about his endorsement's effectiveness
Frames a losing campaign as a success story

Fact Checks (1)

"The candidate Trump endorsed went up MANY points after endorsement"

Mostly True

Luther Strange did see polling gains after Trump's endorsement, moving from a significant deficit to a closer race. However, Strange still lost to Roy Moore by about 9 points (54.6% to 45.4%), making the 'many points' framing misleading in context.

Receipts

No contradictions with other posts detected yet.

Analysis: Alabama Primary Endorsement Defense (Corrected Repost)

Context

This post is a near-duplicate correction of an earlier post from the same day that read "after Election" instead of "after endorsement." Trump endorsed Luther Strange in the Alabama Senate Republican primary; Strange lost to Roy Moore on September 26 by roughly 9 points. Four days later, Trump is still processing the loss.

Authorship

High confidence authentic Trump. Saturday evening (~7:24pm ET), ALL CAPS emphasis, defensive/reactive tone, and the self-correction repost pattern all point to personal authorship. The fact that he noticed and corrected his own phrasing error suggests active personal engagement.

Psychological Dynamics

Classic narcissistic injury response to a public defeat. The endorsement loss threatens Trump's self-concept as an all-powerful political kingmaker. Rather than accept the loss, he deploys rationalization (the endorsement moved polls even if the candidate lost) and distortion (reframing defeat as a kind of success). The perseverative return to this topic - correcting and reposting - reveals the wound is still active four days later.

Rhetorical Structure

The post employs goalpost shifting as its core technique: changing the success metric from "did your candidate win?" (no) to "did your endorsement boost polls?" (arguably yes). The "FAKE NEWS" label preemptively discredits anyone who might point out the actual outcome.

Longitudinal Note

This post sits amid a day of defensive posting about Puerto Rico, NFL protests, and now Alabama - multiple simultaneous fronts where Trump feels under-credited or unfairly criticized. The pattern of simultaneous multi-front defensiveness is characteristic of periods of elevated narcissistic vulnerability.

Fact Verification

Claim	Verdict	Evidence
"The candidate Trump endorsed went up MANY points after endorsement"	Mostly True	Luther Strange did see polling gains after Trump's endorsement, moving from a significant deficit to a closer race. However, Strange still lost to Roy Moore by about 9 points (54.6% to 45.4%), making the 'many points' framing misleading in context.

Overall Veracity: 80%