The New Yorker makes Donald Trump into a beauty queen: funny or problematic?

trump miss

Does anyone else wonder if the New Yorker sometimes misreads the room in a larger sense? Like, I understand what political cartoonist Barry Blitt is trying to say, and some/many people do understand the larger political commentary being made. But it also feels like the New Yorker does live in their own little bubble. That came up in 2008, when Blitt did that “terrorist fist bump” Obama cover. People freaked out over… satire. But it was satire that misread the room, because as we saw time and time again, (stupid) people were genuinely freaked out that Barack Obama had some kind of terrorist sympathies.

And now this… this is next week’s New Yorker cover, featuring Donald Trump dressed up in a swimsuit with the “Miss Congeniality” sash. Yes. It’s a play on Donald Trump-the-showman, the guy who loved beauty pageants and beauty queens. It’s a play on the guy who dehumanizes and objectifies women every day of his life, who thinks nothing of body shaming a young woman for gaining a little weight. But is that all? Like, is there another “joke” in here about how it’s “funny” to see Trump dressed as a beauty queen? I know many of you hate this word, but I’m going to say it: this cover is problematic.

Speaking of satire and parody, guess who’s playing Donald Trump on Saturday Night Live this season? Alec Baldwin! I know Baldwin is a rude, thoughtless little pig, but seriously – he’s great at skits, he’s a great mimic, and he’s really, really funny. This might actually be good.

One last thing… Trump maybe/probably did business with Cuba and Fidel Castro during the embargo. For the love of God.



Photos courtesy of WENN, New Yorker.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

93 Responses to “The New Yorker makes Donald Trump into a beauty queen: funny or problematic?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. detritus says:

    Problematic Court?
    I say problematic. It pokes fun at Trump for being heavier and unattractive and is basically saying as a woman he’d be a loser.
    It’s sort of on the right track, but punching the wrong direction.

    • MC2 says:

      I took it more to be that he doesn’t fit his own standards for others and how ironic that is. He would suck at his own game if he had to play it…..

      • Chaucer says:

        MC2, I had the same thoughts. Trump’s standards only apply to people who aren’t Trump. The congeniality bit pokes that not only is he unattractive and overweight, which he has degraded women for being, he also has an awful personality.

        Everyone else is free to sit back and think of how problematic it is while they continue to swing insults about his baby hands, fake tan, and looks, while balking at the idea of someone else throwing those criticisms at Hillary. Double standard regardless of how awful this man is.

      • ElleP says:

        That’s how I took it too.

        I realize that the cover is misogynistic (in undertone/overtone – a larger, “unattractive” woman being shamed for not living up to idealized/unrealistic body and beauty standards), however, it is also highlighting one facet of Trump’s hypocrisy. I.E. Trump ugly-inside-and-out and his nerve and audacity to deem which women are desirable and which are not.

      • LadyMTL says:

        I see it this way too; IMHO they’re pointing out how hypocritical it is of him to be shaming Machado – or any woman, really – for her body when he isn’t exactly a Mr. Universe type himself. I don’t find this cover problematic at all, I think it’s satire and they’re calling a duck a duck (to paraphrase a bit).

      • perplexed says:

        That’s how I understood the cover too.

      • isabelle says:

        Its everything he hates, overweight women, he mocks women for being emotional and pokes fun at humorlessness personality. think its brilliant and lets face it he is drama queen.

    • Me Three says:

      I took it as a slap at him because of his sexism. It’s not making fun of heavy women (and I’m one) but making fun of this obese, horrible man who faults women for every part of their “imperfect” bodies while being one himself. That cartoon is perfect. First, notice the sash: Miss Congeniality. Problematic? Nope. It hits him in every way it should. It makes fun of him in the way he makes fun of everyone else. Way to go New Yorker!

  2. minx says:

    lol, that is going to leave a mark.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      He’s going to be so pissed and will most likely lash out. He is so easily provoked!

      • NotSoSocialButterfly says:

        Cue the insults about quality of mag, writers, editors, artists, circulation, profit, ad nauseum.

      • Esmom says:

        Yes. He’ll be calling it a “failed publication,” blah blah blah. And spending way too much time on it when he should be talking about the issues he can’t seem to grasp. UGH.

  3. Harryg says:

    I swear Melania is morphing into her husband.

    • Lolo86lf says:

      She’d better remain young, beautiful and maintain her ideal weight or he will drop her like a hot potatoe.

      • Keats says:

        I’m going to assume this is a subtle Dan Quayle joke.

      • NotSoSocialButterfly says:

        Oh,KEATS!!! You went THERE!!!!
        ( I was too shy to do so)

      • Me Three says:

        Keats you’re perfect. Ha! Frankly, I wonder if poor Melania doesn’t dump the idiot after the election–if he doesn’t win. And God help us all if he wins. I’d say I’m moving to Canada if I could afford it and it’s too close anyway. That finger on the nuclear button scares me to death!

    • NotSoSocialButterfly says:

      It’s the permasquint.

    • crtb says:

      She has had more plastic surgery in the last couple of months. The cheeks are even bigger. Face more taught, More botox. And if her eyes get any more squinty, she wont be able to see. She is an older version of Kim K. The forever getting something done to keep from ageing. I feel sorry for her. She knows that she has an expiration date. And should she start to age, she will be traded in for a younger wife. I have no doubt that her husband speaks to her in the same maner that he addresses everyone else. He calls her names. He puts her down. She can never be correct or have a different opinion and he never lets her forget who holds the purse, how great he is and how lucky she is to have him as her husband.

  4. Kitten says:

    Look, I grew up with the New Yorker. The downstairs walls in our house were literally covered in NYer covers (my bedroom door had almost all cat/animal covers) and my dad was an avid NYer reader. As an adult, I’ve had a subscription for the past 4 or 5 years.

    It’s a very particular type of person who reads the New Yorker and their cartoons often oscillate between folksy/quirky/cute and anarchic/provocative. At the risk of offending people, I hope the New Yorker never changes. It’s such an intelligent periodical and it isn’t for the hackneyed, witless folk who probably support Trump. Additionally, the nonfiction is almost always a home-run.

    So yeah, to me the cartoon is completely in-keeping with their traditional style and it’s a clever slam on Trump.

    • MC2 says:

      My best friend is an avid reader too and the New Yorker is so special to people.

      • Kitten says:

        It was such an important part of my childhood and something I associate with my dad. As a kid, I remember him sitting in his chair reading the latest New Yorker. Now as an adult, we get to discuss the articles together.

      • Little Darling says:

        Over 20 years ago, my high school English teacher recommended that all of his students get a subscription to The New Yorker. He often xeroxed the fiction pieces for us to read, and was known for saying, “If you read this magazine cover to cover each week, you’ll learn almost everything you need to know about what’s going on in the world.” Because I thought he was great, I got a subscription, and have never regretted it. I enjoy the balance of hard news, balanced interest stories, and arts that the New Yorker provides.

        The New Yorker does its part in covering big news stories, but it’s not really a news magazine. The perspectives are unique (and admittedly lean to the left), and the kind you’re not likely to get elsewhere.

        Some segments are more like NPR stories–unique perspectives on largely uncovered topics that aren’t time-sensitive. You’ll get in-depth looks into developments in medicine, law, architecture, etc., that otherwise wouldn’t get on your radar unless you were in that profession. And, the writers incorporate the “larger questions” in stories focused on recent events. Like Malcolm Gladwell’s recent account of a playwright who plagiarized material from a former article written by him. He parlayed his personal struggle into a good summary of legal and ethical positions on the use or development of one person’s idea by another.

        I have grown to look forward to reading the Fiction selection each week. Sometimes I don’t like the piece, but I enjoy getting the chance to read writers that I normally wouldn’t and those that I normally would.

    • Truthie says:

      +1000 Kitten. I love my New Yorker and this is satire. They don’t play to the same room as other publications and I would never suggest they try.

    • Brittney B. says:

      I grew up with it too and your descriptions are spot on. In many ways, this is an accurate and New Yorker-appropriate slam at Trump’s showmanship.


      I have too many MTF trans friends to laugh at the way they chose to depict his face/body/feminine attire. Remember the naked Trump statues that popped up last month, one of them in Union Park? I have trans friends in New York who felt humiliated by proxy when they had to pass that awful thing. I know that this type of humor is a great way to poke at his particular ego… but others get (very) hurt too when we use femininity or fatness as body insults. The ways in which Trump is being depicted– especially the juxtaposition between a larger male body and female curves or a small penis — are the ways in which some trans female bodies look. This cover and that statue perpetuate a “joke” that still turns trans bodies into targets for violence and prejudice.

      • detritus says:

        @Brittney B.
        Very well said on both points

      • Kitten says:

        I get everything you’re saying, I really do. But the New Yorker has been running satirical cartoons like this for 90 years. This cartoon is mocking Trump and Trump alone. Maybe it’s because I’m a thin white cis but I don’t see this cartoon as a dig at overweight people or a dig at the trans community (I literally would never have connected it to trans unless you guys hadn’t brought it up) and the craziest part is that in terms of controversial New Yorker cartoons, this one is tame af.

        Ultimately, the content of the magazine is more important to me than the silly cartoons. And The New Yorker has been a consistent leader in exposing and dissecting controversial subjects from Scientology to racism to GMO and on and on in a sensitive and fair way.

        Hell, The New Yorker gave us MALCOLM GLADWELL FFS.

        I don’t know…maybe people will hate me but I’m Team New Yorker on this one. I always say that The New Yorker makes me smarter so I’m choosing to stay loyal.

        Also, if we’re going to get upset about every seemingly offensive New Yorker cover then we’ll be here for a LONG time (below are just a couple) because it’s published 47 times annually:

        And just a reminder that for every cover that offends someone, there’s five New Yorker covers like this:×630-1466174492.jpg

      • popup says:

        @Kitten I hadn’t seen the one of Trump belly flopping in the pool. That is amazing. Also, I don’t see that as body-shaming Trump. His body isn’t made to look grotesque and the others in the pool are also in just swim trunks. He just looks like an annoying kid making a big mess and stealing all the attention at the pool, which is so apt.

      • Petrichor says:

        I know this wasn’t the takeaway from your post, Kitten, but I’m reeling at the fact that the cover price of the New Yorker has gone from 4.50 in 2009 to 7.99 in 2016. That says a lot about the state of print media today.

      • NotSoSocialButterfly says:

        The primary candidates/ belly flop is perfection. Controversial or not, as all these covers may be, they are intelligent and bitingly funny.

        I think I need to subscribe- the cover art must be a delicious little amuse-bouche for the main under the front cover.

      • perplexed says:

        Imo, they’re not talking about trans people on this cover (I haven’t seen the statue so I can’t speak to that). They’re clearly specifically talking about Donald Trump as an individual (and his lack of self-awareness).

        I also don’t know if it’s fat-shaming Trump if he’s really that size. It’s not like they’re mocking an already thin Nicole Kidman or Michael Phelps, and adding bulges that wouldn’t exist on them even after a 10 pound or 20 pound weight gain. If Trump were to wear little clothing, this is most likely the reality of what he looks like anyway (which would be fine if he weren’t mocking other women for their weight). Even with a suit on, he’s not nearly as slim or trim as the women he mocks. They’re clearly pointing out that Trump doesn’t match the standards that he expects other people to live up to.

      • Justjj says:

        @Brittney +2!! Same

      • Swift says:

        Interesting discussion here about a great magazine on a celeb gossip site but thought I’d just chime in with my two cents on Malcolm Gladwell. He’s an entertaining writer and his articles always contain nuggets, but I thought he was more pop than serious philosophy or journalism, or is it just me? Some of the stuff he says seems a bit simplistic in a pop science way.

      • Nicole (the Cdn one) says:

        Brittany. You raised very compelling points.

        Personally, I’m finding it very hard to reconcile the comments from people arguing this cover is not derogatory to the trans community with comments on other stories (with which I agree) that people who are not part of the marginalized community in question do not get to decide if something is racist/discriminatory and that when someone in that community speaks their truth, the respectful response is to listen and not to explain why their emotion/experience is wrong.

        Or does that only apply when it is a celebrity like Solange or Zendaya who are the ones describing the problem?

      • Lahdidahbaby says:

        I agree with Kitten on this. Every joke, gag, or cartoon has the potential to offend someone, but as a longtime NY’er reader I’d like to think that by now their track record on LGBT issues is clear. This cover depiction of Trump trying to achieve the rigid (and unrealistic) standard of beauty that he demands of all the women in his life is not making commentary on weight or trans people — it’s simply demonstrating that Trump could never achieve his own rigid standard of beauty as a woman OR as a man. He’s got a nerve setting such rigid and unrealistic standards for women when clearly he could never meet his own minimum attributes of attractiveness for women OR men.

    • Sixer says:

      So it’s a bit like Private Eye in the UK? In which case, I’d also approve. I like proper satire that a) punches up not down and b) makes you feel a bit uncomfortable.

    • Sansa says:

      That’s something we have in common Kitten, you also show you think carefully and analyze a topic before you post.

    • Crowdhood says:

      Yes! My Christmas gift from my parents is a subscription every year. I agree with every word you said. Plus- they actually made him look ok in that drawing. The point was about the Miss Congeniality not his looks.

    • detritus says:

      I dunno Kitten, I don’t think this is a winner.

      It’s not horribly offensive, but its not great. And that’s fine, but it does open the door for criticism. The criticism is being levelled at this one cartoon though, its not criticizing the entirety of the paper.

      This one particular cartoon pokes fun at body types, acknowledging the irony in Trump consistently judging women for standards he himself does not keep.
      That part is fine.

      The first part I have issue with is putting him in women’s clothing and in a pageant.
      The funny part of that is he is wearing women’s clothing and he’s in a beauty pageant and isn’t beautiful. It’s not taking down pageantry, its not tearing down that heavier can also be beautiful, that non-typical bodies are beautiful.

      The second part, tied in to the first, is that it’s reinforcing that certain shapes, dressed in certain ways are hilarious. That Trump would be immune from this criticism if he were a ‘hot’ man.

      It may be meant for a specific audience, but assuming everyone who reads the New Yorker is free of transphobia and misogyny is a big leap. It’s not always about the major agressions and sometimes about the minor ones.

      I think this is a missed beat for the New Yorker, and if I’m in the minority welp that’s life.

    • Esmom says:

      Longtime New Yorker reader/subscriber here, too! I agree that its high quality, in depth writing makes me smarter in general. I don’t see the cover as problematic, either.

      Petrichor, if you subscribe you save a ton of money compared to the cover price. Or you can probably get it from the library, which is what I did for a while when my subscription was messed up and in limbo for a couple months.

      And detritus, respectfully, I think you might be overthinking the body shape angle. That is generally Trump’s body shape. If he were thin and they portrayed him as such yet in the same garb, I think it would still work because the point really is about his inner ugliness.

      • detritus says:

        It’s all good, but I think we’re gonna be at a standstill here, because I’m still not sold. If they hadn’t made his body a focal point, I’d be significantly more on board.

        The joke is funny because its putting Trump (a perfect example of the worst of the patriarchy) in a patriarchally endorsed competition of female beauty. I get the pageant was there because he RUNS pageants. I get that the Miss Congeniality is meant to show his temperament AND body are not suitable. I just think getting rid of the body snark altogether is a better choice. There’s so much to choose from, why pick his weight and body type?

        Like I said though, I get that I’m in the minority here; and not just here, most other publications think this is a great on point funny joke. I just think it could be done better. The people writing and editing the New Yorker are obviously exceptionally bright and eloquent, and this is low hanging fruit.

      • perplexed says:

        ” There’s so much to choose from, why pick his weight and body type?”

        Probably because everything else has been criticized already and he still doesn’t get why he’s such a nuisance.

        If he were a kinder person, most likely they would have gone for another tactic. He’s gone on for a year now acting like an imbecile in a presidential race, and nobody has targeted his body shape until now. People have spared him for quite a long time.

    • caitlinK says:

      I love the New Yorker too! I don’t have any idea what’s “problematic” about this caricature of him, nor does the author of this blog even clarify or expand on what she means…Anyway, I’ve read The New Yorker for a long time and, in a world of incessant, often turbulent change, I too hope the magazine never alters.

  5. tmot says:

    I’m going to vote that this is OK. People call Hillary Clinton “unlikeable” and then want to vote for him? That’s pretty much the definition of hypocritical. (I’m not even going to speculate on the ones who think he actually IS likeable.)

    When will this be over?

  6. MC2 says:

    Wow- that went over my head & I need coffee. It’s too early where I am but I did not see a trans dig at first. But I am not close to the trans issue personally so it’s not hot button for me and not on the forefront of my mind all the time. If it bothers other people then it’s an issue. When I saw the cover I didn’t think of a man dressed to present as a woman- not until I scratched my head at the article. I saw Donald parading as a pageant person which is a symbol for vapidness, showmanness (can I make up a word here?), and presenting a false image of who you actually are.

    I think it’s a terrible cover. So much potential with Donald.

  7. Aang says:

    Don’t see the problem here. The intent is clear. And it will be for anyone who reads the NewYorker.

  8. Lara K says:

    I think it’s fine.

    I honestly think there is a difference between being sensitive to true offence (I.e. people should respected) and reading too much into something that is clear cut satire.

    Put another way, a Japanese friend said this about cultural appropriation :
    “If you wear a kimono because you think it’s pretty and cool, go for it! It’s great.
    If you wear a kimono and make your eyes look ‘asian’ and speak with a fake accent because you think it makes you look like a geisha sex bunny, then you are an a-hole and it’s a huge problem”.

    There is no malice here.

    • Brittney B. says:

      “Satire” is one thing; perpetuating stale old jokes that male bodies with feminine clothes/features = hilarious is another.

      I get that this works on different levels, and I don’t think “malice” is the problem here. But malice certainly becomes the problem when we actively ignore the voices and experiences of the trans community, still so disproportionately at risk of violence. I understand why so many think this is “fine”, and I would have been one of them until quite recently. But my friends and peers have opened my eyes to an insipid, hateful stereotype that this cover and the Trump statue play right into. And I just hope people are paying attention to that, because society still has a long way to go toward recognizing and respecting trans people and their bodies.

      • Lara K says:

        I’m not trans but I do weigh over 200 pounds and I don’t see this as fat shaming. I see it as poking fun at his lack of self awareness.

        I would hope most people in the trans community would see it the same way.

        The humour has nothing to do with a man I women’s clothing. To me anyway. It’s more of a man in glass house throwing stones.

        As a aside, I find nothing funny about any gender in clothing for any gender. It’s just clothes. Men women fag thin tall short whatever – if your clothes are clean, I’m good.

  9. Jenna says:

    My problem with the word “problematic” is that it’s often used as a substitute for an actual reason. Like instead of forming an actual opinion, or actually explaining why something is bad or wrong, it’s just… “this is problematic”. It’s saying nothing while giving the illusion that you’re actually saying something.

    • paranormalgirl says:

      Agree. I can’t stand the term “problematic.”

    • MC2 says:

      This a hundred times over! I think it’s a way for people to see it’s an issue but not own the issue or take agency for it at all. It’s like being mad at someone but you won’t tell them why….infuriating. Maybe because you are worried your reason isn’t valid?! But maybe (and this was my take on the cover) people think that it doesn’t bother them at all but it could bother a group that they are not a member of (and they could see how) so they wait for reactions? I agree that it feels kinda yucky when someone just throws out “that’s problematic” and the thing turns in a hot potato.

    • Angel says:

      Exactly, it’s a conversation stopper not starter.

    • detritus says:

      I don’t think I get why it’s a conversation stopper, anyone care to gently explain?

      Doesn’t it start the conversation as to why something is problematic?
      Its probably just easier and clearer to say – this is a problem. This is problematic is gentler and more intellectual sounding and less extreme, which generally allows people to discuss more, not less.

      • Esmom says:

        Yeah, that’s how I think of it, too. I’ve always thought of it as a good opener to a discussion why something is…problematic.

    • caitlinK says:

      Precisely what the author of this blog did: she said the satire was “problematic” w/out saying one word about WHY. If you are going to use a word like that, you should give reasons for it.

  10. Lolo86lf says:

    Mr. Trump’s latest wife is 23 years his junior. He is completely unable to make love to a woman his own age. As soon as she hits her fifties he will trade her in for a younger model. He is disgusting.

  11. Georgia says:

    The only people I could imagine that would find this problematic are trump and his deplorables and that perfectly fine for me.

    • Brittney B. says:

      … and the trans community. Did you read any of the reactions to the naked Trump statue? The people who spoke out were NOT Trump supporters, far from it. They were people who are mistreated, disrespected, and abused because male bodies with female curves or traits are still seen as hilarious/unsettling to mainstream society.

      • Georgia says:

        You’re correct. I am not a part of that community so I don’t see it that way. I don’t have that kind of hateful bias so l automatially saw it for what it’s supposed to be. Also I’m on the other spectrum where I’ve seen so much abuse and racism that I’m numb to a lot of shit people are offended by, whether the things are actually offensive or not. But, that’s mostly for self preservation.

      • Betsy says:

        That’s really not the joke here, hence the Miss Congeniality sash and the riff on the fact that he’s pretended to be an arbiter of beauty for years, mocked this Miss Universe…

      • K says:

        But the naked statues weren’t male bodies with female curves it was what his body would look like naked because he is overweight possibly obese. He is going to have fat roles that is what they showed in the statue.

    • popup says:

      @Brittney I live in New York and thankfully never encountered the statue but I imagine I would have been disturbed by it. The statue was intentionally created to be extremely unflattering to Trump, small penis and all, and indeed played on the small penis joke that was lobbed insultingly at him. The skin on the statue looked unhealthy, more cadaver than living human. I can see why the statue would be perceived as body-shaming and trans-shaming. But this New Yorker cover actually makes Trump’s body look good, better than he does in real life. Even his hair looks better. I firmly read this as dressing Trump up in the double standard he places on women.

  12. Who ARE These People? says:

    Check out the Cuba thing … very interesting. Hope it gets brought up during the next few debates. Also, the video of Trump talking at the time about how he’ll never put money into Cuba because Castro is “a murderer … a killer … a bad guy.” Same rhetorical devices as now. He’s always been this way.

  13. popup says:

    I may be biased because I am a longtime subscriber of the New Yorker, but I vote unproblematic. Beauty contests are so fundamentally sexist and ridiculous and Trump’s Miss Universe can’t even pretend it’s about college scholarships and talent contests. This cover demonstrates how ridiculous it would be if men were judged by their physicality as much as women are. I love the “Miss Congeniality” sash. I just don’t think this is making fun of his weight or making any sort of trans statement, but I’m cisgender.

  14. Embee says:

    I find it good satire. The title on the sash contributes, esp in light of his self-proclaimed, shimmy-inducing reflection on his own character. The hand on the crown implies he placed it there himself and the tears in his eyes reflect true sadness over what he has brought upon himself, and are a play on the beauty queen tears of happiness. The artist didn’t go overboard making him grossly overweight or unattractive. I think it is solid satire/journalism.

  15. Nancy says:

    I think it is perfect. It personifies the man that he is and I’m sure Alicia who he so blatantly humiliated might take some satisfaction from the New Yorker……of which I am an ardent fan. I would like to see the cover on a billboard and remind all of the women out there who are hedging about voting in this atypical election that this man could be their leader. I’m not a huge Hillary fan, but she seems so brilliant in comparison to the lost soul who is Donald Trump. *I would love to have been a fly on the wall when The Donald saw this….lol*

  16. Lilacflowers says:

    Check out Randy Rainbow’s take on “braggadocious”

  17. Faithmobile says:

    I think inserting transgender politics does this cover a disservice. Dressing as the opposite sex does not have to be a comment on transgendered people, rather this cover speaks to the blatent misogyny of the cisgender population that Trump perpetuates with his words, actions, and pageants.

  18. littlestar says:

    I don’t see this cover as “problematic” at all. I actually think it does a great job in satirizing Trump’s behaviour. He holds women up to ridiculous standards (especially his beauty pageants): women must have perfect bodies, say the right things, and be on their best behaviour at all times. But if we put in Trump as a contestant in one of his own pageants… He’d be a complete failure! He’s physically unattractive and overweight, behaves like a fool, and constantly lies and says dangerous things.

    He doesn’t even come close to reaching the standards he has for others (women). And on the other hand, it shows how awful beauty pageants are and the ridiculous standards society has for women.

    Good job New Yorker, this is a great cover.

  19. Not problematic at all. Not all transgendered folk will be offended, as any other group they don’t all think the same. But yes some people will be offended, but should a satirical publication strive not to offend? The New Yorker’s cartoons are witty and sublime, and they often hit the intended mark. As someone up thread said this is poking at Trump, and only Trump, for the “beauty standards” that he himself could not hope to fit.
    My 85 year old dad called him a skinflint and I laughed, because that’s just what he is. He’s a money grubber who doesn’t pay what he owes. He’s A 21st century PT Barnum-like conman who dabbles in entertainment- beauty pageants, tv shows, gambling, etc-. And one gets the feeling that his latest dabble ( a run for the presidency) is just another egotistical entertainment endeavor for him, but for the rest of the world it is serious shit and he and his supporters just don’t get how unfit he is for the job. Now that’s scary.

  20. hmmm says:

    Often a cigar is just a cigar. This is straight biting satire, (a great tradition): “pot meet kettle” A perfect exposure. Indeed, a picture is worth a thousand words. No one deserves this more. It’s hilarious!

  21. poppy says:

    aw, they made him more attractive than irl.
    (gentle) satire at its finest.

    this is in no way a dig at transgendered persons.
    this is a dig at Drumpf and his crazy strong love of objectifying women. .
    specifically his love for pageants.
    specifically for criticizing fuller figures when he has one himself.
    specifically for not being congenial in any shape or form.
    specifically his double standard(s).

    110% doubt offense to trans or ANY group or person outside of Drumpf was intended by the artist.

  22. LeahNoNo says:

    The New Yorker also published this article recently about how dangerous it is for the media to accept Trump’s behavior-

  23. Hazel says:

    Oh, thank you for that cover! Started my day with a laugh! And it’s the addition of the ‘miss congeniality’ sash that nails it. His personality is so poisonous, he’s the least congenial candidate ever.

  24. L says:

    I see this as a jab at his comment during the debate when he said his temperament is probably his best asset. Hence, the banner reading ‘Miss Congeniality’. Second to that I see the complete insanity that someone who wants to be POTUS actively contributes to beauty pageants. I see it more as a commentary on the fact that he’s a complete misogynist.

  25. Kiki says:

    I love this cartoon satire. If anyone who does not see the humor in this magazine cover are not funny at all. It just shows how Donald Trump his true character. He’s a bully and a showman. There you have it, He is on the cover of the New Yorker.

  26. Linda says:

    As a former large person I don’t like anyone, man or woman, whoever they are, being made fun of and mocked for being larger.

  27. Olenna says:

    Ah, f*ck him. This cover will certainly inflame DT, but we’re down to the wire here with so little time left to influence anyone’s current opinion of him. Besides, he’s got a crapload of malcontents supporting him who don’t care what he’s done in the past and don’t care what he’ll do in the future ‘just as long as it’s not Hillary’. Needless to say, most of those fools don’t even know what the NYer is.

  28. Misty says:

    What they don’t get is that stuff like this just makes his followers see Trump as the victim. It doesn’t draw people away. That middle of the road lady who doesn’t like Hilary either isn’t gonna not vote for Trump because of this cover. If anything it makes her sympathize because the press is “ganging” up on Trump. Or Trump’s people will say that. They haven’t realized Trump gets more mileage out of dumb stuff like this. It shores up his troops, and those people vote (unfortunately).

  29. Christin says:

    This magazine is the one that interviewed the co-author of his business book that propelled him to be well known in the late 1980s. Excerpts of that interview have floated around for a couple of months, but it is well worth reading what Schwartz said, as he spent nearly two years around him and has very serious questions about his ability to lead our country.

    It’s worth the five minutes to read it in its entirety on New Yorker online.

    I still think DT is throwing around anything to distract from more serious questions about himself.