The analytical nerds with all their big data, algorithms, computer modeling and probability forecasts? They would have done better to visit Pennsylvania, Ohio and elsewhere and just count the number of Trump signs that dotted so many front yards.

The blow-dried pundits on TV? The small, smug group of know-it-alls who ride the Acela and use the term “fly over country” as a subtle put down? Maybe they should get out of DC, Manhattan or West L.A. and visit the real America once in a while—they might learn a thing or two.

They sure learned a thing or two last night.

They learned that there are tens of millions of Americans who don’t live like them. Tens of millions who are struggling. Who aren’t as well off as their parents and fear that their own children too, are facing a diminished future. And, yes, that some are threatened by those who are different, who chafe, when making a phone call, at hearing, “Oprima dos para communicar en español.”

Last night those Americans struck back.

Also read:Hillary Clinton victimized by an Archie Bunker uprising

And the way the above-named elites view it—that their world has been turned upside down—is still missing the point. It’s not about them. It’s about restoring—through the most stunning election in the 227-year history of the American presidency—the hope and pride of those who feel left behind and without a voice.

We’ve never had an outsider president like Trump. The closest was another populist, Andrew Jackson, who fought the elites, won, and stormed Washington in 1829, turning it upside down during his eight year rule. He did things his way, usually got away with it and made his mark. Jackson was also a hero from the war of 1812, while Trump sought multiple deferments to avoid serving n Vietnam. That difference aside, if I had to compare Trump to any of his soon-to-be predecessors, it would be tough-guy Andy Jackson.

Trump has also been compared to another outsider president: Ronald Reagan. Prior to his landslide over Jimmy Carter 36 years ago, critics derided Reagan as just an actor, and a B-list one at that. They were wrong. Reagan, of course, had been an actor—but also a two-term governor of California, the only chief executive of the nation’s biggest and most complex state to become president. In fact, his eight years in Sacramento represented more executive experience than any of the fifteen prior presidents who had also been governors. It can be argued, then, that Reagan arrived in the White House as seasoned an executive—if not more so—than many of his predecessors.

Similar criticisms of Trump have been made. His business record has been spotty to say the least. Not one Fortune 100 CEO endorsed him. But look at him now.

Count me among the three-fifths of Americans who thought Trump unqualified for the presidency. He bragged that he would be a better president than all but Lincoln. His own son said that the presidency, in some respects, was beneath him. Trump insulted everyone but grandmothers and the Girl Scouts. He was so undisciplined and reckless that his staffers reportedly took away his Twitter account—while asking us to trust him with the nuclear codes? Like many, I scoffed at all this. And like many, I’m eating a heaping plate of crow and it tastes lousy.

But that’s my problem. We must, all of us, somehow put aside—or at least turn down—our personal feelings—and come together. The stakes are simply too high. To his credit, our new president said, in his 3 a.m. victory speech, that he would work to do just that—to unite the nation and be a voice for all Americans. I pray he means it.