Donald Trump

slowmart

Trumps focus will be inwards and contained within the border of the US with little interest in projecting military power unless it's in the context of ISIS.

Given the elections in France and Italy and the possibilities of more right wing governments I don't see Russia making any overt actions which would galvanise the respective electorates and let the elections play out as this will leave the internal oscillations of France and Italy and the disruption more pronounced which is in essence is in Russia's interest.

Russia will increase their geographical and ideological areas of influence

That's not even considering China and their reaction to Trumps unpredictability but they'll seek to contain him and in the words of Clinton when asked if she warned China on their human rights record replied "it's pretty hard to talk tough with your banker

And since the financial crisis, China is Europes banker as it bought sovereign debt to shore up the Euro.

Two questions arise, can the GOP diminish the potential damage Trump could inflict on existing trade deals , the nuclear deal with Iran and past "can they" the next question is , will they?

Anonymous

Pinno wrote:

finchy wrote:

Interesting - Clinton actually got 200,000 more votes than Trump.

Indeed.

Its not really that interesting.
Its not that many people in the grand scheme of things, and its not the system they (or we) use.

UKIP similarly lost out in a much bigger way didn't they?

I am probably in favour of every vote counting, but its deemed not to be the best system it seems.

rick_chasey

SecretSam wrote:

So the disenfranchised white poor have spoken. Again.

.

Not quite that simple.

bobmcstuff

Slowmart wrote:

Trumps focus will be inwards and contained within the border of the US with little interest in projecting military power unless it's in the context of ISIS.

Problem with that is the president has much more personal power in foreign policy than domestic. Which means that while he may want to focus domestically, if the houses don't work with him he might end up doing more with foreign policy - as has happened to other presidents.

ballysmate

Parallels here to the reaction of some remainers after the referendum. As evidenced on here, some remainers view Brexiters as being intellectually inferior, just as Clinton supporters view Trump,s.
So what is their reaction? Take to the streets and burn a few things, to protest the vote.

rick_chasey

Rick Chasey wrote:

SecretSam wrote:

So the disenfranchised white poor have spoken. Again.

.

Not quite that simple.

Basically the well educated vote (who the GOP get the majority share in that strata) held up better than the poor.

Would imagine that's specifically to do with a big drop in black voters who are harder to get out to vote.

Seems like the election was so ugly it put a lot of people off and only the most reliable voters got out and actually voted.


Explains the Democrat message in the final two weeks which was just "Vooote ffs"

tangled_metal

How many took to the streets and burnt things? Bet it was fewer than the white, racist males supporting Trump (the KKK membership who backed him alone would probably number more).

A few idiots on both sides do not represent the position of those voting the same way. If you want to take the minority action of those involved in that mini riot as representative then KKK views are representative of Trump's supporters. Opposite side of the same coin if you like.

Personally I feel this election was a one off. It's not easy to explain away fully. Bits are believed to be known such as exit polls and indeed any earlier polls did not consider Trump's supporters see pollsters as the enemy. They simply didn't play ball with them. The arrogance of pollsters meant they didn't fully consider this. I think Brexit was probably very similar in this.

So we're a few months off from an inwards looking POTUS who will have more power externally. Who will want to make changes to USA but will be stymied by the houses. So he'll do what every president does, go out into the wider world for an easier win. The more things change, the more they stay the same!

iPete

KingstonGraham wrote:

Carbonator wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Carbonator wrote:

They should keep their noses out of politics and just get on enjoying their privileged lives IMO.

Again, I agree with the sentiment about celebs who have no political experience.

Nice try but it's not the same thing at all.

Step up or shut up.
Trump stepped up.

It's a catchy phrase, but meaningless. No opinion may be expressed unless you stand for office. Then you can spout whatever shoot you like.

Sums up Trump to date, all catch phrase, no policy.

Have to grab a big bag of popcorn and see what happens. 48 hours ago the system was apparently rigged against him, he is now head of that system

ballysmate

Rick Chasey wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

SecretSam wrote:

So the disenfranchised white poor have spoken. Again.

.

Not quite that simple.

Basically the well educated vote (who the GOP get the majority share in that strata) held up better than the poor.

Would imagine that's specifically to do with a big drop in black voters who are harder to get out to vote.

Seems like the election was so ugly it put a lot of people off and only the most reliable voters got out and actually voted.


Explains the Democrat message in the final two weeks which was just "Vooote ffs"

Or that HC was so toxic that oeople who you would expect to support the Democrats could not hold their collective nose and vote for her.

rick_chasey

Always fun to crowbar your own agenda into stats isn't it?

Wheelspinner

Rick Chasey wrote:

Always fun to crowbar your own agenda into stats isn't it?

Given you have automatically assumed income = education, which is not necessarily true, and used "seems" and "imagine" in your stats post, I'd say you're equally guilty of agenda pushing.

Either stick to facts, or opinion, but don't get them mixed up.

rick_chasey

Wheelspinner wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Always fun to crowbar your own agenda into stats isn't it?

Given you have automatically assumed income = education, which is not necessarily true, and used "seems" and "imagine" in your stats post, I'd say you're equally guilty of agenda pushing.

Either stick to facts, or opinion, but don't get them mixed up.

In the US it's an extremely high correlation so whatever.

ballysmate

Or another interpretation of your post Rick is that black voters only voted for Obama because he was black

FocusZing

The true Trump test will be when the inevitable crisis hits. How will he respond with words and actions?

He is a guy who used to making his own tough decisions quick. In his own words "if you're going to think, think big".

bobmcstuff

Tangled Metal wrote:

How many took to the streets and burnt things? Bet it was fewer than the white, racist males supporting Trump (the KKK membership who backed him alone would probably number more).

A few idiots on both sides do not represent the position of those voting the same way. If you want to take the minority action of those involved in that mini riot as representative then KKK views are representative of Trump's supporters. Opposite side of the same coin if you like.

Personally I feel this election was a one off. It's not easy to explain away fully. Bits are believed to be known such as exit polls and indeed any earlier polls did not consider Trump's supporters see pollsters as the enemy. They simply didn't play ball with them. The arrogance of pollsters meant they didn't fully consider this. I think Brexit was probably very similar in this.

So we're a few months off from an inwards looking POTUS who will have more power externally. Who will want to make changes to USA but will be stymied by the houses. So he'll do what every president does, go out into the wider world for an easier win. The more things change, the more they stay the same!

Pollsters just conduct polls, and most of the polls showed a slim lead for Hillary so it's not really their fault people read too much into that - how are they supposed to account for that in their methodology?

I think it's the thought of what he might do in the wider world that's worrying!

bobmcstuff

Ballysmate wrote:

Parallels here to the reaction of some remainers after the referendum. As evidenced on here, some remainers view Brexiters as being intellectually inferior, just as Clinton supporters view Trump,s.
So what is their reaction? Take to the streets and burn a few things, to protest the vote.

I can understand some of the arguments for Brexit, although I thought the arguments to remain were stronger.

I can even understand some of the republican/tea party arguments.

However I really struggle to rationalise casting a vote for a man who has said some of the things Trump has said, under any circumstances. Had I been a GOP supporter I probably would have just stayed home I guess.

bompington

FocusZing wrote:

The true Trump test will be when the inevitable crisis hits. How will he respond with words and actions?

He is a guy who used to making his own tough decisions quick. In his own words "if you're going to think, think big".

Every shred of evidence we have so far would be "if you're going to think, think what's best for Donald J. Trump?"
Certainly the dodgy business dealings (tax avoidance, bankruptcy etc) and the drooling over girls would suggest a sociopathic lack of concern for anyone but himself.
Perhaps, of course, this could be an advantage - for example, he could just declare the US bankrupt and default on all the debts. Except, of course, this time it wouldn't just be thousands he was making redundant, but millions.

bobmcstuff

https://www.ft.com/content/5b109b40-a6e ... a99e2a4de6

Further striking similarities to Brexit:

They highlighted the stark divide between cosmopolitan cities and the white-dominated rural areas that had delivered Mr Trump the White House.

ballysmate

bobmcstuff wrote:

https://www.ft.com/content/5b109b40-a6ed-11e6-8898-79a99e2a4de6

Further striking similarities to Brexit:

They highlighted the stark divide between cosmopolitan cities and the white-dominated rural areas that had delivered Mr Trump the White House.

Can't access the link.

Or it could mean that the Democrats put too much faith in the 'Latino Surge' to the detriment of courting middle America.
A campaigning miscalculation.

bompington

To my mind it's one of the most worrying aspects of American (and to some extent British) politics - the polarisation that leads parties to give up on campaigning for the middle ground in favour of just trying to whip up their core support. I remember reading an interesting article (cba to look it up right now) arguing that the consequence of this was that American pols spend more time and effort trying to gerrymander their constituencies than courting the voters.
Not to mention that everything is then pushed to the extreme. Blair, Clinton (Bill) and Cameron are vilified these days but they at least attempted to appeal to as wide a range of people as possible - can we really say that our current bunch are an improvement?

bobmcstuff

Ballysmate wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

https://www.ft.com/content/5b109b40-a6ed-11e6-8898-79a99e2a4de6

Further striking similarities to Brexit:

They highlighted the stark divide between cosmopolitan cities and the white-dominated rural areas that had delivered Mr Trump the White House.

Can't access the link.

Or it could mean that the Democrats put too much faith in the 'Latino Surge' to the detriment of courting middle America.
A campaigning miscalculation.

Bit of both I think.

I think they had a similar problem to the Remain side in Brexit, in that the demographics amongst which they had the best support coincided with those least likely to vote. The supporters of Brexit and Trump both consisted of the most reliable voting demographic. So agree with Rick's point further above.

That link is specifically about the protests, but the FT has had a few other good articles (as usual). Exit polls are interesting:

bobmcstuff

Also had it pointed out that this white, less educated demographic is very much on the decline in the US as education rises and society becomes more multicultural.

So it'll be very interesting to see what happens in 4 year's time. Someone I read called it the "last gasp of the white angry male" but I think that's a bit too much as he didn't perform all that badly in other demographics, but still interesting.

rolf_f

bobmcstuff wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

https://www.ft.com/content/5b109b40-a6ed-11e6-8898-79a99e2a4de6

Further striking similarities to Brexit:

They highlighted the stark divide between cosmopolitan cities and the white-dominated rural areas that had delivered Mr Trump the White House.

Can't access the link.

Or it could mean that the Democrats put too much faith in the 'Latino Surge' to the detriment of courting middle America.
A campaigning miscalculation.

Bit of both I think.

I think they had a similar problem to the Remain side in Brexit, in that the demographics amongst which they had the best support coincided with those least likely to vote. The supporters of Brexit and Trump both consisted of the most reliable voting demographic. So agree with Rick's point further above.

That link is specifically about the protests, but the FT has had a few other good articles (as usual). Exit polls are interesting:

That plot was immediately interesting in showing that Clinton didn't do well with the white college graduates - it didn't make sense. Nor that Clinton did badly amongst the wealthier groups when logically it should be the poorer groups that were voting for Trump. Once you realise that it is down to a crash in Democrat votes rather than a rise in Trump votes it makes a lot more sense.

lostboysaint

http://www.suffolkgazette.com/business/witchfinder-general-trump/

dinyull

bompington wrote:

Cameron are vilified these days but they at least attempted to appeal to as wide a range of people as possible

Say what?

RideOnTime

Things seem to be going well....



Just for comic value...

ballysmate

Dinyull wrote:

bompington wrote:

Cameron are vilified these days but they at least attempted to appeal to as wide a range of people as possible

Say what?

To have any chance of forming a government in this country you have to appeal to a broad electorate, around the centre ground*. Sometimes it moves slightly left and sometimes slightly right. Cameron managed that.

* That was the case until Corbyn entered the fray. Now anyone right of Corbyn is a vote winner.

dinyull

Don't want to go OT, but Cameron's appeal was down to right place at the right time. Labour were a dead duck because of the recession and then Miliband's bacon sarnie eating abilities.

Had we not suffered a global recession there is not a cats chance in hell Cameron would have been elected.

mamba80

Ballysmate wrote:

Dinyull wrote:

bompington wrote:

Cameron are vilified these days but they at least attempted to appeal to as wide a range of people as possible

Say what?

To have any chance of forming a government in this country you have to appeal to a broad electorate, around the centre ground*. Sometimes it moves slightly left and sometimes slightly right. Cameron managed that.

* That was the case until Corbyn entered the fray. Now anyone right of Corbyn is a vote winner.

with only about 65% of the electorate voting, any party just has to appeal to those who are interested enough to vote..... we can all see what happens when you get some of the remaining 35% to put a X where it matters.....

i 'd not write Corbyn (or indeed another "no hoper" ) off just yet either, the centre ground of politics is increasingly seen as having failed.

ballysmate

mamba80 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Dinyull wrote:

bompington wrote:

Cameron are vilified these days but they at least attempted to appeal to as wide a range of people as possible

Say what?

To have any chance of forming a government in this country you have to appeal to a broad electorate, around the centre ground*. Sometimes it moves slightly left and sometimes slightly right. Cameron managed that.

* That was the case until Corbyn entered the fray. Now anyone right of Corbyn is a vote winner.

with only about 65% of the electorate voting, any party just has to appeal to those who are interested enough to vote..... we can all see what happens when you get some of the remaining 35% to put a X where it matters.....

i 'd not write Corbyn (or indeed another "no hoper" ) off just yet either, the centre ground of politics is increasingly seen as having failed.

May have a point. Seems world politics is moving right not left though.