The real number about the Presidential election that people should be concerned about is this one... Vote for Mitt Romney in 2012: 60,933,504 Votes for Donald Trump in 2016: 60,375,961 Not only did Trump get less votes than Hillary, he got less votes than Romney did four years ago - and Romney lost.
That's a very interesting stat, because all the media would have you believe that there has been a huge swing toward Trump / Republicans this time. But of course that is because they don't really research anything any more and often just go with the sentiments of the other broadcasters.
There has been serious swings in the states that mattered. As commentators said, if you already win a state with X million votes, then getting X+Y million for that state has no impact in the grand scheme of things. The really interesting stat is that 6 million previous Democrat voters from 2012 went AWOL. Natural attrition etc does not account for a drop of that size, but a good broad-brush 'toxicity' metric for Clinton nonetheless.
Well that's also one of the many weaknesses in our system. A huge proportion of votes are wasted because they are in a constituency that is never (well not in the short medium term anyway) going to change hands. This means everyone who doesn't vote for the winning MP is never going to get an MP of their choice, and many of them may not bother to vote as a result, and also those who vote for the winning MP are wasting their vote too - because you only need one more vote than the candidate who came second in order to win.
I was in the US - specifically semi-rural Indiana, then Chicago, then NYC less than a week before the elections. What struck me talking to a lot of people on both sides of the political divide in these areas was how much apathy there seemed to be towards particularly Clinton from the Dems but also towards Trump from some traditional Republican voters. But what Trump managed to do was galvanise support from an already alienated voter base, while Clinton was still busy alienating hers. I think voter participation out of the eligible electorate was something like 58%. It would be interesting to know how many of those voted for the first time in ages or even the first time ever, in their middle or later age, and how many of those who had voted consistently for a while voted for a different party than usual. The cynical side of me would also like to know how many of the protesters we have seen over the last week or so voted... I'll also leave this here in case anyone gets bored watching England in a bit. You might need to use Reader mode in your browser to read it but it's an interesting perspective. https://hbr.org/2016/11/what-so-many-people-dont-get-about-the-u-s-working-class
Two things immediately struck me about this. The first was the claim that Trump is admired by the working class for being rich. That didn't work out too well for Romney, who still lost, though he did get more votes than Trump. The demographics of the two elections could be interesting on that. The second is the concept that Trump's straight talking. He's the opposite. The man's an utter bullshitter, who rarely pins down his opinions on anything and will immediately contradict himself when he does. He doesn't do it in the style of most politicians though, more like a salesman. A used car salesman, to be precise. He's not direct, he's crass. He's not strong, he's a bully. I think that the Democrats failing to use Obama as a model cost them, rather than Trump taking it from them. Replacing a charismatic man who was supposed to be on a mission with someone who has no charm at all was a mistake. That she was seen as part of the establishment, when neither Trump nor Obama were also hurt her. Her lack of a clear statement and aim finished Clinton off, I think. She had no rallying cry or flag to wave that anyone was interested in. They're right about the class divisions and how things are perceived, though. I think the same is true over here, in many cases. Interesting article.
Good post and I agree with a lot of what you say. Perception of Trump is so important. Some of his 'great deals' have been pretty questionable but he is perceived as a successful businessman rather than a stale creature of the establishment, as Clinton is. He is perceived as straight-talking due to the fact that be says things brashly and loudly, even though he's almost impossible to pin down consistently on any point of policy, like you say. His campaign was a masterpiece of self-promotion - particularly the use of social media - when he knew full well what people wanted to hear. But absolutely, Clinton as much lost this election as Trump won it. She ran as more of the same where people wanted change. Her attempts at humility (taking for example the point in the article: her admission that she was different people in public and private, implying she wasn't a natural politician) backfired and made her seem incompetent against a candidate who was not afraid to talk about success and winning, rather than endearing her voter in the street. Remember Ed Milliband eating a bacon sandwich? That was Clinton in nearly every public appearance. Clinton like Obama had the minority card to play (sorry for being so crass but so much of this election seemed to revolve around Clinton being a woman) but unlike Obama has absolutely zero charisma, no story to tell that endeared her to voters, no easy manner to put people at ease. Her story was that she was a woman about to finally shatter the glass ceiling for all women in a man's political world, but women did not want to vote for her.
A large part of what hit Hillary in the polls is the fact that, even within the Democrats, she has always been a divisive figure - and she became even more divisive when Bernie Sanders got shat on. That's a couple of reasons to give some Democrat voters reason to waiver about even going to the polls in the first place.
The glass ceiling for women was smashed years ago. Britain's Prime Minister was a woman nearly 40 years ago. The current - unexceptional - PM is a woman, as is the most senior politician in Europe. She didn't lose because she's a woman. It's just an excuse. She lost because she did not appreciate that there were such huge numbers of people who were dissafected, not just with politicians, but in their obsession with protecting and promoting 'minority' groups to the exclusion of others. The Conservative Party have reacted appropriately to Trump's election, and are amongst the few to do so. Boris Johnson pointed out yesterday that the people have voted, and their dissafection needs to be listened to and understood, and May stated that the people have rejected the recent prolonged wave of liberalism. It's all very well prople getting wrapped up in their obsessive idea of what's right and wrong, but not everyone shares it. And a lot of people had forgotten that. The people they ignored have come back to bite them.
Agreed - I don't think she lost purely because she is a woman, that would be a gross oversimplification. Though I wouldn't place US and European politics so closely in terms of the significance of gender, race and class. But I think that her campaign basically being one of continuity and 'stability' where the only distinguishing factor in her candidacy compared to her predecessor was that she would have been the first female president, was a major factor towards her not getting the traction she needed in key states and demographics. It might have been enough against a white male Republican incumbent but campaigning after Obama's presidency and up against Trump, it wasn't. Clinton thought it would be enough and her thinking that, her complacency if you will, was a major factor in her losing. That complacency extended to many factors of her campaign as highlighted by Obama today with his comments about outreach and truly visible politicians.
Bernie Saunders ranting early on didn't help her.Nor did that fellow Comey of the FBI.Was he paid by the Republicans to do that? I wonder how many women who love being "groped" voted for theDonald?Probably got his photo hanging up in their toilet....
So far as we are aware, Trump's sexual history is predominantly with white women. 55% of white women voted for Trump. Still, I guess it's still our duty to hate him on their behalf !
55% of white women.That's a lot of women.Are they all expecting to dodge paying taxes like Donald? USA are in trouble with debt. How do you get out of trouble if you don't pay taxes? The new president will take care of it. Oh no! He doesn't pay taxes either and hasn't for many years. He could be nice to Russia and maybe,maybe,Putin will give him some oilwells if he is a good boy......
I read this on another forum, and thought it was rather good, " For those of you on the left I know it is hard. You are confused, bewildered and deeply, deeply saddened. Maybe even triggered. You probably missed work or school yesterday, called in sick or simply didn’t get out of bed. That’s ok though because your Indigenous Women’s Studies prof said it was ok to skip the exam today. Everyone is getting an A as a morale builder. So cheer up. ... And while I’ve never considered myself much of a right winger, being more of a libertarian bent, I have found myself increasingly pushed and marginalized by the “enlightened and progressive” amongst you into the same camp with all sorts of deplorables, regardless of where they lived and what they called themselves. Nationalists, alt righters, anarchists, constitutionalists and so on and so forth all made for strange bedfellows but an effective team. Working on the premise that the enemy of my enemy is my friend we have all found common ground. We have you to thank for that. By pushing, badgering, harassing, marginalizing and insulting us on a regular basis you created something new. And it crushed you at the ballot box. ... But not to worry. There will be plenty of opportunities for you to learn from your mistakes. You see, the battle that took place in your polling stations on the 8th of November was just that. A battle. We, the freedom loving peoples of the western world, well, we’re just getting warmed up. To quote the man: “You Ain’t Seen Nothing Yet“. So retreat to your safe spaces, grab your adult colouring books and put on a happy face my special snow flakes because regardless of whoever/whatever you are and regardless of what nation it is you reside in, we, the deplorables, are coming for you. "
It's also the strength of the system. There will always be more people living in the inner cities than out in the sticks. If it were a case of the party with the most individual votes were winners then the outlying areas would get forgotton. Fibre optics would never be run out to places like North Yorkshire or the Highlands of Scotland. Roads would never be built or maintained in remote areas. In order to have equality, hence democracy, each area needs to have equal representation. The system that both the US and ourselves have is better than the alternatives. If people choose not to exercise their vote, that is their business.
Judging by the overnight reporting, the Media appear not be focussing on the nepotism angle that is already clear in the Administration-elect and the fact that Trump continues to Tweet like a gameshow host rather than a President. At this rate Ivanka will be Secretary of State!!
I'm surprised you thought that good. I know we are poles apart politically, but you argue your view of things intelligently and vigorously. I admire that in someone. What you've quoted above is just ner ner ner. It also aptly describes how to win an election, it suggests chaos for trying to keep the alliance on board.
I possibly shouldnt have included the first paragraph, which I agree does come across a bit like that. It was the indigenous womens studies but i wanted to include there. And as for the last tw paragraphs, the only thing I liked about that was that it built to the "we, the deplorables" part, which I thought was perfect. The second paragraph though, I think is absoloutely spot on, and does a better job of analysing the situation in the space of a few lines, than i've seen in probably all the articles and newspieces ive seen on the matter combined.
