Buchanan on Trump

trump

While my politics are a million miles from Pat Buchanan on most issues, this extract from an article in American Conservative written before the election result, is a perceptive evaluation of Trumpism, and the appeal of Trump to the working class. It is the revolt against the establishment, but also against the liberalism which the centre wraps itself in.

Trump has made history and has forever changed American politics.

Though a novice in politics, he captured the Party of Lincoln with the largest turnout of primary voters ever, and he has inflicted wounds on the nation’s ruling class from which it may not soon recover.

Bush I and II, Mitt Romney, the neocons, and the GOP commentariat all denounced Trump as morally and temperamentally unfit. Yet, seven of eight Republicans are voting for Trump, and he drew the largest and most enthusiastic crowds of any GOP nominee.

Not only did he rout the Republican elites, he ash-canned their agenda and repudiated the wars into which they plunged the country.

Trump did not create the forces that propelled his candidacy. But he recognized them, tapped into them, and unleashed a gusher of nationalism and populism that will not soon dissipate.

[… ]How could the Republican establishment advance anew the trade and immigration policies that their base has so thunderously rejected?

How can the GOP establishment credibly claim to speak for a party that spent the last year cheering a candidate who repudiated the last two Republican presidents and the last two Republican nominees?

Do mainstream Republicans think that should Trump lose a Bush Restoration lies ahead? The dynasty is as dead as the Romanovs.

The media, whose reputation has sunk to Congressional depths, has also suffered a blow to its credibility.

Its hatred of Trump has been almost manic, and WikiLeaks revelations of the collusion between major media and Clintonites have convinced skeptics that the system is rigged and the referees of democracy are in the tank.

But it is the national establishment that has suffered most.

The Trump candidacy exposed what seems an unbridgeable gulf between this political class and the nation in whose name it purports to speak.

Consider the litany of horrors it has charged Trump with.

He said John McCain was no hero, that some Mexican illegals are “rapists.” He mocked a handicapped reporter. He called some women “pigs.” He wants a temporary ban to Muslim immigration. He fought with a Gold Star mother and father. He once engaged in “fat-shaming” a Miss Universe, calling her “Miss Piggy,” and telling her to stay out of Burger King. He allegedly made crude advances on a dozen women and starred in the “Access Hollywood” tape with Billy Bush.

While such “gaffes” are normally fatal for candidates, Trump’s followers stood by him through them all.

Why? asks an alarmed establishment. Why, in spite of all this, did Trump’s support endure? Why did the American people not react as they once would have? Why do these accusations not have the bite they once did?

Answer. We are another country now, an us-or-them country.

Middle America believes the establishment is not looking out for the nation but for retention of its power. And in attacking Trump it is not upholding some objective moral standard but seeking to destroy a leader who represents a grave threat to that power.

Trump’s followers see an American Spring as crucial, and they are not going to let past boorish behavior cause them to abandon the last best chance to preserve the country they grew up in.

These are the Middle American Radicals, the MARs of whom my late friend Sam Francis wrote.

They recoil from the future the elites have mapped out for them and, realizing the stakes, will overlook the faults and failings of a candidate who holds out the real promise of avoiding that future.

They believe Trump alone will secure the borders and rid us of a trade regime that has led to the loss of 70,000 factories and 5 million manufacturing jobs since NAFTA. They believe Trump is the best hope for keeping us out of the wars the Beltway think tanks are already planning for the sons of the “deplorables” to fight.

85 comments on “Buchanan on Trump

  1. Karl Stewart on said:

    Had Bernie Sanders been the candidate he would certainly have beaten Trump in those industrial working-class states which were so critical to Trump’s victory.

    (By the way, it’s interesting that the latest figures suggest Clinton may end up ahead of Trump by a small amount in the overall national popular vote.)

  2. Karl Stewart on said:

    According to the New York Times running total…

    http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president

    …she’s apparently got around 225,000 more votes than Trump nationwide. And they’re projecting a final nationwide vote share margin in Clinton’s favour of 1.3 per cent.

    If the final tally turns out that way, then that’ll be considerably higher than the 0.5 per cent popular vote share margin that Al Gore had over Bush in 2000.

    What an odd system! (Or am I reading this wrongly?)

  3. Richard Farnos on said:

    I think Paul Mason has more accurate analysis for the rise of Trump:
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/09/globalisation-dead-white-supremacy-trump-neoliberal
    Paul Mason also makes a timely warning to some on the the left:

    Those who tell you the left has to somehow “reconnect” with people whose minds are full of white supremacy and misogyny must finish the sentence. By what means? By throwing our black brothers and sisters under a bus? Eighty years ago the poets and miners of the International Brigades did not march into battle saying: “Mind you, the fascists have got a point.”

  4. jim mclean on said:

    231,556,622 eligible voters

    46.9% didn’t vote
    25.6% voted for Clinton
    25.5% voted for Trump
    1.7% voted for Johnson

    Not so much as white supremacy as defending what the have, typical middle class against affluent working class with the not haves walking away knowing they will get screwed either way.

  5. Jellytot on said:

    jim mclean,

    Go to rural Ohio or Pennsylvania and you will see communities where the local factories and steelworks and mines have long closed to be replaced by massive Walmarts and Cabelas with everyone else scraping by.

    Race and racial concerns are not at the forefront of these people’s minds. It was an economic and political vote. The unions have long since gone, the working class buy into the NRA crap about politicians taking their guns (these areas have big hunting cultures) and see the Dems as just not giving a shit about them. The Dems, to them, just care about the people on the Coasts and in their pet urban centres.

    This is what swung these swing states to Trump.

    Bernie would have done far better. He is from Vermont. He understands.

  6. jim mclean on said:

    Apathy won, Trump got fewer votes than McCain and Romney and Clinton got 7M fewer than Obama I think I understand about the Rust Belt, nothing to vote for. I would not have voted for Hilary whoever she was opposing, Sanders would have been worth a try.

  7. Karl Stewart on said:

    Andy Newman,

    Not quite the same here. We elect MPs to represent constituencies, so there’s a logic to our constituency system. There’s zero logic to the ‘electoral college’ in US presidential elections.

    In elections where we’re electing one person across a larger area, such as city mayors, for example, we always use total vote share.

    And every other country that has an elected head of state all use total vote share.

    The US presidential ‘electoral college’ is the only system of its kind in the world.

  8. Jimmy Haddow on said:

    Post 4 – Paul mason talking bollocks again and living in economic and social cloud cuckoo land if he thinks that “It’s about re-forming the political coalition that won both the New Deal and the second world war. “

  9. Sanders talked about a ‘political revolution’ and then, when Clinton won through a rigged system, deliberately de-mobilised his supporters. If this election is not a wake up call when it comes to the dead end of ‘lesser evilism’ for those o the left in the US then I fear that nothing will be.

  10. Karl Stewart: There’s zero logic to the ‘electoral college’ in US presidential elections.

    It is a federal republic, and it has served them well, for example Hayes lost the popular vote to Tilden, but there is no doubt that a Tilden victory at a time when Federal troops were still stationed in Southern states to protect Republican politicians from assassnation was a good thing.

    Hayes was a successful president, Tilden would have pushed the states apart again

  11. John Grimshaw on said:

    Karl Stewart: The US presidential ‘electoral college’ is the only system of its kind in the world.

    It was designed by the founding fathers to keep the working class out.

  12. Richard Farnos on said:

    Sorry Comrades I think you are in denial. I fully accept that the prime motive is economic as Jellytot suggests or “defending what the have,” as Jim Mclean puts it. However like a classical right wing populist Trump managed to capture this agony and racialise its discourse ie make people think that reason for their dilemma was due to other non-white people rather than capitalism. “Build the Wall” the most popular slogan of the Trump campaign, it may be only a metaphor but it speaks volumes.

    The question is whether we should carry on treating Trump voters as children as the political establishment and Trump does or treat them as adults with human agency and responsibility for their actions. If you think they are adults then it needs to put to them that they have voted for white supremacy.

  13. Karl Stewart on said:

    Andy Newman,

    Personally, I agree with a certain high-profile individual who said a couple of years ago that “…the electoral college is a disaster for democracy…”

    The facts are that the American people have voted for Clinton and the Republican-dominated ‘electoral college’ has awarded the presidency to Trump.

  14. Andy Newman on said:

    Richard Farnos: If you think they are adults then it needs to put to them that they have voted for white supremacy.

    People who have twice voted for Obama, and would possibly have voted again for Obama if they had the choice, voted Trump.

    Hardly white supremacy, more than a quarter of Hispanics voted Trump.

    There is a rise of nativism perhaps, but in US politics especially, nativism can be decouped from racism

  15. Andy Newman on said:

    Karl Stewart: The facts are that the American people have voted for Clinton and the Republican-dominated ‘electoral college’ has awarded the presidency to Trump.

    But the electoral college is only Republican dominated because that is the way the votes were distributed. If Sanders had stood I think he would have smashed Trump.

  16. Jellytot on said:

    Richard Farnos:

    The question is whether we should carry on treating Trump voters as children as the political establishment and Trump does or treat themas adults with human agency and responsibility for their actions.If you think they are adults then it needs to put to them that they have voted for white supremacy.

    You could try treating them as children…..but I don’t think it would get you anywhere.

    Yes. They are adults….frequently heavily armed ones….you could try screaming “Racist !!!” at them.

    The results could be messy….literally.

  17. Jellytot on said:

    Joking aside….Karl Stewart’s suggestion of a Sanders candidacy in the rust belt would have been far the best course of action.

    But the rigged Dem nominee election system with so called Super delegates allotted to Clinton and the DNC scheming meant that was always unlikely.

    The Sanders presidential campaign will always be the great “might have been”

  18. Karl Stewart on said:

    Andy Newman,
    Jellytot,

    Yep, the make-up of the electoral college is down to the distribution of votes. But the way it is structured means that, in practice, a very close election will tend to go to the Republican candidate – as we’ve now seen twice.

    The Republicans have only won the popular vote once (2004) in the past 18 years, but they’ve taken the presidency three times during that period (2000, 2004, 2016).

    But Clinton is ill-placed to complain about this because, as Jellytot reminds us, she herself benefitted from similar gerrymandering during the nomination process.

    Sanders, as well as being better placed politically to win convincingly on both a popular vote and state-by-state basis, would also have been better able to mount a serious challenge had he been cheated of victory by the electoral college system.

    Indeed, it’ll go down as one of the great ‘might-have-beens’.

  19. Andy Newman on said:

    Karl Stewart: The Republicans have only won the popular vote once (2004) in the past 18 years, but they’ve taken the presidency three times during that period (2000, 2004, 2016).

    The Democrats are the historic party of Tammany Hall communalism, corruption, vote rigging, pork barrel self interest, voter suppression and brown envelopes.

    I will shed few tears if occasionally their schemes don’t pay off

  20. Karl Stewart on said:

    Andy Newman,

    Can you see the American labour movement and left organising into a new party? Or do you think they’ll stick with the Democrats and try to move it left?

  21. Let’s not forget just how dreadful Barack Obama is:

    Obama did precisely nothing to help stop the execution of Troy Davis.

    Just a couple of weeks ago, his administration lobbied in the UN against a treaty to ban nuclear weapons. The good news, however, is it failed.
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/28/nukes-and-the-un-a-historic-treaty-to-ban-nuclear-weapons/
    Shameful!

    Trump is worrying but we could have been looking at President-elect Cruz which would probably be worse.

    And at least we do not now have to worry about Hilary Clinton taking us to war with Russia which I think would have been a real danger given her wish to bomb Syria.

  22. Karl Stewart: Can you see the American labour movement and left organising into a new party? Or do you think they’ll stick with the Democrats and try to move it left?

    with only 14 million union members, it is no longer a major player.

    I am not an expert, but it is worth looking at the websites of the US unions. The biggest, Teamsters and United Steelworkers hardly mentioned the election either before after. Nothing from UAW, etc, etc.

    United Mine Workers issued a short statement which implied that the union leadership was in a bit of a bind because most of their members had voted Trump!

  23. Karl Stewart on said:

    brianthedog,

    If Remain had won the vote, but we left the EU anyway, then yes, there mught have been that one comparison to make with the US election.

    But a fascistic Republican candidate polling a millon votes fewer than the previous Republican candidate, while losing the popular vote to an extraordinarily dull neo-liberal Democrat candidate bears zero comparison to our referendum at all.

  24. While its always unwise to make early predictions about the ramifications of such huge events, and the way things play out depends upon a number of unknowable factors, foreclosing a discussion on possible developments on the left away from the Democratic Party by saying you’ve looked on the official websites of of a few US unions and they weren’t saying much at least made me laugh.

  25. jack: foreclosing a discussion on possible developments on the left away from the Democratic Party by saying you’ve looked on the official websites of of a few US unions and they weren’t saying much at least made me laugh.

    I am always surprised that people refer to the Democrats as being on the left. in terms of political affinity, were she in America, Theresa May would probably be a Democrat.

    It is based on a confusion of liberalism and identity politics as being “left”.

    The Democrats are the party of identity politics, who have a transactional approach to putting together an electoral coalition of special interest groups. Organised labour being only one of many.

    labor unions mobilising members for the Democrats is no different in this schema from churches, single issue campaigns, etc.

    My point about the unions is not their relative lack of pronouncements, but that there are only 14 million members.

    What is more, the concerns of union members, good well paid jobs, secure employment, protection of the USA’s skilled industrial base are an entirely different sort of “left” from the Democrats pursuit of special interests of identity groups and equality strands.

    Now you may find it irrelevant that the US unions had so little to say in the lead up to this particular election. I think that it is slightly more revealing than that, because from the polling, voting amongst union members this year shifted from about 60% Democrat, to under 50%. Such reticence of union leadership to take a position out of step with the members is not unusual.

    And what could they say. Clinton visited West Virginia and said she would close the coal industry. How could UMWA support Clinton?

    Obama and Clinton have remorselessly promoted free trade deals. I don’t know how the UAW can reconcile their own quite loud support of Clinton with the fact that NAFTA has decimated their members’ jobs, and Obama is push through TPP before he hands over.

  26. brianthedog on said:

    Karl Stewart,

    So what if Clinton got more votes she didn’t win. There is a long established election system in the US and she lost. End of. Its like the remoaners who tell me the majority of the British people didn’t vote to leave. Its pitiful.

  27. Karl Stewart on said:

    Andy Newman,

    This guy https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn is forecasting a final winning margin of two million for Clinton, once all absentee ballots are counted.

    And the New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/elections/forecast/president is forecasting a final percentage margin for Clinton of 1.2 per cent.

    The current margin is reported as 400,000 votes in Clinton’s favour.

    brianthedog,
    No it’s not the same as Remoaners – we actually won the EU referendum fair and square 52 per cent to 48 per cent. The Remoaners have no case.

    The US election was not won by Trump, all the available evidence points to it having been won by Clinton.

    Yes, the ‘electoral college’ system that dates back to the era of slavery and which was put in place, specifically to ensure slave owners got more votes, that system, creates a constitutional buffer between the popular vote and the award of the presidency.

    But, although convention (and the threat of a $1,000 fine inn some states) dictates that electoral college voters vote according to the result in their particular state, it’s not impossible that they could decide, instead, to cast their votes in accordance with the nationwide popular vote.

    They don’t actually formally ‘vote’ until the New Year.

    If the popular vote winning margin ends up being significant, and if the anti-Trump protests continue and grow, a different outcome might be possible.

  28. Karl Stewart on said:

    …and another thing. If there are any Scots on here – why the pink shirts? What’s that all about?

  29. jim mclean on said:

    Karl Stewart,

    The first Scottish National Team was sponsored by Archibald Philip Primrose, Lord Rosebery, and the Rosebery racing colours formed the base of the national strip. Early strips were blue or pink and yellow stripes

  30. brianthedog on said:

    Karl Stewart,

    “If the popular vote winning margin ends up being significant, and if the anti-Trump protests continue and grow, a different outcome might be possible.”

    No it won’t, just wishful thinking and serious sounding like a remoaner.

  31. Karl Stewart on said:

    brianthedog,

    Surprised that someone could see a similarity between, on the one hand, a fascistic Republican candidate losing an election vote to a Blairite, and on the other hand, the people of the UK voting in a referendum, democratically, by a clear majority, to leave the capitalist, neo-liberal EU.

    The two events have absolutely nothing whatsoever in common.

  32. Andy Newman on said:

    Karl Stewart: a fascistic Republican candidate losing an election vote to a Blairite,

    Trump isn’t a fascist.

    What is interesting is that the down ticket GOP candidates did better than he did. He needs that congressional experience onside.

    It is hard to predict but his administration may be more mainstream than you might think, though offensive to liberals, it won’t be fascist

  33. Andy Newman on said:

    Jellytot,

    Stand out comment “their internal polling was right”.

    Trump’s path to the white house was based on knowledge of where to campaign.

    This is the fallacy of Karl Stewart’s tirade against the electoral college. Both camps knew the rules, and team Trump worked the key demographics in the states he needed to win, and he won them.

    The Democrats piled up the votes in safe blue states, and in safe red states. (The same phenomenon in last year’s GE in the UK, swing to Labour in safe seats, swing to Tories in marginals)

    If there was no electoral college both teams would have played a different game. So we don’t know what the result would have been.

  34. Jellytot on said:

    Andy Newman:
    Jellytot,

    Stand out comment “their internal polling was right”.

    Trump’s path to the white house was based on knowledge of where to campaign.

    Yes Andy.

    Of course on a much much smaller scale but this methodology got the BNP over 50 councilors ten years ago……knowing where to campaign.

    Trump knew the hard pressed white communities to target and it paid off big time. He was looking at the micro when the media and everyone else was discussing the macro. Quite incredible really.

  35. Karl Stewart on said:

    Trump lost the vote, but got lucky and benefitted from a system that advantages “Redneckia” (indeed, as it was specifically designed so to do.)

    More an opportunist than an ideological fascist, Trump nonetheless made use of fascistic themes and methods during the campaign, striking a chord with the essential racism that is deep within the USA’s DNA.

    Describing his candidacy as “fascistic” is not unreasonable in my opnion.

    Trump’s strategy allowed him to attract the votes of many previously politically alienated white supremacists, while holding onto most of the Republican Party’s conservative base.

    And as we saw in the election, this coalition of white supremacists and right-wing conservatives amounts to a sizeable and significant minority of USA voters.

    Add to this a desperately uninspiring Blairite Democrat candidate, an ‘electoral college’ system designed for the age of slavery, and you have the reasons why Trump was declared “President-elect.”

  36. Karl Stewart: Trump’s strategy allowed him to attract the votes of many previously politically alienated white supremacists, while holding onto most of the Republican Party’s conservative base.

    Karl, ,you are channeling Guardian lifestyle nonsense here!

    There was some recomposition of the republican vote, with significant parts of the GOP establishment repudiating Trump, and a decline in the proportion of college educated well paid people voting Republican, and an increase in working class people voting Republican.

    Many working class people, for example in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania who voted Obama in previus elections voted Trump this time. Hardly white supremacists.

    It is very revealling that in the key battle ground states, Trump outspent Clinton by 50%, despite her overall election spend being twice his.

    It is very important to actually try to understand that American culture and society, which at one level we are over familiar with due to TV, music and Hollywood, is nevertheless quite different from ours. For example, American friends find it hard to understand how opposing abortion rights is only a fringe issue in the UK, while the British left and liberal centre are really exercised by – of all things – hunting.

    Most religious and social conservatives in the USA are very far from fascists, they tend to have a sepia tinted view of self reliant communities reminiscent of Andy Hardy movies.

    From my reading of conservative American sources, many have been prepared to overlook Trumps past and present character deficiencies because he is promising to resolve the deadlock on the supreme court in their favour, or because they believe he will withdraw from NAFTA (scuttling TPP and TTIP), or because he will have a less interventionist foreign policy, or a combination of the three.

    What actually happens with Trump we will have to wait and see. It is amusing though to see liberals in hysteria about the idea that John Bolton might be secertary of state, where I can see no difference between his foreign policy inclinations and Clinton’s

  37. Karl Stewart on said:

    Andy Newman,

    I’m not so sure that people who voted Obama last time turned around and voted Trump this time. That’s a similar assumption people make over here when they see the Labour vote down and the UKIP vote up.

    It’s far more likely, in my opinion, that these are totally different people. The 2012 Obama voter staying home, and the 2016 Trump voter voting this time after staying home last time.

    And everyone (indigenous peoples excepted) in the USA who’s motivated to vote by policies of anti-immigration and repatriation is a white supremacist by definition.

    Every non-indigenous person in the USA is either an illegal immigrant or the descendant of one, so it’s not the illegal immigration they’re objecting to, but the skin colour of the immigrant.

  38. “Every non-indigenous person in the USA is either an illegal immigrant or the descendant of one..”

    What on earth does that mean?

    Apart from anything else how do African Americans fit into your criteria?

  39. Brianthedog on said:

    Evan P:
    “Every non-indigenous person in the USA is either an illegal immigrant or the descendant of one..”

    Karl you are talking utter nonsense. Yesterday I was having a rum in a poolside bar in the Caribbean (as you do) and was speaking to a black American who voted for Obama in the last two elections and voted Trump in this one.

    Karl Stewart:
    Andy Newman,

    I’m not so sure that people who voted Obama last time turned around and voted Trump this time. That’s a similar assumption people make over here when they see the Labour vote down and the UKIP vote up.

    It’s far more likely, in my opinion, that these are totally different people. The 2012 Obama voter staying home, and the 2016 Trump voter voting this time after staying home last time.

    And everyone (indigenous peoples excepted) in the USA who’s motivated to vote by policies of anti-immigration and repatriationis a white supremacist by definition.

    Every non-indigenous person in the USA is either an illegal immigrant or the descendant of one, so it’s not the illegal immigration they’re objecting to, but the skin colour of the immigrant.

  40. Jellytot on said:

    Evan P,

    Yes. that glaring error re: African Americans jumped out at me too.

    Malcolm X…. “We didn’t land on Plymouth Rock, Plymouth Rock landed on us !!”

  41. Jellytot on said:

    Brianthedog,

    Yah….my friend Luis, a dark skinned Colombian, living in Houston voted Trump.

    To quote him….”The Mexicans are crapping themselves….nobody else is”

    Hispanics are a diverse crowd….The Democrats make an error in regarding them as a single bloc.

  42. Karl Stewart on said:

    Evan P,

    African-Americans are the descendants of slaves who were captured in Africa and shipped to the American continent to work for the European settlers as slaves.

    It’s quite well known, the basics of the history of slavery in the USA. I’m surprised you need to ask about it.

  43. Karl Stewart on said:

    Evan P,

    It means that the white man stole the country from its original inhabitants Evan. They made treaty after treaty and then broke all the treaties by illegally encroaching on native land.

    The USA exists in the way it exists today entirely because of illegal immigration.

    And Africa-Americans were brought over by the European settlers from Africa as slaves.

  44. #69 So illegal immigration is a crime of strict liability?

    And every non Native American person who lives in the USA is illegal because those who arrived after the Native Americans were removed were given legal status illegally?

    Asians, Africans, Jews, East Europeans?

    And does the same principle apply to non Native American people in Latin America?

    And what about the decendants of Native American nations who took by force the lands of other Native American nations?

    Surely those that made treaties with European settlers had no proper title to do so?

    The way in which European settlers and then imperialism treated people all over the rest of the world is full of horrific crimes, including genocide against native American people in North America.

    But looking at it through the prism of the legaliies of land ownership going back hundreds of years, except in specific cases where there are specific claims and\ or struggles is simply pointless and unhelpful.

  45. Karl Stewart on said:

    Evan P,

    The genocide against indigenous people by European settlers means that the descendants of those settlers have no right to whine about so-called ‘illegal immigration’ today.

  46. Karl Stewart: Every non-indigenous person in the USA is either an illegal immigrant or the descendant of one

    No because the US constitution is based upon the assertion of the legality of revolution by an armed people. The U.S. Declaration of Independence states that “when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government”

    Immigration into the Americas before then was legal under a succession of Crown charters, but after the Revolution, they adopted a system based on popular sovereignty, whereby the sovereignty of the state was built on the foundation of its citizenry. The presence in the Americas of US citizens was legal because the constitution of the United States based its own sovereignty upon their existence, and the legal dispute over that sovereignty was settled to the satisfaction of even the most picky lawyers at the ramparts of Yorktown, Virginia in 1781.

    The legality of the United States is not only founded upon its factual existence and the force of arms which were its midwife, but can be verified by the fact that a number of other sovereign states entered into treaty with it, including treaties with various indigenous tribes, who clearly recognised the actual sovereignty of the US, otherwise they would not have been able to conclude treaties with it.

  47. Karl Stewart: I’m not so sure that people who voted Obama last time turned around and voted Trump this time.

    That is what the polling tells us, and also several people have been interviewed saying that that is indeed the case.

    I don’t even find it surprising. Obama promised a challenge to the status quo, Trump promised a challenge to the status quo.

  48. aberfoyle on said:

    Karl Stewart,

    Sanders,would have seriously cleaned up.Clinton,her campaign are only to blame for her loss,the inside scheming to dishonour Sanders,was the lowest of the low,yet conducive to the Clinton!s history of devious.What was remarkable,outside the rest of both camps election skullduggery,was Clinton!s,arrogant venue,for her ego!s win,a complete surround and ceiling monstrosity all class,the stage added on stage of the map design of America,all planed even the stars out back for the victory concert,Cher,came out to check the big screen for the results coming in,she shot the crow and left,yet all her support stood in anticipation of Hillary fronting,not even,her ego, shattard,did not have the compassionate fortitude ,to front her all day and night standing supporters.

  49. Karl Stewart on said:

    Jellytot,

    He speaks well in that clip JellyT. There’s no doubt in my mind that Sanders would have not only have won the popular vote by a far bigger margin thatn Clinton did, but that he would also have swept up in those so-called ‘rust-belt swing-states’ as well.

  50. I think the real danger he is that Trump actually does an ‘OK’ job. At the moment a lot of people are saying its not only a disaster for the US, but brings the world into a more dangerous place with more war and less rights for workers. If Trump does not cock everything up, then people might look the other way when it comes to him and his nastier ideas… You only have to think about Germany pre the second world war to see what happens when a country votes for right wing ideas in times of hardship…

  51. Jellytot on said:

    Karl Stewart,

    We will never really know how well Sanders would have done. Had he been the nominee there would have been some terrible red baiting and red scare stuff (when Sanders was leading in the primaries Trump was openly calling him a Commie….then switched to sympathizing with him after he lost to HRC). This may have scared off some middle class Democrat support.

    But given the profound political and social crisis in America this red baiting probably would have largely fallen on stoney ground and Bernie….a self described Socialist….could well have been taking the oath of office in DC in January.

    Wouldn’t that have been something?!

  52. Jellytot on said:

    Evan P,

    And a lot weren’t.

    And remember that older white people (those who were the audence of the red scare…..which only ended in the 80’s) vote in higher numbers.

    Like I stated earlier….red baiting today would meet with diminishing returns but it should not be discounted entirely. AmeRica is very conservative and I have lived and worked there. Even The so-called Centre is quite right wing by European standards.

    There is still a folk memory existant of anti-communism.

    Considering, however, the utter basket case that large parts of the country currently are, it probably would not affect a Sanders win.

    The America of the 50’s and 60’s and early 70’s (that supposed golden age for white people at least) is long long gone .

    Trump’s criticism of a declining America gained traction precisely because it is many peoples’ reality today.

    The fact that Trump won points to a deeply troubled nation.

  53. Karl Stewart on said:

    Karl Stewart:
    brianthedog,
    The fact that Clinton actually BEAT Trump by an estimated TWO MILLION votes seems to have completely passed your man by.

    …and now the estimate is fact…Clinton did indeed poll over two million votes more than Trump. What does your boy Mr Pie say about that?

  54. Philip Thomas on said:

    American elections are not decided by total votes but by the number of delegates elected to the Electoral College. Everyone knew the rules before the election, conducted the election under those rules and have to abide by them. I doubt Clinton would have complained had the reverse been the case.

  55. Karl Stewart on said:

    Philip Thomas,
    The popular vote margin is nearly three million. Clinton won nearly three million more votes, across the USA, than Trump. She won more than 2 per cent more of the votes than Trump.

    This is a bigger winning margin than Kennedy or Nixon or George W Bush won.

    That a candidate can win such a clear margin of votes and not be awarded the presidency is evidence of a profoundly undemocratic electoral system.

    And the fact that Clinton won such a clear and convincing democratic victory completely disproves any theorising or analysis built on any claims of any mandate for Trump.

    He has no mandate because he lost the vote.

    Yes I know right-wingers support this anti-democratic system.

    Yes, people were aware of this anti-democratic system before the election.

    The ‘electoral college’ system was put in place during the slave era in order to pacify the slave-owning state. State representation was calculated on the basis of each black man being considered three-fifths of each white man. So, although no black man could vote, because they were all slaves, the states with the highest numbers of slaves got proportionately the highest numbers of ‘electoral college’ votes.

    Trump lost the vote, decisively, but he’s going to be awarded the presidency by an anti-democratic, slave-era system.