Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How Clinton apathy delivered the presidency for Trump

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited November 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How Clinton apathy delivered the presidency for Trump

Keiran Pedley looks at some initial numbers suggesting a lack of enthusiasm for Clinton handed Trump the White House on Tuesday.

Read the full story here


«13456

Comments

  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    First, like President-elect Trump (in the Electoral College, at least!)
  • YellowSubmarineYellowSubmarine Posts: 2,740
    edited November 2016
    It's a terrific piece by Keiran. I've slightly calmed down having looked at the numbers ( Yes I am clutching at straws ) as I'd come to similar headline conclusions. it just just looks like Hillary was less acceptable to the Obama coalition than Trump was to Republican voters. whether they'll feel that way now Trump has won we can't really know. But the voters are never wrong. I write as a Hillary fan but it looks like nominating her was an historic mistake. left liberals like me will just have to accept that.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    3rd like America!
  • The more complex and more productive question was who would have been the right candidate to run against Trump ? would Bernie have motivated the Obama coalition better ? Yes. would he have proved less ' Transfer Toxic ' to Never Trump Republicans ? No. would he have motivated more traditional Republicans that it was Bernie that was the greater of the two evils ? Yes.

    So who ? Hillary wasn't unbeatable in the primary. Obama did it in the '08 ones. This time there was no Obama. With respect to Bernie he is no Obama. maybe the biggest historic criticism of Clinton will be that like Brown here she simply waited too long for the top job and killed off all credible successors in the process to the detriment of her party.
  • The more complex and more productive question was who would have been the right candidate to run against Trump ? would Bernie have motivated the Obama coalition better ? Yes. would he have proved less ' Transfer Toxic ' to Never Trump Republicans ? No. would he have motivated more traditional Republicans that it was Bernie that was the greater of the two evils ? Yes.

    So who ? Hillary wasn't unbeatable in the primary. Obama did it in the '08 ones. This time there was no Obama. With respect to Bernie he is no Obama. maybe the biggest historic criticism of Clinton will be that like Brown here she simply waited too long for the top job and killed off all credible successors in the process to the detriment of her party.

    I think Joe Biden would almost certainly have beaten Trump. He does well with the relevant demographics and has a very strong counter-malarkey game.

    If you want an inspiring Change candidate who looks very different to Obama/Biden then it's harder to see, but I'm not sure you can run a Change candidate when you're running for a party's third term.

    The other way to square the circle would have been Elizabeth Warren. She would certainly have motivated the left and had a good story to tell the rust-belt about standing up to Big Something, and may have been able to keep a chunk of the centre too, but it's possible she'd have had the same problem you mention for Bernie.
  • Western voters certainly seem to be in the mood to test the " well it can't get any worse can it ? " hypothesis of populist protest. The problem is that's predicated on protest parties never winning. The one glimmer amidst the utter horror of Brexit and Trump is at least the f**kers are in charge now and will be put to the test. This is the third major issue I've been wrong about in two years. Indyref, Brexit and Trump all show western voters are prepared to abandon the norms of credibility and vote for radical conservativism. Radical in that it's an abrupt change to the status quo. conservatism in that they seem to want strong states, a return to certain past securities and to be done with " the Other ". in two of those three cases it's been enough to win.

    So I'm splitting in two opposing directions. On the one hand I'm giving up and accepting I don't understand the world anymore and should stop trying. On the other I'm doubling down on my analysis. This is late decadence. There has never been a better time to be alive and there has never been a better place to live than the West. That's why immigration is such a problem. Our societies have coped with far worse in the past with much less instability. familiarity has bred contempt. We've forgotten how exceptional post war prosperity was and now think it's a right. It's not a right. It was earned and earned in a historical context that's ended and is never coming back.

    So I get the revolutionary aspect of the current storm. I'd like a revolution as well. What I find inexplicable is the belief you can press the pause button let alone the rewind button on History. It's not Trump's or Brexit's natavism I don't understand. It's the lack of a plan and the fact both were establishment projects in their own way? how do people fall for it ?

    I actually feel quite nostalgic now for the Reagan/Thatcher era. What ever I thought of them they had an analysis of what was wrong, a plan for putting it right then executed it. Now we seem to want cultural tranquillisers to just make the pain stop and no more.
  • Western voters certainly seem to be in the mood to test the " well it can't get any worse can it ? " hypothesis of populist protest. The problem is that's predicated on protest parties never winning. The one glimmer amidst the utter horror of Brexit and Trump is at least the f**kers are in charge now and will be put to the test. This is the third major issue I've been wrong about in two years. Indyref, Brexit and Trump all show western voters are prepared to abandon the norms of credibility and vote for radical conservativism. Radical in that it's an abrupt change to the status quo. conservatism in that they seem to want strong states, a return to certain past securities and to be done with " the Other ". in two of those three cases it's been enough to win.

    So I'm splitting in two opposing directions. On the one hand I'm giving up and accepting I don't understand the world anymore and should stop trying. On the other I'm doubling down on my analysis. This is late decadence. There has never been a better time to be alive and there has never been a better place to live than the West. That's why immigration is such a problem. Our societies have coped with far worse in the past with much less instability. familiarity has bred contempt. We've forgotten how exceptional post war prosperity was and now think it's a right. It's not a right. It was earned and earned in a historical context that's ended and is never coming back.

    So I get the revolutionary aspect of the current storm. I'd like a revolution as well. What I find inexplicable is the belief you can press the pause button let alone the rewind button on History. It's not Trump's or Brexit's natavism I don't understand. It's the lack of a plan and the fact both were establishment projects in their own way? how do people fall for it ?

    I actually feel quite nostalgic now for the Reagan/Thatcher era. What ever I thought of them they had an analysis of what was wrong, a plan for putting it right then executed it. Now we seem to want cultural tranquillisers to just make the pain stop and no more.

    I think Indyref was a slightly different kind of thing, but if it's just Brexit and Trump then they have a plan, no? The problem is that small towns that didn't used to have immigrants now have immigrants and the people who live there don't like it. The plan is to stop letting immigrants in.

    If you think the problem is *unemployment* then it doesn't make sense, but there's not much evidence for this. Unemployment is only loosely correlated with Brexitism/Trumpery, and if you ask them what their problem is they don't say unemployment, they say immigration.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,910
    edited November 2016
    LEAVE 52%
    Hillary 48%

    :innocent:
    :lol:
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    Can I recommend the last couple of posts by The_Apocalypse on the previous thread?

    IMO well worth reading them with an open mind.
  • @edmundintokyo Well not letting immigrants in is certainly a plan. I suspect I don't need to tell you how hard that is going to be in the 21st Century. At least we're an island. Though with the Irish border issues even that's not technically true.

    The bigger issue IMHO is that we're heading toward 9 Billion people on the planet by mid century. Low wage labour doesn't need to immigrate here to undercut western wages. If western consumers feel too poor how is large scale onshoring of jobs via protectionist tariffs going to help ?

    Once upon a time the Green Left told us our lifestyles were unsustainable and the product of western historical priviledge. Now they tell us any drop in western living standards is " Austerity " and a needless policy choice.

    Once upon a time the New Right told us the world didn't owe us a living. Now they tell us the world does owe us a living. that one epochs living standards are a right.

    Curiously both the Green Left and the New Right have both changed positions at precisely the moment that history has vindicated them. it seems they'd rather be popular than proved correct.

  • @YellowSubmarine Great post.

    Regardless of what one thinks of Thatcher and Regan, they at least had a coherent ideology, and a genuine belief that what they were doing was right. Thatcher's ideology was one of progress and hope (even if I don't agree with the methods), not one of hate. Trump is a total megalomaniac whose ideology is more rooted in the hatred of others than solutions to the problems America faces. It's like for those who believe that solving the problem of race relations in America simply comes down to telling African-Americans to shut up, after all how would they know if they were facing racism? The Trump and Farages of the world emerge when people's sense of security and position in the world feels under threat. White America, through immigration and the increasing questioning of white supremacy through campaigns such as BLM, feels that their position in the world is under threat. With the rise of Islamic extremism, and Russia and China as emerging great powers, this reinforces their sense of insecurity. Trump is the candidate who plays on their fears of minorities having more influence and say on America's future, and their desires to return to a 'past', where America's position as top dog in the world is more secure. Under the Obama presidency, race relations have taken a turn for the worse. That is not a coincidence - the rise of a Black man to the highest office in America threatens a system designed for only white men to monopolise positions of power. The resentment that social mobility may be something all demographics in America have access to, has partly birthed many of these Trump voters.

    Farage, likewise plays in people's fears and anxieties of the 'other', with assistance from a right-wing press owned by Conservative megalomaniacs such as Murdoch. As Matthew Parris pointed out in his article on Brexit some months ago, many of those complaining about immigration don't even live near immigrants. Many live in middle-class home countries, FGS. And for the record, I actually live near immigrants - we have Eastern European immigrants next door, and Muslim immigrants across the road from us - my family haven't had our world end because of it. Brexit was also rooted in anti-immigrant sentiment and the idea that less immigration will prove as a panacea to Britain's woes. I know because my Brexit voting dad is a prime example of this type of voter. He genuinely believes that Eastern European migrants are threat to my, and my siblings future. He genuinely feels that getting out of the EU will by itself solve all of Britain's woes. He doesn't realise that actually negotiating a type of Brexit that suits this country is in itself a huge task, a problem.

  • I remember watching Adam Curtis' the Power of Nightmares some years ago. It's a very controversial documentary, but one of his central points is right: it is that we live in an era where we have shifted from a politics of hope, to one of fear. Obama was probably the last 'hope' politician. One thing history tells us, is that the politics of fear usually doesn't end well.
  • I remember watching Adam Curtis' the Power of Nightmares some years ago. It's a very controversial documentary, but one of his central points is right: it is that we live in an era where we have shifted from a politics of hope, to one of fear. Obama was probably the last 'hope' politician. One thing history tells us, is that the politics of fear usually doesn't end well.

    I think hope vs fear is pretty much the eternal duality of politics.

    What happened this time was that the incumbent party was trying to represent hope, which is already a hard thing to pull off, and the candidate wasn't very good at it.
  • Can I recommend the last couple of posts by The_Apocalypse on the previous thread?

    IMO well worth reading them with an open mind.

    Ah, thanks for that Josias. I really liked your response to one a PBer (I think it may have been Tim_B) on his wife voting Trump because the battle for 'rights' has been 'won'. I remember Cyclefree's excellent post reminding people how these rights are not so safe and secure: indeed many of the people who back Trump are angry partly because of that fact women and minorities do have rights. I think there is a serious danger that voting Trump makes certain types of views on gender and race much more acceptable, and to think that won't have implications minorities and women in America seems to me to be a very naive view.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,759
    Excellent piece of analysis Keiran. I thought that there would be a serious lack of enthusiasm for both these candidates who are amongst the worst of recent times. In the end the Republicans do seem to have come home to Trump but I think that the thread header is spot on that too many democrats did not find a clothes peg enough.

    I think one of the key points in the campaign was the late intervention by the FBI. Clinton never recovered even when she was "cleared". America had 8 years of investigations, Special Prosecutors, deep suspicions and vast amount of smoke if not fire during Bill's Presidency. I think that a lot of people just could not face the idea of going into that again.
  • I remember watching Adam Curtis' the Power of Nightmares some years ago. It's a very controversial documentary, but one of his central points is right: it is that we live in an era where we have shifted from a politics of hope, to one of fear. Obama was probably the last 'hope' politician. One thing history tells us, is that the politics of fear usually doesn't end well.

    I think hope vs fear is pretty much the eternal duality of politics.

    What happened this time was that the incumbent party was trying to represent hope, which is already a hard thing to pull off, and the candidate wasn't very good at it.
    I think that's true to an extent. But I think what's worrying is looking at what happened the last time the politics of fear ruled in the 1930s and 40s. Much of the post-war era's politics of hope is in many ways a response to the chaos and damage caused by the 30s and 40s, and a belief that such events should never happen again. Looks like we haven't learned our lesson.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,759
    I agree with a lot of what @Yellow Submarine has said downthread. It is good to see him making more contributions again.

    My concern is that we are getting into self indulgent gesture politics. Its enough to kick the man, looking for serious and credible alternatives is too much work. I don't like the phrase post-truth politics but there is something in it.

    One of the best bits of analysis I read which sort of explains Trump was that the median wage in the US has not increased since 1991. The US economy has grown a lot in those 25 years but the fruits of that growth have been exclusively taken by the upper quartile. Trickle down economics has, unfortunately, failed to deliver for the majority. And the majority is increasingly annoyed about it.
  • Morning all.

    Good article Mr Padley, thanks. – Clinton was simply a turn off for over 6 million Obama voters, that should have been apparent in 2008 when she was rejected as the Democrat nominee in favour of Obama and that, quite honestly, is when she should have given up on her presidential ambitions.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,759
    Batting is looking distinctly tricky after lunch. With 450 on the board England will not be too distressed about that.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    A good article.

    An indication of the turnout figures for the swing states, and the votes for the third party candidates, would have added to the analysis.

    It is striking how many of these states are actually close to being evenly divided, even where they have a history of tending to vote one way, Translating these states to a UK context, in percentage terms the margins of victory across all the years would make them highly marginal. It is also remarkable that in four different elections with different candidates all round, the swings bewteeen the parties are incredibly modest - much lower than we would see in any four UK elections.

    As a consequence of the above, a candidate doesn't need to excite a tide of mass enthusiasm to win; they just need a small swing to win. Ohio is the classic example - the "modest increase for Trump" referred to in the article actually gives him more than 50% of the vote. If you have more than half the votes it doesn't matter what happened to support for your various rivals; you win.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080

    The more complex and more productive question was who would have been the right candidate to run against Trump ? would Bernie have motivated the Obama coalition better ? Yes. would he have proved less ' Transfer Toxic ' to Never Trump Republicans ? No. would he have motivated more traditional Republicans that it was Bernie that was the greater of the two evils ? Yes.

    So who ? Hillary wasn't unbeatable in the primary. Obama did it in the '08 ones. This time there was no Obama. With respect to Bernie he is no Obama. maybe the biggest historic criticism of Clinton will be that like Brown here she simply waited too long for the top job and killed off all credible successors in the process to the detriment of her party.

    I think Joe Biden would almost certainly have beaten Trump. He does well with the relevant demographics and has a very strong counter-malarkey game.

    If you want an inspiring Change candidate who looks very different to Obama/Biden then it's harder to see, but I'm not sure you can run a Change candidate when you're running for a party's third term.

    The other way to square the circle would have been Elizabeth Warren. She would certainly have motivated the left and had a good story to tell the rust-belt about standing up to Big Something, and may have been able to keep a chunk of the centre too, but it's possible she'd have had the same problem you mention for Bernie.
    There seem to be lots of alternatives that would have held the rust belt states for the Dems, but still lost Florida and the other marginals lost on Tuesday.

    Yet with the states listed above, Hillary would have won, right?

    So the question is - which states that Hillary won would Sanders or Warren have risked losing? Otherwise either of them could have got elected for sure.
  • I remember watching Adam Curtis' the Power of Nightmares some years ago. It's a very controversial documentary, but one of his central points is right: it is that we live in an era where we have shifted from a politics of hope, to one of fear. Obama was probably the last 'hope' politician. One thing history tells us, is that the politics of fear usually doesn't end well.

    I think hope vs fear is pretty much the eternal duality of politics.

    What happened this time was that the incumbent party was trying to represent hope, which is already a hard thing to pull off, and the candidate wasn't very good at it.
    I think that's true to an extent. But I think what's worrying is looking at what happened the last time the politics of fear ruled in the 1930s and 40s. Much of the post-war era's politics of hope is in many ways a response to the chaos and damage caused by the 30s and 40s, and a belief that such events should never happen again. Looks like we haven't learned our lesson.
    Well, it's certainly true that international institutions are unraveling, and that has a very 1930s vibe. It may be that the value of these things is something you need to re-learn every few generations. This was bad enough before, but now that everybody has the ability to blow up the world it's not clear that we'll make it through the next cycle.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,759
    IanB2 said:

    A good article.

    An indication of the turnout figures for the swing states, and the votes for the third party candidates, would have added to the analysis.

    It is striking how many of these states are actually close to being evenly divided, even where they have a history of tending to vote one way, Translating these states to a UK context, in percentage terms the margins of victory across all the years would make them highly marginal. It is also remarkable that in four different elections with different candidates all round, the swings bewteeen the parties are incredibly modest - much lower than we would see in any four UK elections.

    As a consequence of the above, a candidate doesn't need to excite a tide of mass enthusiasm to win; they just need a small swing to win. Ohio is the classic example - the "modest increase for Trump" referred to in the article actually gives him more than 50% of the vote. If you have more than half the votes it doesn't matter what happened to support for your various rivals; you win.

    I think the other point is that with turnover just over 50% is that it is all about the base. Elections are almost entirely about getting your base enthusiastic enough to vote, something Clinton failed to do. From memory it was something like 1 in 4 voters were contacted by Clinton, 1 in 6 by Trump and only 1 in 12 by both.

    The scary part of this is that it creates the politics of the deaf. Trying to find the traditional middle ground does not work. Everything is about getting out your base and boosting their enthusiasm. Trump did that and he won.
  • MP_SEMP_SE Posts: 3,642
    Very interesting article. Thank you Keiran.
  • IanB2 said:

    The more complex and more productive question was who would have been the right candidate to run against Trump ? would Bernie have motivated the Obama coalition better ? Yes. would he have proved less ' Transfer Toxic ' to Never Trump Republicans ? No. would he have motivated more traditional Republicans that it was Bernie that was the greater of the two evils ? Yes.

    So who ? Hillary wasn't unbeatable in the primary. Obama did it in the '08 ones. This time there was no Obama. With respect to Bernie he is no Obama. maybe the biggest historic criticism of Clinton will be that like Brown here she simply waited too long for the top job and killed off all credible successors in the process to the detriment of her party.

    I think Joe Biden would almost certainly have beaten Trump. He does well with the relevant demographics and has a very strong counter-malarkey game.

    If you want an inspiring Change candidate who looks very different to Obama/Biden then it's harder to see, but I'm not sure you can run a Change candidate when you're running for a party's third term.

    The other way to square the circle would have been Elizabeth Warren. She would certainly have motivated the left and had a good story to tell the rust-belt about standing up to Big Something, and may have been able to keep a chunk of the centre too, but it's possible she'd have had the same problem you mention for Bernie.
    There seem to be lots of alternatives that would have held the rust belt states for the Dems, but still lost Florida and the other marginals lost on Tuesday.

    Yet with the states listed above, Hillary would have won, right?

    So the question is - which states that Hillary won would Sanders or Warren have risked losing? Otherwise either of them could have got elected for sure.
    I think Sanders would have lost all over the place for the reasons YS gives. I doubt he'd have done very well in the rust-belt either.

    I don't see anywhere Hillary would have out-performed Biden; He'd simply have been a better candidate.

    Warren, not sure.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,164
    I wonder to what extent the perception that the Democratic primaries were a stitch up hurt Hillary badly? That is, had she actually won a fair fight against decent opponents then perhaps voters might have had more respect for her.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    Lot of complaint about bias against trump on the last thread. Is British media required to attempt impartiality when it co es to foreign politics, I do not know? Even if not, other countries are allowed to judge our politics, we can surely judge theirs.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,759
    Stokes putting in more dives than Ronaldo here.
  • FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420
    edited November 2016
    Well done to SHillary on her concession speech: I am happy for Barry to pardon her for his failures of 'over-watch'. As for the Clinton-clan I fear the DNC mob will not be happy so expect the political eqivilant of this:

    https://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=8t9x_y3vFic
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,759
    tlg86 said:

    I wonder to what extent the perception that the Democratic primaries were a stitch up hurt Hillary badly? That is, had she actually won a fair fight against decent opponents then perhaps voters might have had more respect for her.

    But would she have won against a decent opponent? In 2008 the answer to that was no. In 2016 she really struggled to put away a daftie with as much practical politics to offer as Corbyn. It was a warning.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    edited November 2016

    Western voters certainly seem to be in the mood to test the " well it can't get any worse can it ? " hypothesis of populist protest. The problem is that's predicated on protest parties never winning. The one glimmer amidst the utter horror of Brexit and Trump is at least the f**kers are in charge now and will be put to the test. This is the third major issue I've been wrong about in two years. Indyref, Brexit and Trump all show western voters are prepared to abandon the norms of credibility and vote for radical conservativism. Radical in that it's an abrupt change to the status quo. conservatism in that they seem to want strong states, a return to certain past securities and to be done with " the Other ". in two of those three cases it's been enough to win.

    So I'm splitting in two opposing directions. On the one hand I'm giving up and accepting I don't understand the world anymore and should stop trying. On the other I'm doubling down on my analysis. This is late decadence. There has never been a better time to be alive and there has never been a better place to live than the West. That's why immigration is such a problem. Our societies have coped with far worse in the past with much less instability. familiarity has bred contempt. We've forgotten how exceptional post war prosperity was and now think it's a right. It's not a right. It was earned and earned in a historical context that's ended and is never coming back.

    So I get the revolutionary aspect of the current storm. I'd like a revolution as well. What I find inexplicable is the belief you can press the pause button let alone the rewind button on History. It's not Trump's or Brexit's natavism I don't understand. It's the lack of a plan and the fact both were establishment projects in their own way? how do people fall for it ?

    I actually feel quite nostalgic now for the Reagan/Thatcher era. What ever I thought of them they had an analysis of what was wrong, a plan for putting it right then executed it. Now we seem to want cultural tranquillisers to just make the pain stop and no more.

    Your first paragraph is somewhat disturbing; "at least now they have power they will have to deliver on their promises or be seen to fail" was a very common opinion in early-1930s Germany. Historiically, an alliance between a small group of intellectuals at a political extreme with what a Marxist would call the lumpen proletariat and we term wwc, is always exceptionally dangerous. I make no historical parallel other than to contend that they key question is how much damage he can do before he can be got rid of?

    The extent to which "seen to fail" is any consolation does rather depend upon what failure looks like.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    The odd thing about the politics of fear is that, generally, we have less to fear. Even including Syria and Ukraine, there is generally less war. Crime (at least for us) is down. We have a welfare system that does its best to protect us if we fall ill. The risk of all-out nuclear war is far lower than when I was a child.

    Yet reading the posts around here, negativity and even fear dominates. Is that because the Internet makes distant events seem close (there is no longer a "far away country between people of whom we know nothing")? Is it because it is easy to hang peoples' prejudices on fear? Or is it because negativity and fear is an easier state to be in that positivity?

    This does not mean we should be complacent. The UK isn't in a bad place, but we could still improve. I just don't understand the reasons behind the constant negativity and fear that sometimes produces.

    People need to perform their own risk analyses.
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,307
    @YellowSubmarine

    Good posts: I agree with much of what you are saying.

    I think however that there are a few factors that should have a greater bearing on your analysis. Firstly, there is a massive problem with inequality and resentment created by the 'meritocratic' ideology of the current system whereby a sizeably minority of people do very well out of the system but vast amounts of people are left behind. I live in a medium sized town in the south east and I would say that I have one of the best jobs going in so far as the local economy is concerned and earn slightly above the national average wage. But most people are in a 'precariat' like position in terms of employment with unstable, low paid employment or precarious self employment. This is a town of over 100,000 people and there are no large employers outside the public sector. For anyone under 30 the idea of owning a house is very diffifult and the employment people are in cannot provide that stability. There is therefore massive underlying resentment towards the status quo and the current economic system. It is easy enough for me or you to hear these people talking about their planned trip to Eurodisney or their purchase of a second hand audi and think to ourselves 'fucking morons, spolit brats, don't know how lucky they are, no comprehension of how they have benefitted from the postwar liberal economic order' etc etc but this overlooks the greater underlying problem of economic insecurity. Aside from the NHS, the tory reforms mean that now there is essentially no welfare system if you drop through the net, you are in some kind of Kafkaesque brutal administrative hell to get £70 a week or whatever and it is not difficult to see how you would conclude your interests are better served by low level acquisitive crime. And then if you are homeless, or whatever, the local authority can't help you unless you have some kind of vulnerability or there are children involved, because there is no statutory responsibility in this regard, and local authorities have no money.

    (continued on next post)
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,307
    #2

    And at the same time, 50 miles away in London you have people swimming around earning 100,000s of thousands of pounds a month who just sneer at everyone else and everything that is going on in the country, wanting a 'bracing and thatcherite' brexit to save ourselves and make ourselves more economically internationally competitive. Many of these people don't do any productive work, they benefit from investments in property (possibly luck rather than judgement) or simply are there at the right time at the right place whilst crumbs fall off the high table of the gilded economic system.

    Given that - post new labour - politicians in all three main parties have not found a way of making the system work to the benefit of everyone - in fact it keeps getting worse - it's not hard to conclude that this system and all who benefit from it is absolutely unsustainable and long overdue a thorough kicking. And, that is exactly what is happening at the moment. At the bottom of everything is the fact that people just want all the things that existed in the past - decent jobs, stable employment, stability, but the trade off if these things are going to be delivered is that the extravagancies of the current system (cheap air travel, foreign holidays, unlimited free healthcare for any problem ever) will need to be curtailed.

    The tragedy for labour is that it is the populist right who are more in tune with what people think, than the left, which is why they keep winning.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    The odd thing about the politics of fear is that, generally, we have less to fear. Even including Syria and Ukraine, there is generally less war. Crime (at least for us) is down. We have a welfare system that does its best to protect us if we fall ill. The risk of all-out nuclear war is far lower than when I was a child.

    Yet reading the posts around here, negativity and even fear dominates. Is that because the Internet makes distant events seem close (there is no longer a "far away country between people of whom we know nothing")? Is it because it is easy to hang peoples' prejudices on fear? Or is it because negativity and fear is an easier state to be in that positivity?

    This does not mean we should be complacent. The UK isn't in a bad place, but we could still improve. I just don't understand the reasons behind the constant negativity and fear that sometimes produces.

    People need to perform their own risk analyses.

    I think a lot of it is confusing no longer being world beaters it's doing crap, combined with worry about future prospects. Certainly with or without Brexit for example it seemed likely we will be poorer and more marginal in the decades to come, while still in global terms doing well.
  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019
    Looks like the Brexit effect has spread to the US! A small minority of the voting population making disruptive protest against the majority decision
  • Some of us argued against Clinton from the very start on exactly this ground - she is as divisive and disliked a candidate as Trump and in the end has proven to be even more so.

    But for both parties in America they have soul searching to do.

    The GOP wanted to stop the Tea Party faction (Cruz) and run their own Anointed One (Bush). Instead they got a maverick independent who for all the talk of "The GOP have the White House and the Hill" is elected on a platform that many leading GOP people despise - big government spending programmes, an assault on their Wall Street donors, an end to crony capitalism, the kind of job protection that unions have fought for years to get. The Trump White House will have its uses to a Republican Congress but I expect many serious arguments too.

    The DNC didn't even pretend this wasn't a fix. Their own Anointed One, with an even grander sense of self-entitlement than Bush, was steamrollered through the process regardless of all the polls showing a result vs Trump of exactly this. People won't vote Trump because we are Right and he is Wrong. Nope. And commentary through election night of union leaders backing Clinton and their members backing Trump - you can't patronise your way to office.

    Where do they go now? Much will depend on how successful - and on who's measure - Trump is. The real risk for both parties is that in their judgement the Trump "experiment" is a failure and run candidates and campaigns against him accordingly, with voters fundamentally disagreeing with that analysis.

    Interesting times....
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,841
    Can New Hampshire and Michigan be called already ?
  • @nielh I agree with much of your post. But all the populist right do is play on people's fears. Indeed much of their flag bearers are from the establishment. They aren't really going to improve people's lives, they have no real solutions. Look at Farage post-Brexit.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,007
    edited November 2016
    It's a great piece by Kieran. All I would say is to be cautious that the problem was just the Democrats selection of Hillary.

    As other posters have pointed out, Sanders would have done no better and you can create a case that the latent Republican vote was much higher this cycle (just look at those votes for Johnson) and that Trump won despite himself, it's just Hillary was even worse.

    Short version: Americans were probably more pre-disposed to the Republicans this time round. A non-Trump Republican that had paid due attention to the mid-West would have probably outperformed Bush in those same swing states this time round.
  • Or perhaps a shorter pithier version of how Trump won:

    Its the economy, stupid
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    @nielh I agree with much of your post. But all the populist right do is play on people's fears. Indeed much of their flag bearers are from the establishment. They aren't really going to improve people's lives, they have no real solutions. Look at Farage post-Brexit.

    hmm

    the established parties have no real solutions either.

    their approach is simply to suppress views they dont like and keep doing what they are doing.

    it's time for all parties to go back to the drawing board and have a rethink
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080

    Western voters certainly seem to be in the mood to test the " well it can't get any worse can it ? " hypothesis of populist protest. The problem is that's predicated on protest parties never winning. The one glimmer amidst the utter horror of Brexit and Trump is at least the f**kers are in charge now and will be put to the test. This is the third major issue I've been wrong about in two years. Indyref, Brexit and Trump all show western voters are prepared to abandon the norms of credibility and vote for radical conservativism. Radical in that it's an abrupt change to the status quo. conservatism in that they seem to want strong states, a return to certain past securities and to be done with " the Other ". in two of those three cases it's been enough to win.

    So I'm splitting in two opposing directions. On the one hand I'm giving up and accepting I don't understand the world anymore and should stop trying. On the other I'm doubling down on my analysis. This is late decadence. There has never been a better time to be alive and there has never been a better place to live than the West. That's why immigration is such a problem. Our societies have coped with far worse in the past with much less instability. familiarity has bred contempt. We've forgotten how exceptional post war prosperity was and now think it's a right. It's not a right. It was earned and earned in a historical context that's ended and is never coming back.

    So I get the revolutionary aspect of the current storm. I'd like a revolution as well. What I find inexplicable is the belief you can press the pause button let alone the rewind button on History. It's not Trump's or Brexit's natavism I don't understand. It's the lack of a plan

    I don't agree with your conclusion about the West and immigration.

    The cause, I suggest, is that development in both the second and third worlds has proceeded sufficiently to give people access to global media to 'see over the fence' (and understand a little of what is on the other side, including language), and access to cheap and easy travel and sufficient disposable capital in their economies to make the journey (both mentally and physically), but not so far that there is sufficient economic attraction in staying at home.

    As someone who has visited Eastern Europe periodically since communist times, I see the transformation of those economies and societies as one of the miracles of our time. I don't think it will be too many years before immigration stops, because there will be no need for it - just as Geordie builders no longer flock to Germany; when the economic disparity resolves itself, people stop coming.

    For the world outside the EU, it will take much much longer - but all of these societies (notably China, India, Brazil and even parts of Africa) are now developing at an astounding pace, nevertheless.
  • @nielh I agree with much of your post. But all the populist right do is play on people's fears. Indeed much of their flag bearers are from the establishment. They aren't really going to improve people's lives, they have no real solutions. Look at Farage post-Brexit.

    hmm

    the established parties have no real solutions either.

    their approach is simply to suppress views they dont like and keep doing what they are doing.

    it's time for all parties to go back to the drawing board and have a rethink
    I don't disagree with that.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    It's a great piece by Kieran. All I would say is to be cautious that the problem was just the Democrats selection of Hillary.

    As other posters have pointed out, Sanders would have done no better and you can create a case that the latent Republican vote was much higher this cycle (just look at those votes for Johnson) and that Trump won despite himself, it's just Hillary was even worse.

    Short version: Americans were probably more pre-disposed to the Republicans this time round.

    There is a tendancy to swing after 2 terms whatever the change is.

    One query with Kierens analysis: we see the Republican vote stayed more or less constant, but are they the same people? Up with blue collar America but down else where, netting out much the same.

    Some good analysis on here this AM, after the histrionics of previous weeks. Good to see Ms Apocalypse back too.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,122

    @YellowSubmarine Great post.

    Regardless of what one thinks of Thatcher and Regan, they at least had a coherent ideology, and a genuine belief that what they were doing was right. Thatcher's ideology was one of progress and hope (even if I don't agree with the methods), not one of hate. Trump is a total megalomaniac whose ideology is more rooted in the hatred of others than solutions to the problems America faces. It's like for those who believe that solving the problem of race relations in America simply comes down to telling African-Americans to shut up, after all how would they know if they were facing racism? The Trump and Farages of the world emerge when people's sense of security and position in the world feels under threat. White America, through immigration and the increasing questioning of white supremacy through campaigns such as BLM, feels that their position in the world is under threat. With the rise of Islamic extremism, and Russia and China as emerging great powers, this reinforces their s The resentment that social mobility may be something all demographics in America have access to, has partly birthed many of these Trump voters.

    Farage, likewise plays in people's fears and anxieties of the 'other', with assistance from a right-wing press owned by Conservative megalomaniacs such as Murdoch. As Matthew Parris pointed out in his article on Brexit some months ago, many of those complaining about immigration don't even live near immigrants. Many live in middle-class home countries, FGS. And for the record, I actually live near immigrants - we have Eastern European immigrants next door, and Muslim immigrants across the road from us - my family haven't had our world end because of it. Brexit was also rooted in anti-immigrant sentiment and the idea that less immigration will prove as a panacea to Britain's woes. I know because my Brexit voting dad is a prime example of this type of voter. He genuinely believes that Eastern European migrants are threat to my, and my siblings future. He genuinely feels that getting out of the EU will by itself solve all of Britain's woes. He doesn't realise that actually negotiating a type of Brexit that suits this country is in itself a huge task, a problem.

    I feel for much of what you say but still feel you are maybe unwittingly patronising the fears and concerns of those who you don't understand. I would have voted Clinton reluctantly but I do get why she lost. The reactions of so many on twitter and Facebook show so clearly how out of touch the liberal left are with the real world. I think you are more thoughtful than most of them and you are right that Trump will probably, like Brexit , fail to deliver but for the dispossessed that matters less than them finally getting a real say for once without being howled down by their "betters".
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,307

    @nielh I agree with much of your post. But all the populist right do is play on people's fears. Indeed much of their flag bearers are from the establishment. They aren't really going to improve people's lives, they have no real solutions. Look at Farage post-Brexit.

    yep, that is what is scary.
    But labour are hopeless (as are the democrats in the US). Both wings of the party, and the problem currently is that they are to bound up in bonkers and insane identity politics, human rights, and fucking absolutely clueless about how to manage immigration as a political issue.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Only half the story surely Johnson +3m needs investigation. Where did he gain votes?

    My guess is that Trump gains WWC votes in the rust belt and lost them to Johnson in the OC and other locations where it didn't matter.

    If Trump is relatively sensible for 4 years those votes could come back for him (or Pence) so the popular vote is less significant than you might think.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080

    @edmundintokyo Well not letting immigrants in is certainly a plan. I suspect I don't need to tell you how hard that is going to be in the 21st Century. At least we're an island. Though with the Irish border issues even that's not technically true.

    The bigger issue IMHO is that we're heading toward 9 Billion people on the planet by mid century. Low wage labour doesn't need to immigrate here to undercut western wages. If western consumers feel too poor how is large scale onshoring of jobs via protectionist tariffs going to help ?

    Once upon a time the Green Left told us our lifestyles were unsustainable and the product of western historical priviledge. Now they tell us any drop in western living standards is " Austerity " and a needless policy choice.

    Once upon a time the New Right told us the world didn't owe us a living. Now they tell us the world does owe us a living. that one epochs living standards are a right.

    Curiously both the Green Left and the New Right have both changed positions at precisely the moment that history has vindicated them. it seems they'd rather be popular than proved correct.

    The world has however already reached 'peak child', pretty much, and therefore the end of global population growth is in sight. World populations will continue growing during our lifetimes, as existing children grow up in a medically safer world, but the base case is now that growth will level off at somewhere between 10 and 11 billion.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    nielh said:

    @YellowSubmarine

    Good posts: I agree with much of what you are saying.

    I think however that there are a few factors that should have a greater bearing on your analysis. Firstly, there is a massive out theirAside from the NHS, the tory reforms mean that now there is essentially no welfare system if you drop through the net, you are in some kind of Kafkaesque brutal administrative hell to get £70 a week or whatever and it is not difficult to see how you would conclude your interests are better served by low level acquisitive crime. And then if you are homeless, or whatever, the local authority can't help you unless you have some kind of vulnerability or there are children involved, because there is no statutory responsibility in this regard, and local authorities have no money.

    (continued on next post)

    The local government point is one I worry about. I be.ieve it's had the most severe cuts of any government department, which is not surprising because no one gets popular promising money for local government, it's handled the cuts pretty well in most areas, and in fairness there was huge amounts of bloated waste. However, for all the inefficiencies that still exist and will always exist in a bureaucracy, particular democratic ones, a lot of places now find themselves with lots of ideas and policies but no money to follow them through, with the knowledge they need to stop providing some services but are pilloried if they do so.

    Local government is not popular, as I said, and I think it does a whole bunch of things it doesn't need to, but while the public do t object to cuts to local government, they will grow increasingly annoyed as services stop being provided as well. And that before the potential of councils going the equivalent of bankrupt and power being taken from their elected members and given to their finance directors, to do what needs doing.

    I will say on welfare that you say the administration means there is none if you drop through the net, but it's still, I believe, by far the 2nd largest part of expenditure, and even the Tories backed off the last proposal to cut. I for one think we do need to eliminate the deficit, but even the Tories gave up on that since they won't touch health and are unable to truly cut welfare.

    @nielh I agree with much of your post. But all the populist right do is play on people's fears. Indeed much of their flag bearers are from the establishment. They aren't really going to improve people's lives, they have no real solutions. Look at Farage post-Brexit.

    Every election I've ever seen plays on fears. If it's not fear of immigrants it's fear of Tories, or the elite, etc
  • felix said:

    I feel for much of what you say but still feel you are maybe unwittingly patronising the fears and concerns of those who you don't understand. I would have voted Clinton reluctantly but I do get why she lost. The reactions of so many on twitter and Facebook show so clearly how out of touch the liberal left are with the real world. I think you are more thoughtful than most of them and you are right that Trump will probably, like Brexit , fail to deliver but for the dispossessed that matters less than them finally getting a real say for once without being howled down by their "betters".

    I do agree that for a lot of people electing Trump, Farage is a two fingers up to the establishment. But I also think that people do believe that these figures like Trump and Farage will provide the changes they want. Trump supporters genuinely think he'll 'make America great again'.

    I think some on the left know that many on the liberal-left live in a little bubble sheltered from the real world. Some of the people I follow feel that things will have to get worse before they start getting better.
  • It could be that only a highly intelligent, articulate, middle class African American candidate can pull the Democrat coalition together from here on in. There is an obvious one for 2020.

    It's actually much better for Trump that he did not get to the Oval Office on the back of a lot of new voters. He is going to let a lot of people down over the coming years, so has a much better chance if his support is based on tribal Republican voters. They will give him a lot more leeway.
  • nielh said:

    @nielh I agree with much of your post. But all the populist right do is play on people's fears. Indeed much of their flag bearers are from the establishment. They aren't really going to improve people's lives, they have no real solutions. Look at Farage post-Brexit.

    yep, that is what is scary.
    But labour are hopeless (as are the democrats in the US). Both wings of the party, and the problem currently is that they are to bound up in bonkers and insane identity politics, human rights, and fucking absolutely clueless about how to manage immigration as a political issue.
    I don't think we are going to agree on identity politics and human rights. As it is I think all politicians of various stripes don't know how to deal with the issue of immigration. As long as globalisation continues in the way it has, mass immigration feels inevitable. And I think many politicians don't know how to confront that.
  • It could be that only a highly intelligent, articulate, middle class African American candidate can pull the Democrat coalition together from here on in. There is an obvious one for 2020.

    It's actually much better for Trump that he did not get to the Oval Office on the back of a lot of new voters. He is going to let a lot of people down over the coming years, so has a much better chance if his support is based on tribal Republican voters. They will give him a lot more leeway.

    I'd love it if Michelle ran. I think she'd be so much better than Hillary.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    felix said:

    I feel for much of what you say but still feel you are maybe unwittingly patronising the fears and concerns of those who you don't understand. I would have voted Clinton reluctantly but I do get why she lost. The reactions of so many on twitter and Facebook show so clearly how out of touch the liberal left are with the real world. I think you are more thoughtful than most of them and you are right that Trump will probably, like Brexit , fail to deliver but for the dispossessed that matters less than them finally getting a real say for once without being howled down by their "betters".

    I do agree that for a lot of people electing Trump, Farage is a two fingers up to the establishment. But I also think that people do believe that these figures like Trump and Farage will provide the changes they want. Trump supporters genuinely think he'll 'make America great again'.

    I think some on the left know that many on the liberal-left live in a little bubble sheltered from the real world. Some of the people I follow feel that things will have to get worse before they start getting better.
    An unfortunate view, though one hopes they do not help make things worse in the service of that theoretical getting better at least. In fairness I don't think that view is unique to the liberal left either.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    It could be that only a highly intelligent, articulate, middle class African American candidate can pull the Democrat coalition together from here on in. There is an obvious one for 2020.

    It's actually much better for Trump that he did not get to the Oval Office on the back of a lot of new voters. He is going to let a lot of people down over the coming years, so has a much better chance if his support is based on tribal Republican voters. They will give him a lot more leeway.

    The weakness in that is if AA voters will only turn out to vote for a black candidate why would any other ethnic group continue to back a demographic which wouldnt support them ?

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    It could be that only a highly intelligent, articulate, middle class African American candidate can pull the Democrat coalition together from here on in. There is an obvious one for 2020.

    It's actually much better for Trump that he did not get to the Oval Office on the back of a lot of new voters. He is going to let a lot of people down over the coming years, so has a much better chance if his support is based on tribal Republican voters. They will give him a lot more leeway.

    I'd love it if Michelle ran. I think she'd be so much better than Hillary.
    Political dynasties though. Still, trump winning means well surely see loads more people with no experience of elected office try for the top job than ever before, and good or bad Michelle won't be the worst.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,732

    It could be that only a highly intelligent, articulate, middle class African American candidate can pull the Democrat coalition together from here on in. There is an obvious one for 2020.

    It's actually much better for Trump that he did not get to the Oval Office on the back of a lot of new voters. He is going to let a lot of people down over the coming years, so has a much better chance if his support is based on tribal Republican voters. They will give him a lot more leeway.

    I'd love it if Michelle ran. I think she'd be so much better than Hillary.
    A bar about as high as improving on India's fielding performance!
  • kle4 said:

    felix said:

    I feel for much of what you say but still feel you are maybe unwittingly patronising the fears and concerns of those who you don't understand. I would have voted Clinton reluctantly but I do get why she lost. The reactions of so many on twitter and Facebook show so clearly how out of touch the liberal left are with the real world. I think you are more thoughtful than most of them and you are right that Trump will probably, like Brexit , fail to deliver but for the dispossessed that matters less than them finally getting a real say for once without being howled down by their "betters".

    I do agree that for a lot of people electing Trump, Farage is a two fingers up to the establishment. But I also think that people do believe that these figures like Trump and Farage will provide the changes they want. Trump supporters genuinely think he'll 'make America great again'.

    I think some on the left know that many on the liberal-left live in a little bubble sheltered from the real world. Some of the people I follow feel that things will have to get worse before they start getting better.
    An unfortunate view, though one hopes they do not help make things worse in the service of that theoretical getting better at least. In fairness I don't think that view is unique to the liberal left either.
    Yeah, I agree with that. I think a lot of those on the moderate right share that view too.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    A good article.

    An indication of the turnout figures for the swing states, and the votes for the third party candidates, would have added to the analysis.

    It is striking how many of these states are actually close to being evenly divided, even where they have a history of tending to vote one way, Translating these states to a UK context, in percentage terms the margins of victory across all the years would make them highly marginal. It is also remarkable that in four different elections with different candidates all round, the swings bewteeen the parties are incredibly modest - much lower than we would see in any four UK elections.

    As a consequence of the above, a candidate doesn't need to excite a tide of mass enthusiasm to win; they just need a small swing to win. Ohio is the classic example - the "modest increase for Trump" referred to in the article actually gives him more than 50% of the vote. If you have more than half the votes it doesn't matter what happened to support for your various rivals; you win.

    I think the other point is that with turnover just over 50% is that it is all about the base. Elections are almost entirely about getting your base enthusiastic enough to vote, something Clinton failed to do. From memory it was something like 1 in 4 voters were contacted by Clinton, 1 in 6 by Trump and only 1 in 12 by both.

    The scary part of this is that it creates the politics of the deaf. Trying to find the traditional middle ground does not work. Everything is about getting out your base and boosting their enthusiasm. Trump did that and he won.
    But we have the same voting system and the usual analysis is that it drives parties towards the centre and the campaign focuses on swing voters in swing constituencies. I don't see that the US is that different from this, except that the low turnout figure (which is all the more remarkable given that many of the "not bothered" don't appear to be registered to vote in the first place) suggests, either, that the electoral record data is very poor, or a level of non-engagement way higher than in Europe?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    Clinton needed a willy, instead she had a Weiner.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    nielh said:

    @nielh I agree with much of your post. But all the populist right do is play on people's fears. Indeed much of their flag bearers are from the establishment. They aren't really going to improve people's lives, they have no real solutions. Look at Farage post-Brexit.

    yep, that is what is scary.
    But labour are hopeless (as are the democrats in the US). Both wings of the party, and the problem currently is that they are to bound up in bonkers and insane identity politics, human rights, and fucking absolutely clueless about how to manage immigration as a political issue.
    I don't think we are going to agree on identity politics and human rights. As it is I think all politicians of various stripes don't know how to deal with the issue of immigration. As long as globalisation continues in the way it has, mass immigration feels inevitable. And I think many politicians don't know how to confront that.
    Correct. A hardcore want it stopped completely, and for now the politicians can ignore those. A hardcore don't care at all. They are being ignored now, but were given disproportionate attention previously. The rest of the population are on a scale of concern, and politicians have the unenviable task of knowing they need to do something, but it's unclear how much control will satisfy how many people, and is it even possible to the extent it is wanted.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    The Dems always had an uphill battle. Only once have there been three consecutive terms since Fdr-truman.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,670
    DavidL said:

    I agree with a lot of what @Yellow Submarine has said downthread. It is good to see him making more contributions again.

    My concern is that we are getting into self indulgent gesture politics. Its enough to kick the man, looking for serious and credible alternatives is too much work. I don't like the phrase post-truth politics but there is something in it.

    One of the best bits of analysis I read which sort of explains Trump was that the median wage in the US has not increased since 1991. The US economy has grown a lot in those 25 years but the fruits of that growth have been exclusively taken by the upper quartile. Trickle down economics has, unfortunately, failed to deliver for the majority. And the majority is increasingly annoyed about it.

    Correct David, the elite at the top have gotten too greedy and are trying to keep the whole cake to themselves. You only need look at the Nordic countries to see how it should be done , limit the top salaries to a fixed multiple of the bottom workers. You still have rich people at the top but not in the obscene fashion we see in the UK and US. Time to tar and feather them and run them out of town, but given they and their chums run Westminster/Westminster are in the club it si highly unlikely.
  • The more complex and more productive question was who would have been the right candidate to run against Trump ? would Bernie have motivated the Obama coalition better ? Yes. would he have proved less ' Transfer Toxic ' to Never Trump Republicans ? No. would he have motivated more traditional Republicans that it was Bernie that was the greater of the two evils ? Yes.

    So who ? Hillary wasn't unbeatable in the primary. Obama did it in the '08 ones. This time there was no Obama. With respect to Bernie he is no Obama. maybe the biggest historic criticism of Clinton will be that like Brown here she simply waited too long for the top job and killed off all credible successors in the process to the detriment of her party.

    I think Joe Biden would almost certainly have beaten Trump. He does well with the relevant demographics and has a very strong counter-malarkey game.

    If you want an inspiring Change candidate who looks very different to Obama/Biden then it's harder to see, but I'm not sure you can run a Change candidate when you're running for a party's third term.

    The other way to square the circle would have been Elizabeth Warren. She would certainly have motivated the left and had a good story to tell the rust-belt about standing up to Big Something, and may have been able to keep a chunk of the centre too, but it's possible she'd have had the same problem you mention for Bernie.
    Biden has had two failed runs for president and is widely regarded as gaffe-prone. As the sitting vice-president, he'd have been seen as the ultimate Washington insider and even more of a continuity Obama candidate than Hillary was. Sure, Hillary was a bad candidate, pb is united on that, but Biden was never the answer.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    It could be that only a highly intelligent, articulate, middle class African American candidate can pull the Democrat coalition together from here on in. There is an obvious one for 2020.

    It's actually much better for Trump that he did not get to the Oval Office on the back of a lot of new voters. He is going to let a lot of people down over the coming years, so has a much better chance if his support is based on tribal Republican voters. They will give him a lot more leeway.

    I'd love it if Michelle ran. I think she'd be so much better than Hillary.
    I doubt she'd win: for one thing, it would be seen as yet another political stitch-up.

    The US has around three hundred million citizens, and the Democratic Party (from memory) a few tens of millions of members. The idea that the *best* candidate for the job from that massive pool is the wife of an ex-president with virtually no political experience is fantasy.

    I said the same about Hilary before the vote; except she had at least been *in* politics for a long period, including in high office.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,670

    It could be that only a highly intelligent, articulate, middle class African American candidate can pull the Democrat coalition together from here on in. There is an obvious one for 2020.

    It's actually much better for Trump that he did not get to the Oval Office on the back of a lot of new voters. He is going to let a lot of people down over the coming years, so has a much better chance if his support is based on tribal Republican voters. They will give him a lot more leeway.

    I'd love it if Michelle ran. I think she'd be so much better than Hillary.
    Why, what has she ever done, what experience apart from a few speeches that were almost certainly written for her and well practised. If you are looking for a suitable AA candidate thenm it has to be Condoleezza Rice, miles better than an ex president's wife.
  • malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    I agree with a lot of what @Yellow Submarine has said downthread. It is good to see him making more contributions again.

    My concern is that we are getting into self indulgent gesture politics. Its enough to kick the man, looking for serious and credible alternatives is too much work. I don't like the phrase post-truth politics but there is something in it.

    One of the best bits of analysis I read which sort of explains Trump was that the median wage in the US has not increased since 1991. The US economy has grown a lot in those 25 years but the fruits of that growth have been exclusively taken by the upper quartile. Trickle down economics has, unfortunately, failed to deliver for the majority. And the majority is increasingly annoyed about it.

    Correct David, the elite at the top have gotten too greedy and are trying to keep the whole cake to themselves. You only need look at the Nordic countries to see how it should be done , limit the top salaries to a fixed multiple of the bottom workers. You still have rich people at the top but not in the obscene fashion we see in the UK and US. Time to tar and feather them and run them out of town, but given they and their chums run Westminster/Westminster are in the club it si highly unlikely.
    Trickle-down economics was always the joke the rich played on the rest of us. Or it's God's revenge for white people playing it on Africans & suchlike. Take your pick. Life's not fair, because, deep down, none of us want it to be.

  • Fat_SteveFat_Steve Posts: 361
    edited November 2016
    I've spotted a meme on the Twitter feeds of leftish friends - "I give up, I don't understand people."
    My unspoken response is "that's correct. If only you had had that insight twenty years ago..."
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    I agree with a lot of what @Yellow Submarine has said downthread. It is good to see him making more contributions again.

    My concern is that we are getting into self indulgent gesture politics. Its enough to kick the man, looking for serious and credible alternatives is too much work. I don't like the phrase post-truth politics but there is something in it.

    One of the best bits of analysis I read which sort of explains Trump was that the median wage in the US has not increased since 1991. The US economy has grown a lot in those 25 years but the fruits of that growth have been exclusively taken by the upper quartile. Trickle down economics has, unfortunately, failed to deliver for the majority. And the majority is increasingly annoyed about it.

    Correct David, the elite at the top have gotten too greedy and are trying to keep the whole cake to themselves. You only need look at the Nordic countries to see how it should be done , limit the top salaries to a fixed multiple of the bottom workers. You still have rich people at the top but not in the obscene fashion we see in the UK and US. Time to tar and feather them and run them out of town, but given they and their chums run Westminster/Westminster are in the club it si highly unlikely.
    Ha malc

    Donald Turnip will make your lot beg.
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138
    DavidL said:

    I think the other point is that with turnover just over 50% is that it is all about the base. Elections are almost entirely about getting your base enthusiastic enough to vote, something Clinton failed to do. From memory it was something like 1 in 4 voters were contacted by Clinton, 1 in 6 by Trump and only 1 in 12 by both.

    The scary part of this is that it creates the politics of the deaf. Trying to find the traditional middle ground does not work. Everything is about getting out your base and boosting their enthusiasm. Trump did that and he won.

    An interesting thought, Mr L, and one that we could apply to this country too.

    How enthused is the Tory base by the performance of Mrs May and her government?

    Cameron could do this to a far greater extent, because he posed as a liberal conservative, and he had the gloss from a relatively successful time in coalition with the Liberal Democrats.

    But I have the feeling that nobody is feeling inspired by Mrs May. The Tories failed to get their base inspired in the recent Witney byelection, and they lost 20,000 votes, and almost lost the seat. If Clinton was a poor choice for the Democrats, then May is an equally poor choice for our Conservatives. They don`t have anybody else either.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    Fat_Steve said:

    I've spotted a meme on the Twitter feeds of leftish friends - "I give up, I don't understand people."
    My unspoken response is "that's correct. If only you had had that insight twenty years ago..."

    They're talking bollocks. More people voted Clinton.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,670

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    I agree with a lot of what @Yellow Submarine has said downthread. It is good to see him making more contributions again.

    My concern is that we are getting into self indulgent gesture politics. Its enough to kick the man, looking for serious and credible alternatives is too much work. I don't like the phrase post-truth politics but there is something in it.

    One of the best bits of analysis I read which sort of explains Trump was that the median wage in the US has not increased since 1991. The US economy has grown a lot in those 25 years but the fruits of that growth have been exclusively taken by the upper quartile. Trickle down economics has, unfortunately, failed to deliver for the majority. And the majority is increasingly annoyed about it.

    Correct David, the elite at the top have gotten too greedy and are trying to keep the whole cake to themselves. You only need look at the Nordic countries to see how it should be done , limit the top salaries to a fixed multiple of the bottom workers. You still have rich people at the top but not in the obscene fashion we see in the UK and US. Time to tar and feather them and run them out of town, but given they and their chums run Westminster/Westminster are in the club it si highly unlikely.
    Ha malc

    Donald Turnip will make your lot beg.
    Alan, you wait till he dons the tartan
  • malcolmg said:

    It could be that only a highly intelligent, articulate, middle class African American candidate can pull the Democrat coalition together from here on in. There is an obvious one for 2020.

    It's actually much better for Trump that he did not get to the Oval Office on the back of a lot of new voters. He is going to let a lot of people down over the coming years, so has a much better chance if his support is based on tribal Republican voters. They will give him a lot more leeway.

    I'd love it if Michelle ran. I think she'd be so much better than Hillary.
    Why, what has she ever done, what experience apart from a few speeches that were almost certainly written for her and well practised. If you are looking for a suitable AA candidate thenm it has to be Condoleezza Rice, miles better than an ex president's wife.
    Rice is a Republican. Bush missed a trick by not engineering Condi into the White House at the end of his term (Cheney resigns on health grounds to be replaced as VP early in the second term, then Bush follows) which would have shot both Obama's and Hillary's foxes.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    I agree with a lot of what @Yellow Submarine has said downthread. It is good to see him making more contributions again.

    My concern is that we are getting into self indulgent gesture politics. Its enough to kick the man, looking for serious and credible alternatives is too much work. I don't like the phrase post-truth politics but there is something in it.

    One of the best bits of analysis I read which sort of explains Trump was that the median wage in the US has not increased since 1991. The US economy has grown a lot in those 25 years but the fruits of that growth have been exclusively taken by the upper quartile. Trickle down economics has, unfortunately, failed to deliver for the majority. And the majority is increasingly annoyed about it.

    Correct David, the elite at the top have gotten too greedy and are trying to keep the whole cake to themselves. You only need look at the Nordic countries to see how it should be done , limit the top salaries to a fixed multiple of the bottom workers. You still have rich people at the top but not in the obscene fashion we see in the UK and US. Time to tar and feather them and run them out of town, but given they and their chums run Westminster/Westminster are in the club it si highly unlikely.
    I agree that the Nordic system seems interesting. However, with one exception: personal risk should be rewarded. If I mortgage my home and use my savings to found a company that employs people, I should be able to take more out of that company in measure with that risk than the employees.

    (There are other ways of getting income from companies you own aside from salary, but the general principle stands).
  • Good morning, everyone.

    I didn't predict a Trump win, but I did say a few months ago that he stood a small chance because people were fired up both for and against him, but relatively few were enthusiastic about Clinton.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    malcolmg said:

    It could be that only a highly intelligent, articulate, middle class African American candidate can pull the Democrat coalition together from here on in. There is an obvious one for 2020.

    It's actually much better for Trump that he did not get to the Oval Office on the back of a lot of new voters. He is going to let a lot of people down over the coming years, so has a much better chance if his support is based on tribal Republican voters. They will give him a lot more leeway.

    I'd love it if Michelle ran. I think she'd be so much better than Hillary.
    Why, what has she ever done, what experience apart from a few speeches that were almost certainly written for her and well practised. If you are looking for a suitable AA candidate thenm it has to be Condoleezza Rice, miles better than an ex president's wife.
    Rice is a Republican. Bush missed a trick by not engineering Condi into the White House at the end of his term (Cheney resigns on health grounds to be replaced as VP early in the second term, then Bush follows) which would have shot both Obama's and Hillary's foxes.
    Perhaps, despite being a Bush, he didn't think that sort of stitch-up was democratic? (And it assumes they would have played along with it).
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    I agree with a lot of what @Yellow Submarine has said downthread. It is good to see him making more contributions again.

    My concern is that we are getting into self indulgent gesture politics. Its enough to kick the man, looking for serious and credible alternatives is too much work. I don't like the phrase post-truth politics but there is something in it.

    One of the best bits of analysis I read which sort of explains Trump was that the median wage in the US has not increased since 1991. The US economy has grown a lot in those 25 years but the fruits of that growth have been exclusively taken by the upper quartile. Trickle down economics has, unfortunately, failed to deliver for the majority. And the majority is increasingly annoyed about it.

    Correct David, the elite at the top have gotten too greedy and are trying to keep the whole cake to themselves. You only need look at the Nordic countries to see how it should be done , limit the top salaries to a fixed multiple of the bottom workers. You still have rich people at the top but not in the obscene fashion we see in the UK and US. Time to tar and feather them and run them out of town, but given they and their chums run Westminster/Westminster are in the club it si highly unlikely.
    Ha malc

    Donald Turnip will make your lot beg.
    Alan, you wait till he dons the tartan
    Yes, him and Farage in their kilts will be a sight to behold :-)
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    Fat_Steve said:

    I've spotted a meme on the Twitter feeds of leftish friends - "I give up, I don't understand people."
    My unspoken response is "that's correct. If only you had had that insight twenty years ago..."

    Lack of understanding is not only on the left. Many on the right suffer similar blindness. And like the left, some of that blindness is wilful.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967
    edited November 2016
    PClipp said:

    DavidL said:

    I think the other point is that with turnover just over 50% is that it is all about the base. Elections are almost entirely about getting your base enthusiastic enough to vote, something Clinton failed to do. From memory it was something like 1 in 4 voters were contacted by Clinton, 1 in 6 by Trump and only 1 in 12 by both.

    The scary part of this is that it creates the politics of the deaf. Trying to find the traditional middle ground does not work. Everything is about getting out your base and boosting their enthusiasm. Trump did that and he won.

    An interesting thought, Mr L, and one that we could apply to this country too.

    How enthused is the Tory base by the performance of Mrs May and her government?

    Cameron could do this to a far greater extent, because he posed as a liberal conservative, and he had the gloss from a relatively successful time in coalition with the Liberal Democrats.

    But I have the feeling that nobody is feeling inspired by Mrs May. The Tories failed to get their base inspired in the recent Witney byelection, and they lost 20,000 votes, and almost lost the seat. If Clinton was a poor choice for the Democrats, then May is an equally poor choice for our Conservatives. They don`t have anybody else either.
    What inspired people to vote Conservative in 2015 was the fear factor. In particular the fear of EdM's SNP puppet-masters.

    Morley, Telford and Gower were not won because Cameron was a 'liberal conservative'.
  • malcolmg said:

    It could be that only a highly intelligent, articulate, middle class African American candidate can pull the Democrat coalition together from here on in. There is an obvious one for 2020.

    It's actually much better for Trump that he did not get to the Oval Office on the back of a lot of new voters. He is going to let a lot of people down over the coming years, so has a much better chance if his support is based on tribal Republican voters. They will give him a lot more leeway.

    I'd love it if Michelle ran. I think she'd be so much better than Hillary.
    Why, what has she ever done, what experience apart from a few speeches that were almost certainly written for her and well practised. If you are looking for a suitable AA candidate thenm it has to be Condoleezza Rice, miles better than an ex president's wife.
    Rice is a Republican. Bush missed a trick by not engineering Condi into the White House at the end of his term (Cheney resigns on health grounds to be replaced as VP early in the second term, then Bush follows) which would have shot both Obama's and Hillary's foxes.
    Perhaps, despite being a Bush, he didn't think that sort of stitch-up was democratic? (And it assumes they would have played along with it).
    Remember this is how President Ford reached the White House without being elected, by replacing first Spiro Agnew as VP then Nixon in the top job, so it is not as far-fetched as it sounds. And Cheney really was ill.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Fat_Steve said:

    I've spotted a meme on the Twitter feeds of leftish friends - "I give up, I don't understand people."
    My unspoken response is "that's correct. If only you had had that insight twenty years ago..."

    Twitter is beyond ridiculous right now - so many pixel toddlers. The attention seekers are posting hysterical videos of themselves sobbing. How embarrassing.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    edited November 2016
    PClipp said:

    DavidL said:

    I think the other point is that with turnover just over 50% is that it is all about the base. Elections are almost entirely about getting your base enthusiastic enough to vote, something Clinton failed to do. From memory it was something like 1 in 4 voters were contacted by Clinton, 1 in 6 by Trump and only 1 in 12 by both.

    The scary part of this is that it creates the politics of the deaf. Trying to find the traditional middle ground does not work. Everything is about getting out your base and boosting their enthusiasm. Trump did that and he won.

    An interesting thought, Mr L, and one that we could apply to this country too.

    How enthused is the Tory base by the performance of Mrs May and her government?

    Cameron could do this to a far greater extent, because he posed as a liberal conservative, and he had the gloss from a relatively successful time in coalition with the Liberal Democrats.

    But I have the feeling that nobody is feeling inspired by Mrs May. The Tories failed to get their base inspired in the recent Witney byelection, and they lost 20,000 votes, and almost lost the seat. If Clinton was a poor choice for the Democrats, then May is an equally poor choice for our Conservatives. They don`t have anybody else either.
    Hard to tell during her early period, buoyed by her hard Brexit stance, LDs still being nowhere in national polls, labour moribund and UKIP asking literal shots at each other. After 6 years and with a safe seat it's not surprising not everyone turned out for then in a by-election.

    I will be watching the locals in the SW with interest. My personal theory is part of the reason the Tories swept up so well was by being a liberal conservative what I term blue liberals voted Tory and the difference from many LD losses to wipeout. If the liberals stage a recovery, we'll se, my theory is without evidence at present. I don't think it applies everywhere in any case.

    And of course so e say may is not really diverting much from the Cameroonian position, but she has definitely wanted it to look that way.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584

    This isn't just apathy towards Clinton, it is also a verdict on Obama's achievements.

    If his policies had been a resounding success then more people would have voted for his party.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,670
    Good old Tories, Better Together as long as you are down south...
    https://angusmacneilsnp.com/2016/11/09/uk-government-betrays-scotlands-islands-on-renewables/
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    PlatoSaid said:

    Fat_Steve said:

    I've spotted a meme on the Twitter feeds of leftish friends - "I give up, I don't understand people."
    My unspoken response is "that's correct. If only you had had that insight twenty years ago..."

    Twitter is beyond ridiculous right now - so many pixel toddlers. The attention seekers are posting hysterical videos of themselves sobbing. How embarrassing.
    Irony-ometer off the scale.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383


    This isn't just apathy towards Clinton, it is also a verdict on Obama's achievements.

    If his policies had been a resounding success then more people would have voted for his party.

    Quite. Obama has lost a load of seats from various bodies IIRC.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited November 2016
    Millenials and Sanders' voters certainly did not turn out for Hillary as they did for Obama which probably cost her the electoral college, Sanders for example won Michigan and Wisconsin and almost won Iowa in the Democratic primaries. However it should not be forgotten that many libertarians who voted for Romney failed to vote for Trump and voted for Gary Johnson instead. If you add the 3.2% who voted for Johnson to the 47% Trump won, you get to 50.2%. So it can also be said that Johnson probably cost Trump the popular vote
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,670

    malcolmg said:

    It could be that only a highly intelligent, articulate, middle class African American candidate can pull the Democrat coalition together from here on in. There is an obvious one for 2020.

    It's actually much better for Trump that he did not get to the Oval Office on the back of a lot of new voters. He is going to let a lot of people down over the coming years, so has a much better chance if his support is based on tribal Republican voters. They will give him a lot more leeway.

    I'd love it if Michelle ran. I think she'd be so much better than Hillary.
    Why, what has she ever done, what experience apart from a few speeches that were almost certainly written for her and well practised. If you are looking for a suitable AA candidate thenm it has to be Condoleezza Rice, miles better than an ex president's wife.
    Rice is a Republican. Bush missed a trick by not engineering Condi into the White House at the end of his term (Cheney resigns on health grounds to be replaced as VP early in the second term, then Bush follows) which would have shot both Obama's and Hillary's foxes.
    I know she is a Republican, I was merely pointing out a "real" AA candidate rather than the fanciful "wife" of an ex-president. Being married to a President does not make one suitable to be President.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    edited November 2016

    The odd thing about the politics of fear is that, generally, we have less to fear. Even including Syria and Ukraine, there is generally less war. Crime (at least for us) is down. We have a welfare system that does its best to protect us if we fall ill. The risk of all-out nuclear war is far lower than when I was a child.

    Yet reading the posts around here, negativity and even fear dominates. Is that because the Internet makes distant events seem close (there is no longer a "far away country between people of whom we know nothing")? Is it because it is easy to hang peoples' prejudices on fear? Or is it because negativity and fear is an easier state to be in that positivity?

    This does not mean we should be complacent. The UK isn't in a bad place, but we could still improve. I just don't understand the reasons behind the constant negativity and fear that sometimes produces.

    People need to perform their own risk analyses.

    I think you are right - undoubtedly across the world almost all the high level indicators - health, violence, life expectancy etc. - are showing that the world has never been so safe or successful.

    The one BIG exception is the economy (or, more correctly, the financial system, since we remain prosperous). Global economies hang over a precipice of debt and are being sustained by financial jiggery-pokery that even the most qualified experts simply don't understand. No-one knows the way out and no-one knows how things will end. The likes of ZIRP and QE have no historical precedents and Japan shows that you can keep them going for 25 years and things simply get worse.

    People don't understand much of this, of course, but the sense that our prosperity is build on sand is pervasive and, I suggest, underlies much of the political febrility we see around us.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    I don't know about other papers, but "The Times" is having what appears to be a nervous breakdown as it reports and twists the news on Trumps triumph.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,670
    kle4 said:

    PClipp said:

    DavidL said:

    I think the other point is that with turnover just over 50% is that it is all about the base. Elections are almost entirely about getting your base enthusiastic enough to vote, something Clinton failed to do. From memory it was something like 1 in 4 voters were contacted by Clinton, 1 in 6 by Trump and only 1 in 12 by both.

    The scary part of this is that it creates the politics of the deaf. Trying to find the traditional middle ground does not work. Everything is about getting out your base and boosting their enthusiasm. Trump did that and he won.

    An interesting thought, Mr L, and one that we could apply to this country too.

    How enthused is the Tory base by the performance of Mrs May and her government?

    Cameron could do this to a far greater extent, because he posed as a liberal conservative, and he had the gloss from a relatively successful time in coalition with the Liberal Democrats.

    But I have the feeling that nobody is feeling inspired by Mrs May. The Tories failed to get their base inspired in the recent Witney byelection, and they lost 20,000 votes, and almost lost the seat. If Clinton was a poor choice for the Democrats, then May is an equally poor choice for our Conservatives. They don`t have anybody else either.
    Hard to tell during her early period, buoyed by her hard Brexit stance, LDs still being nowhere in national polls, labour moribund and UKIP asking literal shots at each other. After 6 years and with a safe seat it's not surprising not everyone turned out for then in a by-election.

    I will be watching the locals in the SW with interest. My personal theory is part of the reason the Tories swept up so well was by being a liberal conservative what I term blue liberals voted Tory and the difference from many LD losses to wipeout. If the liberals stage a recovery, we'll se, my theory is without evidence at present. I don't think it applies everywhere in any case.

    And of course so e say may is not really diverting much from the Cameroonian position, but she has definitely wanted it to look that way.
    She has done nothing so far , bit of wind now and again at best. Same meme as when Home Secretary, she does not make decisions just does what she is forced to in the end. Useless like all the turkeys that were in Cameron's cabinet.
  • @neilh I'd accept that critique of my posts. Certainly you can consume a fair amount of stuff a fair amount of the time and still be very precarious and insecure economically. Western wage stagnation started long before the Great Recession. We just masked it with debt.I also entirely agree welfare spending is misunderstood. When you strip out Disability/Children/Tax Credits/Pensions there is almost nothing left. if you are working age and find yourself unemployed the safety net is almost gone. The DWP is a truly hateful and Orwellian organisation ( all put in place under Labour. The quiet man just turned up the volume ) which abuses people in return for £70 pw because it can.

    As for housing.....
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,670

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    I agree with a lot of what @Yellow Submarine has said downthread. It is good to see him making more contributions again.

    My concern is that we are getting into self indulgent gesture politics. Its enough to kick the man, looking for serious and credible alternatives is too much work. I don't like the phrase post-truth politics but there is something in it.

    One of the best bits of analysis I read which sort of explains Trump was that the median wage in the US has not increased since 1991. The US economy has grown a lot in those 25 years but the fruits of that growth have been exclusively taken by the upper quartile. Trickle down economics has, unfortunately, failed to deliver for the majority. And the majority is increasingly annoyed about it.

    Correct David, the elite at the top have gotten too greedy and are trying to keep the whole cake to themselves. You only need look at the Nordic countries to see how it should be done , limit the top salaries to a fixed multiple of the bottom workers. You still have rich people at the top but not in the obscene fashion we see in the UK and US. Time to tar and feather them and run them out of town, but given they and their chums run Westminster/Westminster are in the club it si highly unlikely.
    Ha malc

    Donald Turnip will make your lot beg.
    Alan, you wait till he dons the tartan
    Yes, him and Farage in their kilts will be a sight to behold :-)
    Too far Alan
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,461
    malcolmg said:

    It could be that only a highly intelligent, articulate, middle class African American candidate can pull the Democrat coalition together from here on in. There is an obvious one for 2020.

    It's actually much better for Trump that he did not get to the Oval Office on the back of a lot of new voters. He is going to let a lot of people down over the coming years, so has a much better chance if his support is based on tribal Republican voters. They will give him a lot more leeway.

    I'd love it if Michelle ran. I think she'd be so much better than Hillary.
    Why, what has she ever done, what experience apart from a few speeches that were almost certainly written for her and well practised. If you are looking for a suitable AA candidate thenm it has to be Condoleezza Rice, miles better than an ex president's wife.
    Has Michelle O given even the slightest hint she might be interested in standing? Paddys have a market out on whether she'll run for 2020. Yes 8/11 - No Evs. I don't think I want to tie my money up for 3 years on an even money shot but that seems way too big IMO.

    I'm no washington watcher but Michelle O strikes me as a real likeable person but not one who wants to go through the dirty process of a presidential election.

  • This isn't just apathy towards Clinton, it is also a verdict on Obama's achievements.

    If his policies had been a resounding success then more people would have voted for his party.

    Obama wasn't standing - and his popularity figures were high.
    "Pollster.com’s Charles Franklin was a little ahead of the curve Sunday morning when he pointed out that President Obama’s approval rating right now is among the highest Election-Day approval ratings in recent history."
    http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/after-nearly-eight-years-obama-reaches-unexpected-popularity
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    MikeK said:

    I don't know about other papers, but "The Times" is having what appears to be a nervous breakdown as it reports and twists the news on Trumps triumph.

    I've decided not to renew my subscription after several years. Since Brexit - the whole tone has been daft and partial. I went from reading most of it most days to one or two articles every few days to not wanting to bother. I can get what they say by turning on Sky for free.

    What a huge pity. I've Sky on mute - it's all sneering and little smiles when they find something negative to say about the Right of any description. Why would I want to endure that?

    They've cooked they own goose AFAIC.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    edited November 2016


    This isn't just apathy towards Clinton, it is also a verdict on Obama's achievements.

    If his policies had been a resounding success then more people would have voted for his party.

    Obama wasn't standing - and his popularity figures were high.
    "Pollster.com’s Charles Franklin was a little ahead of the curve Sunday morning when he pointed out that President Obama’s approval rating right now is among the highest Election-Day approval ratings in recent history."
    http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/after-nearly-eight-years-obama-reaches-unexpected-popularity

    He comes across as a likeable person, and if he'd been standing again he would have won vs Trump. But he wasn't, so his only contribution could be how successful he had been for his party in office. His likeability would not transfer to Clinton.

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    PlatoSaid said:

    MikeK said:

    I don't know about other papers, but "The Times" is having what appears to be a nervous breakdown as it reports and twists the news on Trumps triumph.

    I've decided not to renew my subscription after several years. Since Brexit - the whole tone has been daft and partial. I went from reading most of it most days to one or two articles every few days to not wanting to bother. I can get what they say by turning on Sky for free.

    What a huge pity. I've Sky on mute - it's all sneering and little smiles when they find something negative to say about the Right of any description. Why would I want to endure that?

    They've cooked they own goose AFAIC.
    There is symmetry between the right and left rejecting the MSM. The alt right and Corbynites agree on much.
  • DavidL said:

    I agree with a lot of what @Yellow Submarine has said downthread. It is good to see him making more contributions again.

    My concern is that we are getting into self indulgent gesture politics. Its enough to kick the man, looking for serious and credible alternatives is too much work. I don't like the phrase post-truth politics but there is something in it.

    One of the best bits of analysis I read which sort of explains Trump was that the median wage in the US has not increased since 1991. The US economy has grown a lot in those 25 years but the fruits of that growth have been exclusively taken by the upper quartile. Trickle down economics has, unfortunately, failed to deliver for the majority. And the majority is increasingly annoyed about it.

    Trickle down economics was effectively based upon national economies where the wealth at the top would trickle down as it was spent.

    Globalisation has changed that - wealth can now trickle out and the lower parts of the economy have grown in size through immigration meaning the wealth their is spread more thinly.
This discussion has been closed.