What is happening?

[zico]

BertEEEE thought a Trump victory would be great for USA and the world - though I can't remember the reasoning!

Some interesting stuff emerging in the reporting about Trump's mindset - his goal was to simply win the Presidency, and he hasn't given a thought to "what next", thinking "no point thinking about that unless win".
When he put himself forward for President, he identified the only way to win was to find his own niche support - "forgotten whites" in his case. If it didn't work, he'd just have been eliminated early from the race for the Republican nomination, so he had nothing to lose.

He's a salesman and recognises a gap in the market (combined with Kellyanne Conway his media adviser, who's a pollster and a very smart cookie) and (I think and hope!) he just works out what his "customers" want to hear, and then says it to them - everything's awful, make America great again, build a wall, prosecute crooked corrupt Hillary etc. building massive brand loyalty really quickly, so even when he says what they don't want to hear, it's just "Oh, Donald's like that, he's only kidding"

However, he's won now, so his next goal is (probably) to go down as a succesful president. If he wants, he can just abandon most of the stuff he's said as his "customers" have already bought "brand Trump" - they can't ask for their votes back!

All of the above means that President Trump can do whatever he wants, as he never provided much detail, so he has a free hand. In a nod to his core supporters, he do things like build a couple of extra miles of wall on Mexico/USA border, get lots of media coverage for it, and then forget about it.
We should remember that Donald Trump was a left-leaning Democrat before he realised he could mount a hostile take-over of the Republicans. I'm expecting lots and lots of delegating the actual job of developing and implementing policies, with a bit of grandstanding for his fanbase from time to time.

[bungeejumper]

I remember Reagan coming to power and how that turned out.

So do I. As a candidate, Reagan had been pushed to the fore by the right-wing bible belters, who had thought he would lead America back to a forgotten age when you could be as bigoted as you liked and it would be all right because god was on your side. As a president, however, he turned out to be more sensitive, intelligent and ecumenical in his approach to just about everything. The bible-belters were furious at his betrayal.

Yes, Reagan did introduce punitive tariffs against Japanese imports - mostly of vehicles - but at least he was clear that he was only doing it so as to buy Detroit's gas-guzzler producers some time in which to clean up their acts and start making cars that could compete properly with the world. And yes, he did launch a huge government borrowing splurge, much as Trump seems bound to do now. But the difference was that Reagan also had the intelligence, the honesty and the basic dignity to raise taxes later on, so as to pay for his Keynesian moment.

That's why I rate old Ronald as one of the most savvy presidents of them all, even though I've never been anywhere near the Republican mentality. You couldn't help but respect the guy's decency.

Anybody here prepared to say the same about Donald J Trump?

BJ

[sg31]

[i]I

Anybody here prepared to say the same about Donald J Trump?

BJ

Ask me in 4 years time but I doubt decency will be the first word that will spring to mind.

[mswjr]

What is happening?
Democracy. The people have spoken, folks. That's democracy.
To be thoroughly applauded.
Unless you believe, like that old lefty Paul Flynn, that the electorate were not intelligent enough to understand that brexit thing and so, presumably, should not have been trusted with a vote.
Rather reminiscent of the aristocratic establishment's opinion of the great unwashed before universal suffrage, don't you think? Hasn't taken too long for the class warriors to fit right in there.
Or, you like it but only if you win.
Perhaps we should just leave it to our 'betters', including presumably every 'celebrity' with a twitter account.

No. Much better this way.
And the world will keep turning, good businesses will still sell good products and provide good services.
There will not, bar the odd idiotic, stupid and reprehensible outburst, be a significant increase in racism or any other ism- human nature is on the whole better than that. And the people don't, on the whole, need to be told how to behave.
But, the politicians will have to now step back, realise they have spent too long talking at and not listening to, the quite majority.

Is it a bad thing? I don't think so, but then again I trust the pervading common sense of the crowd, and I love democracy.

[tjh290633]

Rather reminiscent of the aristocratic establishment's opinion of the great unwashed before universal suffrage, don't you think? Hasn't taken too long for the class warriors to fit right in there.

Not to mention the feeling that women were too feather headed to be trusted with a vote, and even when that was allowed, the young flibberty gibbets had to be excluded.

Really Hillary lost it, pure and simple.

[Lootman]

The only constituency that Trump represents, as has been stated is white christian men.

Whites are about 60% of the population of the US (excluding Hispanics who identify as white anyway)

So white men are 30% of the electorate (ignoring non-citizens for now)

From that you need to subtract white male athiests and also gay white males who hate Trump.

I'm just guessing here but lets say that leaves 20% as the percentage of the electorate who are Christian straight white males.

You can't win an election with 20% of the voters. Not even close. So clearly that doesn't explain things and Trump has much broader support.

And in fact a majority of white males voted against Bill Clinton and Obama, yet they both won anyway, twice.

[zico]

Now the election has actually happened, interesting to look back at the debate on TMF in May and how it played out. I dug up BertEEE's reasoning and my view, when I reckoned Trump had a 70% chance of winning. More recently though, I thought he'd blown it with the groping stuff and lack of tax returns. It's clear that "normal" Republican voters held their noses and voted for their party rather than for Trump - though of course, the net effect is the same!

http://boards.fool.co.uk/donald-and-hil ... e#13368681

BertEEEs’view (back in May)

Trump at this current stage of his life is an accomplished businessman and will almost certainly run a technocratic government, surrounding himself with very skilled business people just as he does in his business empire. He will likely tone things down once he gets the Republican nomination but if elected I think he will have a very useful negotiating tactic, portraying extreme hardline views whilst in the background business like negotiations are going on to achieve his real aims. He's by far the most likely to undertake radical tax reforms which is exactly what the US is desperate for. I really wouldn't base an opinion on the sillyness you read in the media or on the salespitch that he has going on to get elected (which you seem to have confused with immaturity and ego).

My view (back in May)

Well, IMHO Trump has got about a 70% chance of becoming president. Trump has been quite brilliant in capturing the Republican nomination (while also alienating the Republican establishment), effortlessly moving from his previous liberal views to his far-out Republican views, while also gaining a reputation for being someone who isn't like the flip-flopping politicians! You've just got to admire how he's come from nowhere, re-invented himself, and gained the Republican nomination while simultaneously alienating all the important people in the Republican party - which of course appeals to all those voters fed up with their current politicians.

I'm sure that in the next few months he'll successfully manage to change tack, and come up with new ideas to go after the extra voters he needs (while ignoring the voters he doesn't need). He'll also turn Hillary's experience against her by digging up anything she's ever done that hasn't worked out. But most of all, he looks the part of a fearless go-getting president who isn't afraid to say what he thinks, and he represents anti-establishment while Hillary will be held up as the ultimate representative of those despised establishment politicians that have angered so many americans - and she's a women to boot (there's lots of misogyny votes out there!).

[redsturgeon]

The only constituency that Trump represents, as has been stated is white christian men.

According to a CNN exit poll, The following voted for Trump

58% of whites

8% of blacks

29% of Asians

29% of Latinos

37% of Other races

On gender, the split for Trump was:

53% of males

42% of females

On income, those earning less than $50k pa voted mostly for Clinton while those earning over $50k voted mostly for Trump.

So not quite the blue colour revolt that people are talking about.

John

[mswjr]

53% of all white women voters chose Trump, 43% chose Clinton.
Majority of high earners voted for Trump, majority of low earners voted for Clinton.
Where now the line that this result is a mere aberration, a 'protest vote', perpetrated by ignorant, low paid, misogynistic white males?
There has been a change of political significance in the West and I hope the politicians can get past the denial and start to respond properly.

[RowdyReptile]

Trump did better with minority groups like hispanics, and did better with women than Romney.

I am not sure what that means.

It is awfully strange for someone that hates women so much to have hired a woman to be his final campaign manager. You know, the one that lead him to victory. Maybe it is because, although he obviously hates females, he is also practical?

I can't stand the man myself but some of the criticism is a little over the top. Then again, Trump is over the top so I guess it should be expected.

RR

[DiamondEcho]

...It is awfully strange for someone that hates women so much to have hired a woman to be his final campaign manager. You know, the one that lead him to victory. Maybe it is because, although he obviously hates females, he is also practical?

'Hates/obviously hates', really? How did you arrive at that; unless you're suggesting locker-room banter is 'hateful' as in disrespectful? But if that's the case how would you categorise a sitting president having his gong polished by a female intern in the White House. Loving, respectful?

[redsturgeon]

I think democracy and the right to protest are not mutually exclusive.

John

[DiamondEcho]

I think democracy and the right to protest are not mutually exclusive.

Yep, not even when it's 'Not in my name' virtue-signalling futility.

[brightncheerful]

So Clinton has more of the popular vote.

In UK, at the beginning of the c20 the Labour party came to power having harnesses the support of the working classes. Power struggles, at war with the elite.

In USA, the mainstream media was openly biased against a major party presidential candidate. For months on end they dumped on Trump, but it didn’t work. Never before has a major party presidential candidate faced a civil war in his own party on the eve of the election. A whole host of big names in the Republican Party announced that they would not vote for Trump, but it didn’t work. In USA, Trump had to beat the Bushes and the Clintons, the Republicans and the Democrats, Hollywood and the mainstream media, the pollsters and the pundits, the never-Trumpers and the billionaire donors, Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, Beyonce, George Clooney, the forces of globalism, elitism and political correctness, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and Barack Obama. In short, Donald Trump took on the entire American political universe and he won.

Trump's achievement is having beaten the socialists and wooly-minded liberals at their own game.

I reckon that the lesson here is that when you put your mind to something and against all odds persevere regardless you can do it. It would be an inspiration to us all, were it not for the socialists telling us it's not!

[bungeejumper]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cwzo_g6VEAAUi81.jpg

Couldn't have put it more succinctly.

[swill453]

As ever, the apathetic can take (most of) the blame. Less than 60 million voted for each of Clinton and Trump. 103 million eligible voters didn't vote.

Scott.

[redsturgeon]

I find it interesting that when only 158 of our chosen representatives actually favour Brexit but the plebiscite narrowly wish to leave the EU, remainers are told to "suck it up" and shut up.

However when the plebiscite in the US narrowly decide they would like Clinton as their new president they are told to "suck it up" "shut up" and support Trump as their new leader.

John

[Vision25]

So Clinton has more of the popular vote.

The only constituency that Trump represents, as has been stated is white christian men.

This is incorrect.

More white women voted Trump than Clinton by 53/47%

Trump has the white person constituency.

Interestingly only 4% of black women voted for Trump, is this because most black women are dependent on the taxpayer?

Vision25

[Vision25]

As ever, the apathetic can take (most of) the blame. Less than 60 million voted for each of Clinton and Trump. 103 million eligible voters didn't vote.

Scott.

This is incorrect.

They are not eligible to vote because they aren't registered.

Both main parties frequently hold voter registration drives, registration is not particularly difficult but clearly a large number of US citizens are clearly not interested.

[mswjr]

[quote="redsturgeon"]I find it interesting that when only 158 of our chosen representatives actually favour Brexit but the plebiscite narrowly wish to leave the EU, remainers are told to "suck it up" and shut up.

However when the plebiscite in the US narrowly decide they would like Clinton as their new president they are told to "suck it up" "shut up" and support Trump as their new leader.

I do think both sets of voters were intelligent enough to understand the technical rules under which they were participating.
I do hope both sets of voters are mature enough to cherish the fact they can participate in a democratic process, and accept the results.