Donald Trump

[Wickerman]

Canadian Government Immigration website crashed today, too much traffic.
Americans looking for information to move up here.


I'm not joking, it was on the news.

[Mayerling]

The guy ridded us of the Bushs, he ridded us of the Clintons, he's going to rid us of Obamacare and we have an Eastern European supermodel for a First Lady-are things really all that bad?

It isn't bad - if you like a President who cheats on his income taxes regularly, sets up institutions that cheat stupid people (like avidly interested students) on matters of education and real estate dealing, who keeps cheating people investing in his various business enterprises, who is despised by the banking community in this country and the very rich for his unscrupulous greed (it puts all of them to shame), who boasts how he's better than a decorated former prisoner of war/war hero - who put his life on the line while little "Donnie" was protected by his daddy big bucks with bribes, who smears everyone who questions him - but rewards loyal ass-lickers and employees, who thinks that Vladimir Putin is the best guy around - if you believe all that, I hope in four years you have lived to really regret it.

Sorry if this is too extreme a reaction. I hope the man and his family are chopped to death by an enraged mob one day. It may happen.

Jeff

[John G]

It looks, however, as though Clinton will win the popular vote https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...e-donald-trump

[John G]

It isn't bad - if you like a President who cheats on his income taxes regularly, sets up institutions that cheat stupid people (like avidly interested students) on matters of education and real estate dealing, who keeps cheating people investing in his various business enterprises, who is despised by the banking community in this country and the very rich for his unscrupulous greed (it puts all of them to shame), who boasts how he's better than a decorated former prisoner of war/war hero - who put his life on the line while little "Donnie" was protected by his daddy big bucks with bribes, who smears everyone who questions him - but rewards loyal ass-lickers and employees, who thinks that Vladimir Putin is the best guy around - if you believe all that, I hope in four years you have lived to really regret it.

Sorry if this is too extreme a reaction. I hope the man and his family are chopped to death by an enraged mob one day. It may happen.

Jeff

Interestingly Jeff, I predicted a narrow Clinton won and only got three states wrong: Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin [ In doing so I outperformed all of the American polling and prediction organizations, despite being British!]. All of those states voted Democrat in the last four elections (Wisconsin in the last five, as they also backed Dukakis when he was heavily defeated by Bush.) However, on this occasion they narrowly supported Trump.

Why? Well, the first two are industrial states and Wisconsin as a large white working class population. Unfortunately for Clinton, Trump successfully exploited the concerns of working class voters, dependant on traditional jobs. Thus, he stated that he would punish American companies who export jobs abroad, and has threatened to unleash trade wars against countries he perceives as unfair competitors. Strangely enough, however, in 2008 he lobbied Congress to withhold support from the American automobile industry in the wake of the financial crises, simply allowing it to wither away. Of course, the American working class voter isn't stupid, but I saw a number of interviews where such voters were saying "at least with Trump I've got a chance."

And Clinton, with her close ties to Wall Street, was always going to struggle to connect with such voters, and to be able to address their concerns, and so it proved. Of course, the deep irony here is that Bernie Sanders, another anti establishment candidate, did connect with those voters and, had he been the Democratic candidate, there is little doubt in my mind that we would now be discussing President Elect Sanders!

[Mayerling]

Interestingly Jeff, I predicted a narrow Clinton won and only got three states wrong: Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin [ In doing so I outperformed all of the American polling and prediction organizations, despite being British!]. All of those states voted Democrat in the last four elections (Wisconsin in the last five, as they also backed Dukakis when he was heavily defeated by Bush.) However, on this occasion they narrowly supported Trump.

Why? Well, the first two are industrial states and Wisconsin as a large white working class population. Unfortunately for Clinton, Trump successfully exploited the concerns of working class voters, dependant on traditional jobs. Thus, he stated that he would punish American companies who export jobs abroad, and has threatened to unleash trade wars against countries he perceives as unfair competitors. Strangely enough, however, in 2008 he lobbied Congress to withhold support from the American automobile industry in the wake of the financial crises, simply allowing it to wither away. Of course, the American working class voter isn't stupid, but I saw a number of interviews where such voters were saying "at least with Trump I've got a chance."

And Clinton, with her close ties to Wall Street, was always going to struggle to connect with such voters, and to be able to address their concerns, and so it proved. Of course, the deep irony here is that Bernie Sanders, another anti establishment candidate, did connect with those voters and, had he been the Democratic candidate, there is little doubt in my mind that we would now be discussing President Elect Sanders!

My damned vehemence - I'm just starting to calm down again folks. Sorry about those outbursts, but I really hate this man. I only hated (or mistrusted) Hillary just a little less. It has been one lousy election.

Quite honestly I really wonder if Hillary ever had any chance. In my mind I have been going over certain points, and as I have I am really critical about how half our electorate (the male half) votes.

Everyone (especially the now defensive pollsters and those talking heads - always "wisest" after the fact - have been enumerating what Hillary could not overcome in this vote. But if, in fact, she did get more of the total popular vote (like Tilden in 1876 or Grover Cleveland in 1888 when he lost to Benjamin Harrison in the electoral college) than it probably due to the number of women for her. Supposedly there are more women in the population than men, but apparently there were sufficient male participation in those three critical states to swing them to Trump.

Yet why (if she could carry more women) didn't it help? Were enough women also suspicious of her due to the reputations of the Clintons. When Trump used (in that "inimitable" bullying style of his) the term, "Crooked Hillary", he was actually not totally wrong. I remind you that before Kenneth Starr decided to overthrow a President by use of that man's misuse of cigars with young female interns, he had been looking hard into that "Whitewater" business. And, while nothing emerged like a smoking gun, enough murkiness was left over to make one wonder. Then too there was the questions about the fees for giving speeches abroad, and the use or misuse of the Clinton Foundation (even N.Y. Times mentioned a questionable deal from some foreign government). As I said, Hillary was hardly ideal - she was a smidge better than Trump because of her government experience (although that e-mail business remains also on her record for murkiness).

On the other hand she and Bill did produce their taxes. President-elect Trump (the first President-elect in half a century not to reveal his taxes, whatever his reason) still has not done so. My guess is he will not do so now at all.

On the other hand, we will never know about what are the contacts between Trump and the F.B.I. regarding that last minute torpedo about further e-mail matters connected to former Congressmen Weiner - all brought out last Friday. Nice timing that!

Also, who has been enabling "WikiLeaks" such unique access to Clinton campaign e-mails from last spring regarding Sanders' campaign? I find that curious. Far more curious than what was revealed. All campaigns have a dark side. Is anyone actually suggesting that "good ole" Bernie would not have countenanced any nasty action against Hillary if he could have gotten the nomination as a result? Can we be that naïve?

By the way, Bernie is now on record as being willing to cooperate with Trump.
Howsat again? This is the same Trump who referred to him as "Crazy Bernie". Why is he so buddy-buddy with Trump, who is determined to tear down Obamacare? Now I'm wondering if Trump and Bernie have some relationship we should know about.

More on that "WikiLeaks" in a side issue. Assange is still safely ensconced in the Ecuadorian embassy to prevent his being brought to trial for rape in Sweden. No doubt, given the "locker room language" issue Trump faced last month that his male supporters just waived aside, Trump does not care if Assange raped any woman. How soon before he signals Ecuador to tell Assange not to worry anymore about us helping the Swedes (hell, they still are wondering "who it was" that shot and killed Olav Palme nearly thirty years ago)? And will our information gathering services ever retaliate properly by finding dirt on the various "WikiLeaks" staff and publishing it all?
After all, "enquiring minds want to know" that dirt. I'm sure it exists for all of them - if Assange is an example of the chief one.

But returning to Hillary (who after that venting seems a bit cleaner - but not THAT much): I think her failure to achieve the Presidency really began in 2008. We tend to forget she seemed to be the front runner in 2007, when all of a sudden there was a push for Barack Obama - and the lead that Hillary had weakened. Eventually Obama got the nomination. This was a step forward, as he would be elected the first African-American President (and in time the first two term African-American President). But it was at the cost of Not getting the first ex-First Lady-current U.S. Senator as President. Why was the woman dropped so quickly? She did fight Obama to the end, and it was a respectable fight (far more than that of Bernie against Hillary this time), but she could not regain her position.

To say it was due to the belligerence of male chauvinism is there, but there is more to that. I recall how bitter the 2008 campaigns were because of the equally strong prejudice against African-Americans. Indeed it hasn't totally dissipated yet. But Obama won the nomination from Hillary, and then won the election against McCain, who (despite the contemptible comments of Trump belittling McCain's record because he was a prisoner in Vietnam) was a war hero, and had a decent record as a moderate in politics. He did make one serious miscalculation by choosing Sarah Palin as his running mate, but since they lost we don't know if he would have frozen out of actual policy making.

I keep wondering if the key was that Ted Kennedy was still alive and active as Senator from Massachusetts in 2008, and he was the one whom it was commonly believed pushed for Obama's nomination and election as his final shot at accomplishing something that would meet the level of his brothers' achievements in the 1960s. In short, push Obama to ensure the "Kennedy Legacy" lived.

I don't know. Too pat an idea, but it's there. Why Obama rather than Hillary? Was there some ill-feeling between Ted and the Clintons? I was under the impression that part of Bill Clinton's background was that he had met (as a teenager) President Kennedy in 1963. There is a photograph of it.
I just can't figure out why it was less likely for Ted Kennedy to support Obama than Hillary in 2008.

I can't figure it out, and yet I keep thinking that her failure to get's Ted's support that year may have actually been the point that the Presidency forever slipped out of Hillary's grasp. She won't get another chance for the golden nomination again, anymore than Al Gore did after 2000. It probably will not be a totally bad thing if she never is President, but I still feel she would have been better at the job than Trump will prove to be.

Jeff

[John G]

My damned vehemence - I'm just starting to calm down again folks. Sorry about those outbursts, but I really hate this man. I only hated (or mistrusted) Hillary just a little less. It has been one lousy election.

Quite honestly I really wonder if Hillary ever had any chance. In my mind I have been going over certain points, and as I have I am really critical about how half our electorate (the male half) votes.

Everyone (especially the now defensive pollsters and those talking heads - always "wisest" after the fact - have been enumerating what Hillary could not overcome in this vote. But if, in fact, she did get more of the total popular vote (like Tilden in 1876 or Grover Cleveland in 1888 when he lost to Benjamin Harrison in the electoral college) than it probably due to the number of women for her. Supposedly there are more women in the population than men, but apparently there were sufficient male participation in those three critical states to swing them to Trump.

Yet why (if she could carry more women) didn't it help? Were enough women also suspicious of her due to the reputations of the Clintons. When Trump used (in that "inimitable" bullying style of his) the term, "Crooked Hillary", he was actually not totally wrong. I remind you that before Kenneth Starr decided to overthrow a President by use of that man's misuse of cigars with young female interns, he had been looking hard into that "Whitewater" business. And, while nothing emerged like a smoking gun, enough murkiness was left over to make one wonder. Then too there was the questions about the fees for giving speeches abroad, and the use or misuse of the Clinton Foundation (even N.Y. Times mentioned a questionable deal from some foreign government). As I said, Hillary was hardly ideal - she was a smidge better than Trump because of her government experience (although that e-mail business remains also on her record for murkiness).

On the other hand she and Bill did produce their taxes. President-elect Trump (the first President-elect in half a century not to reveal his taxes, whatever his reason) still has not done so. My guess is he will not do so now at all.

On the other hand, we will never know about what are the contacts between Trump and the F.B.I. regarding that last minute torpedo about further e-mail matters connected to former Congressmen Weiner - all brought out last Friday. Nice timing that!

Also, who has been enabling "WikiLeaks" such unique access to Clinton campaign e-mails from last spring regarding Sanders' campaign? I find that curious. Far more curious than what was revealed. All campaigns have a dark side. Is anyone actually suggesting that "good ole" Bernie would not have countenanced any nasty action against Hillary if he could have gotten the nomination as a result? Can we be that naïve?

By the way, Bernie is now on record as being willing to cooperate with Trump.
Howsat again? This is the same Trump who referred to him as "Crazy Bernie". Why is he so buddy-buddy with Trump, who is determined to tear down Obamacare? Now I'm wondering if Trump and Bernie have some relationship we should know about.

More on that "WikiLeaks" in a side issue. Assange is still safely ensconced in the Ecuadorian embassy to prevent his being brought to trial for rape in Sweden. No doubt, given the "locker room language" issue Trump faced last month that his male supporters just waived aside, Trump does not care if Assange raped any woman. How soon before he signals Ecuador to tell Assange not to worry anymore about us helping the Swedes (hell, they still are wondering "who it was" that shot and killed Olav Palme nearly thirty years ago)? And will our information gathering services ever retaliate properly by finding dirt on the various "WikiLeaks" staff and publishing it all?
After all, "enquiring minds want to know" that dirt. I'm sure it exists for all of them - if Assange is an example of the chief one.

But returning to Hillary (who after that venting seems a bit cleaner - but not THAT much): I think her failure to achieve the Presidency really began in 2008. We tend to forget she seemed to be the front runner in 2007, when all of a sudden there was a push for Barack Obama - and the lead that Hillary had weakened. Eventually Obama got the nomination. This was a step forward, as he would be elected the first African-American President (and in time the first two term African-American President). But it was at the cost of Not getting the first ex-First Lady-current U.S. Senator as President. Why was the woman dropped so quickly? She did fight Obama to the end, and it was a respectable fight (far more than that of Bernie against Hillary this time), but she could not regain her position.

To say it was due to the belligerence of male chauvinism is there, but there is more to that. I recall how bitter the 2008 campaigns were because of the equally strong prejudice against African-Americans. Indeed it hasn't totally dissipated yet. But Obama won the nomination from Hillary, and then won the election against McCain, who (despite the contemptible comments of Trump belittling McCain's record because he was a prisoner in Vietnam) was a war hero, and had a decent record as a moderate in politics. He did make one serious miscalculation by choosing Sarah Palin as his running mate, but since they lost we don't know if he would have frozen out of actual policy making.

I keep wondering if the key was that Ted Kennedy was still alive and active as Senator from Massachusetts in 2008, and he was the one whom it was commonly believed pushed for Obama's nomination and election as his final shot at accomplishing something that would meet the level of his brothers' achievements in the 1960s. In short, push Obama to ensure the "Kennedy Legacy" lived.

I don't know. Too pat an idea, but it's there. Why Obama rather than Hillary? Was there some ill-feeling between Ted and the Clintons? I was under the impression that part of Bill Clinton's background was that he had met (as a teenager) President Kennedy in 1963. There is a photograph of it.
I just can't figure out why it was less likely for Ted Kennedy to support Obama than Hillary in 2008.

I can't figure it out, and yet I keep thinking that her failure to get's Ted's support that year may have actually been the point that the Presidency forever slipped out of Hillary's grasp. She won't get another chance for the golden nomination again, anymore than Al Gore did after 2000. It probably will not be a totally bad thing if she never is President, but I still feel she would have been better at the job than Trump will prove to be.

Jeff

I should have stated in my last post that Pennsylvania and Michigan voted Democrat in the last six presidential elections and Wisconsin in the last seven (I was of course, forgetting Bill Clinton's two victories!)

I think what is surprising from a British perspective is just how comparatively conservative America is as a nation. Now, I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing. After all, America is a more hard working, productive, and economically successful country. But still...

Consider this. Writing in the Daily Mail today, Max Hastings described the allegations against Hillary Clinton as not worth a hill of beans. In fact, he described her as being a "diamond-hard, hugely experienced politician." In contrast, he described the prospect of a Trump presidency in virtually apocalyptic terms, as he has in previous articles: see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ant-seems.html

In fact, he has also been fairly complementary about Obama's Presidency, stating that, whilst he hasn't been a great President he has, "...brought honour upon his race as well as his country, showing himself as a man of the highest intelligence and integrity." He added, "History is likely to judge him more generously than have some of his contemporaries. Especially after we have lived through a season of his successor." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...-HASTINGS.html

Now I'm sure that many Americans reading those articles would conclude that Max Hastings is some sort of wishy-washy liberal. But the extraordinary thing is that he isn't: he's actually a right-wing conservative, at least by British standards, writing for a conservative newspaper. And Britain is one of the most politically and socially conservative nations in western Europe.

In fact, even by British standards, Bernie Sanders would probably be regarded as being to the right of Tony Blair, Hillary Clinton a conservative, Ted Cruz an extreme conservative, and Donald Trump totally off the scale-probably to the right of Genghis Khan! Remarkable.

[caz]

I must say, I'm curious about the notion that people may have voted for Trump because they resented being warned against doing so. Isn't that a bit like a kid hitting himself repeatedly in the face because his mother told him not to?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I think what is surprising from a British perspective is just how comparatively conservative America is as a nation...

Hi John,

I got an inkling of this myself the other day when a British woman called a radio show I listen to on LBC. She said she was a life-long tory voter but when she was living in America (under Obama) she found it far more right-wing over there, and in fact too right-wing for her tastes.

Love,

Caz
X

[John G]

Hi John,

I got an inkling of this myself the other day when a British woman called a radio show I listen to on LBC. She said she was a life-long tory voter but when she was living in America (under Obama) she found it far more right-wing over there, and in fact too right-wing for her tastes.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Thanks, I'm not at all surprised. I seem to remember that, in the 2008 election, two-thirds of British Conservative supporters said they would have backed Obama, and that's probably not changed a great deal. In fact, a recent poll of British people found approval ratings for Obama were extraordinarily high, with 72% saying he's done a good job for America, and only 16% a bad job: see https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/04/23...ama-eu-debate/

Interestingly, 77% of British people described Obama as "highly intelligent", whilst only 17% said the same thing about George W Bush: https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/09/05...george-w-bush/
I dread to think how many/few Brits would described Trump as "highly intelligent", or even slightly below average intelligence!

[Abby Normal]

I think the bottom line is that many Americans were sick and tired of the corruption they perceived in the current political regime (on both sides) in general and Clinton in particular. They wanted a change.

[Patrick S]

This was not so much an election for the most favourable candidate, so much as an election against the most hated. I dare say most who voted Hillary did so to prevent Trump from becoming president, and the same thing with most who voted for Trump.



Oh come on. That went both ways. In fact, Trump was probably the one to use that kind of rhetoric the most. Hillary's a "crook", she's "not presidential", she's "not qualified"... I don't see how you only managed to hear this stuff from Hillary.



You can't have one without the other. After all, that is what constitutes the bulk of "analysis": simply reporting facts - but choosing which facts to report. You can't report it all, so you have to be selective. If they merely presented the facts and made absolutely no comment on it whatsoever, it would actually be far more dishonest. When they do make commentary, at least you can read their bias off their sleeve.



First rule of media: give the people what they want. Individuals think; people don't.

I think Thomas Frank phrased it well in the The Guardian:

Clinton’s supporters among the media didn’t help much, either. It always struck me as strange that such an unpopular candidate enjoyed such robust and unanimous endorsements from the editorial and opinion pages of the nation’s papers, but it was the quality of the media’s enthusiasm that really harmed her. With the same arguments repeated over and over, two or three times a day, with nuance and contrary views all deleted, the act of opening the newspaper started to feel like tuning in to a Cold War propaganda station. Here’s what it consisted of:
Hillary was virtually without flaws. She was a peerless leader clad in saintly white, a super-lawyer, a caring benefactor of women and children, a warrior for social justice.

Her scandals weren’t real.

The economy was doing well / America was already great.

Working-class people weren’t supporting Trump.

And if they were, it was only because they were botched humans. Racism was the only conceivable reason for lining up with the Republican candidate.

How did the journalists’ crusade fail? The fourth estate came together in an unprecedented professional consensus. They chose insulting the other side over trying to understand what motivated them. They transformed opinion writing into a vehicle for high moral boasting. What could possibly have gone wrong with such an approach?


Put this question in slightly more general terms and you are confronting the single great mystery of 2016. The American white-collar class just spent the year rallying around a super-competent professional (who really wasn’t all that competent) and either insulting or silencing everyone who didn’t accept their assessment. And then they lost. Maybe it’s time to consider whether there’s something about shrill self-righteousness, shouted from a position of high social status, that turns people away.

[Abby Normal]

I think Thomas Frank phrased it well in the The Guardian:

Clinton’s supporters among the media didn’t help much, either. It always struck me as strange that such an unpopular candidate enjoyed such robust and unanimous endorsements from the editorial and opinion pages of the nation’s papers, but it was the quality of the media’s enthusiasm that really harmed her. With the same arguments repeated over and over, two or three times a day, with nuance and contrary views all deleted, the act of opening the newspaper started to feel like tuning in to a Cold War propaganda station. Here’s what it consisted of:
Hillary was virtually without flaws. She was a peerless leader clad in saintly white, a super-lawyer, a caring benefactor of women and children, a warrior for social justice.

Her scandals weren’t real.

The economy was doing well / America was already great.

Working-class people weren’t supporting Trump.

And if they were, it was only because they were botched humans. Racism was the only conceivable reason for lining up with the Republican candidate.

How did the journalists’ crusade fail? The fourth estate came together in an unprecedented professional consensus. They chose insulting the other side over trying to understand what motivated them. They transformed opinion writing into a vehicle for high moral boasting. What could possibly have gone wrong with such an approach?


Put this question in slightly more general terms and you are confronting the single great mystery of 2016. The American white-collar class just spent the year rallying around a super-competent professional (who really wasn’t all that competent) and either insulting or silencing everyone who didn’t accept their assessment. And then they lost. Maybe it’s time to consider whether there’s something about shrill self-righteousness, shouted from a position of high social status, that turns people away.

interesting. thanks for posting.

[Mayerling]

I think the bottom line is that many Americans were sick and tired of the corruption they perceived in the current political regime (on both sides) in general and Clinton in particular. They wanted a change.

Abby, "they ain't goin' git it...NO HOW!" It'll always be corrupt. It's only a matter of time before the "Tea Partyists" start hemming and hawing about their so-called desires for term limits. And if we do get a vast economic collapse - rest assured those bozos will start demanding the rich pay their fair share after all. By that time it's doubtful anything can be done.

Jeff

[Robert]

Oh, we get the same stuff over here.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/donald-trump-who-voted-for-him-need-to-blame-a7404731.html

Trump voters were either 'gullible' or 'rabid.'

I can just imagine someone who thinks like this going out in 4 years' time to canvass for Mrs Obama : "You voted for Trump last time? I do hope you've got over your gullibility or rabidness because I'm here to ask you for your vote...."

[ChrisGeorge]

Oh, we get the same stuff over here.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/donald-trump-who-voted-for-him-need-to-blame-a7404731.html

Trump voters were either 'gullible' or 'rabid.'

I can just imagine someone who thinks like this going out in 4 years' time to canvass for Mrs Obama : "You voted for Trump last time? I do hope you've got over your gullibility or rabidness because I'm here to ask you for your vote...."

No joke: I think Michelle Obama could make a very viable future Democratic nominee for President.