The best documentary on the 2016 election is coming soon from The Washington Post’s The Post: the movie that will change the way you think about politics and the world.
The film, The Trump Effect: The Inside Story of the Election, is a sweeping, sweeping, stunning, ambitious documentary.
It is not a documentary, nor is it a political thriller.
It doesn’t pretend to be.
The film’s title is a play on words, and is not the most apt.
Instead, it is an invitation to watch The Post as a political documentary, and as an insider’s account of the 2016 presidential campaign, with the help of a talented and experienced cast.
The movie’s primary purpose is to examine the motivations and the impact of Donald J. Trump.
It also seeks to explain how a campaign fueled by racial prejudice and hatred led to Trump’s improbable victory over Hillary Clinton, and its effect on the American political system.
The most important fact in The Trump Show is that Trump never, ever had a serious chance to win the White House, much less the presidency, despite his massive political advantages and his unprecedented, almost-impossible, victory in the Electoral College.
The real story of how Donald Trump won the 2016 U.S. presidential election is a fascinating one, but the real story is also a story of a candidate who was deeply, deeply wrong about the state of the country, who made his campaign, as a matter of fact, seem to be about the people, not the country.
In the days and weeks after the election, The Post and its producers sought to find the truth.
They sought to understand what happened in that election, how the election came about, how it could be corrected and who was to blame for it.
They wanted to understand the reasons for Trump’s defeat.
And they wanted to tell the story of what happened on Election Day in the hours and days that followed.
That’s why the film is a documentary about a candidate whose campaign seemed to promise a great American experiment and a great change in American politics.
It was also a narrative about a campaign that never lived up to its promises.
And that’s why it’s a political film.
The Post’s movie is the culmination of a process that began in the fall of 2016.
We began by asking the people we talked to in the campaign to recount their experiences and to give us their firsthand accounts of the campaign.
We followed up with those stories and those conversations.
We also asked our staff to tell us their own stories about the campaign, and we began to piece together what happened.
Then we assembled a group of experts and experts who shared their observations and experiences with us.
Our team of more than 50 reporters and editors and writers spent more than a year combing through thousands of pages of campaign and White House documents, interviewing people, talking to people, interviewing friends and acquaintances.
We spoke with people who worked in the White Houses and who worked on Capitol Hill.
We talked to people who knew what happened, and with people whose work we considered crucial to the story.
We spoke to people from the field, as well as some of the most famous reporters and TV personalities of our era, and interviewed people who have been in politics and policy circles for decades.
We interviewed people in government who have worked in high-level positions and who have expertise in national security, foreign policy and national security strategy.
We reached out to people in every branch of government in the country and talked to the best and the brightest.
We sought out people who were on the ground and in the field who were not only close friends and allies, but also people who had worked closely with Donald Trump, and who understood his campaign’s message and his character.
We asked questions like, How would a foreign policy team react to such a campaign?
What would happen if he were president?
What does it mean for the economy?
What impact does it have on our political system?
We wanted to know.
The truth is, no one had any idea what was going on in the minds of the voters who turned out in droves in the weeks and months that followed the election.
The people who spoke with us were often bewildered and confused.
And the people who saw the campaign are often shocked and appalled.
But the people whose voices were heard the most often expressed profound and profound frustration.
We were not looking for answers.
We weren’t looking for the kind of definitive answer that the public had come to expect from the political parties.
We didn’t want a definitive answer about the outcome.
We wanted to hear from people who actually lived it.
We asked what the campaign’s goals were.
We pressed the issue that had been bothering voters for months: How would they respond to a Trump presidency?
We asked how the country would move forward after he was president.
We probed the question of who should be responsible for the country’s economic and national challenges.
We found a lot of questions about the future, about how people should live their lives, and about how much the country