Trumps Beginning of the end

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yup, plenty of redneck support for Trump around Alabama and Wyoming for instance.
Trump has 2020 nailed on unless the Dems can find a worthy candidate to challenge the Donald.
I can't stand the guy, but the Yanks voted for him. I wonder how many were a backlash against Obama's foreign policies.

Yes Wyoming and Alabama have been solidly Republican for fifty years. Voting 2-1 Republican to Democrat since the 1960's

The Democrats have let those two States badly down, but nothing will get them to select a Democrat President.

You're right about Obama's 25,000 missile strikes a year in the Middle East being a tad unpopular.

But isn't another problem that Obama was an articulate, tall, charming, fit,popular bloke ? And she wasn't?

Here's the New Yorker musing on the subject: Hillary Clinton Is No Obama


Lemann-Clinton-is-No-Obama.jpg



.
 
It's easy to kid yourself that "people you hate" swung an election against you. Could be "Old White Guys" or "Young Black Ex-Prrisoners." The reality is that US elections are split pretty much 50 / 50. What swings them is key marginals.

Who mentioned hating anyone ??

However, the fact remains that the Trump campaign's rhetoric was highly divisive but successfully mobilised the white / Christian / NRA / racist / fearful votes that had often disengaged from previous presidential campaigns. More worryingly, this support seems to be holding up despite a list of "indiscretions" that would have ended the career of any conventional politician.


I hate old white people as much as you. But the hysterical supporters of a political party aren't what gets an election decided. It's the voters.

I don't hate old white people and no one mentioned hysteria.


You're conning yourself to think that Hillary didn't have crucial flaws:

Who said she didn't ?
 
Who mentioned hating anyone ??
However, the fact remains that the Trump campaign's rhetoric was highly divisive but successfully mobilised the white / Christian / NRA / racist / fearful votes that had often disengaged from previous presidential campaigns. More worryingly, this support seems to be holding up despite a list of "indiscretions" that would have ended the career of any conventional politician.
I don't hate old white people and no one mentioned hysteria.
Who said she didn't ?

It was I who mentioned people hating others. (Look further up this thread and at Democrat reactions to their own failure in 2016 and forward to 2020.) They hate others for their own (Democrat) personal mistakes and incompetence.

Democrats hate old white people, and make snide comments about the half of America who are Republicans being called "Bubba."

Likewise I mentioned hysteria in describing the behaviour of the enthusiasts who attend political conventions, on both sides.

By refusing to acknowledge that Hillary didn't have crucial fatal flaws, you're suggesting that Trump's success was only due to him being prepared to canvass Bubba et al. Realistically it was Hillary's failure to be half the man that Obama was, that stopped Democrats from going out and voting for her in the key marginal states.

Why is it important? Because unless the Democrats realise what they did wrong, they won't understand what it takes to be re-elected. Putting geriatric 70+ year old candidates up for selection is a poor start.

It would be a shame to have to wait another decade until the latest Kennedy is ready to run for the Presidency, to fix these Democrat flaws by displaying another traditional Democrat flaw - the belief in "Camelot."

.

.
 
You could be forgiven for thinking that left-wing political parties will always win in elections, because their economic policies cater for the masses.

But the 'masses' are no fools, and they want to see that the people who proclaim to look after them are in fact up to the job.

This can actually make the task easier for their right wing opponents... because all they need do is discredit the left-wing candidate and his/her administration.

Granted, this is an over-simplification of a complex issue, but when it comes to neck-to-neck results it can make all the difference.
 
Why is it important? Because unless the Democrats realise what they did wrong, they won't understand what it takes to be re-elected. Putting geriatric 70+ year old candidates up for selection is a poor start.
I completely agree. The default position for the US Democrat politicians is to blame the electorate for not voting for them, or imply that those who vote(d) for their opponents are in some way "defective". They are barking up the wrong tree, and there are parallels to this much closer to home. Unless and until they grasp the fairly obvious fact that it is they who have got it wrong and take corrective action, they are doomed to continue losing.
 
Democrats hate old white people, and make snide comments about the half of America who are Republicans being called "Bubba."

They don't hate them. As you have pointed out, far too many of their current crop of potential candidates fit into this very category as do many of their voters.


By refusing to acknowledge that Hillary didn't have crucial fatal flaws, you're suggesting that Trump's success was only due to him being prepared to canvass Bubba et al. Realistically it was Hillary's failure to be half the man that Obama was, that stopped Democrats from going out and voting for her in the key marginal states.

For the second time, who is suggesting that Hillary doesn't have flaws or that Trump's victory was solely due to his appeal to that particular demographic ? However, she did manage to win more votes than Trump and a critical part of his narrow victory was due to his appeal to that same group who may have previously been expected to vote Democrat:

Five reasons Donald Trump won

"Those working-class white people, particularly ones without college education - men and women - deserted the party in droves. Rural voters turned out in high numbers, as the Americans who felt overlooked by the establishment and left behind by the coastal elite made their voices heard."

So although they may not all be called Bubba, the trend shows them to be disproportionally less privileged, less well informed and therefore more likely to be susceptible to Trump's populist mantra due to their higher levels of disaffection.


Why is it important? Because unless the Democrats realise what they did wrong, they won't understand what it takes to be re-elected. Putting geriatric 70+ year old candidates up for selection is a poor start.

It would be a shame to have to wait another decade until the latest Kennedy is ready to run for the Presidency, to fix these Democrat flaws by displaying another traditional Democrat flaw - the belief in "Camelot."

The Republicans have made many mistakes and have at least as many flaws. However, they have found a winning formula in Teflon Don and it may well work for them a second time. But after that, it is likely that they'll have to fight a conventional campaign and their own flaws and problems will be held up to the sort of scrutiny that just doesn't seem to affect the current incumbent. The problem is far from being solely a Democratic one.

Oh, and Trump is 73 btw.
 
The Republicans have made many mistakes and have at least as many flaws. However, they have found a winning formula in Teflon Don and it may well work for them a second time. But after that, it is likely that they'll have to fight a conventional campaign and their own flaws and problems will be held up to the sort of scrutiny that just doesn't seem to affect the current incumbent. The problem is far from being solely a Democratic one.

.

Or the replacement for DT plays the populist card to even greater effect.
 
I hate to say it but , the Dems literally do not have anyone capable of beating DT.

He does everything in plain sight from talking to the Ukrainians about dirt on the Bidens, to having the government pay his business to use the Turnberry hotel. He simply cans any opposition.
 
I hate to say it but , the Dems literally do not have anyone capable of beating DT.

He does everything in plain sight from talking to the Ukrainians about dirt on the Bidens, to having the government pay his business to use the Turnberry hotel. He simply cans any opposition.

Well, he did say before the elections that he could shoot someone, and his popularity will keep rising in the polls. I guess he was right.
 
Is it sustainable though?
Populists like Trump offer simple solutions to complex problems. A simple solution should liberate results in a short timescale then. When they don't appear - what then? Is that the point he/they change the constitution so they can be re-elected any amount of times and and start rigging elections to ensure that they are?
 
Oh, and Trump is 73 btw.

Yes, Trump is 73 and will be 74 when re-elected.

When Democrats have won, they did it by fielding young charismatic candidates: Obama: 47, Bill 46, JFK 43,

Republicans are usually older, for sure. Ronnie was 69, George H 64, Dwight 62

The point was about the Democrats bitching between themselves between three candidates who will be in their Seventies,

Democrats are seriously considering asking young Democrat voters to vote for Bernie, a man who will be 79, if he won, theoretically holding it until the age of 87.
 
Democrats are seriously considering asking young Democrat voters to vote for Bernie, a man who will be 79, if he won, theoretically holding it until the age of 87.

Absolutely no reason they shouldn't (outwith considering mortality, and death can befall anyone of any age anytime). If the policies are appealing to younger voters they won't give a stuff the proposer's age - why would they? - it's a prejudice as futile as racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.

The bigger problem is that 'end days of capitalism' can be said out loud but policies that offer an alternative are either not fully formed and/or not yet of a form that is immune to being crucified at birth as 'communism'. Labour face the same problem here. As will most Western countries in due course.
That populism is gaining traction around the globe is proof enough of capitalism's failure to equitably provide for all. If the left doesn't get its act together to propose a viable alternative (that survives the onslaught of big corporate dollars' attempts to discredit it) then the trend to populist leaders will endure.
 
Absolutely no reason they shouldn't (outwith considering mortality, and death can befall anyone of any age anytime). If the policies are appealing to younger voters they won't give a stuff the proposer's age - why would they? - it's a prejudice as futile as racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.

Using standard life expectancy, the risk of a 70 year old American dying within the next eight years is 25%. That's higher than for younger people.

Good argument about younger voters "not giving a stuff." So why were the Democrats who got elected, all in their forties? A whole generation younger: Obama, Bill, and JFK.

How many 76 year olds do you know who are decision-making 14 hour days, six days a week, under the glare of continual journalistic and photographic scrutiny ?

This is not the Queen or Nelson Mandela, acting as a ceremonial Head of State. This is a 14 hour a day, six days a week, conflict management, Executive role


.
 
Using standard life expectancy, the risk of a 70 year old American dying within the next eight years is 25%. That's higher than for younger people.

Good argument about younger voters "not giving a stuff." So why did they choose Obama, Bill, and JFK ? All firmly under 50.

Because their policies were preferred over the ones offered by the Republicans. What has age got to do with that?

So, how many 76 year olds do you know who are decision-making 14 hour days, six days a week, under the glare of continual journalistic and photographic scrutiny ?

This is not the Queen or Nelson Mandela, acting as a ceremonial Head of State. This is a 14 hour a day, six days a week, Executive role
.

If they didn't feel up to the challenge then they'd decline. The reverse is obviously the case for what is but a handful of people from the world's population.
Maybe the world will function better when politicians are elected on the suitability of their policies - and nothing else.
 
Strange thread...am I the first to mention Ukraine...it's all consuming elsewhere?
 
Obama went grey during his two terms of office and often looked under pressure. :( The burden of office is a heavy one if you take the job seriously. :eek: TRUMP on the other has breezed through his tenure so far because as befits a narcissist he doesn't give a F***. Policy determined by a quick glance at Fox News and announced to the world via a couple of tweets overnight leaving his band of White House acolytes to clarify what he was "really saying" afterwards.- EASY :rolleyes:
 
Because their policies were preferred over the ones offered by the Republicans. What has age got to do with that?

Other explanations are popular, especially for their charismatic disproportionately large electoral turnout by women, the young, and ethnic minorities.

But you are right: the policies of young men in their 40's are likely to be more popular and in tune with modern values than those of elderly politicians in their 70's contemplating their legacy after a likely death within the decade.

image3085176g.jpg
 
Other explanations are popular, especially for their charismatic disproportionately large electoral turnout by women, the young, and ethnic minorities.

73 year old Trump sold himself on his version of 'charisma'.

But you are right: the policies of young men in their 40's are likely to be more popular and in tune with modern values than those of elderly politicians in their 70's contemplating their legacy after a likely death within the decade.

The 'modern values' of which you speak - haven't arrived yet. Anyone's guess who delivers them - president or people.
Arguably, given we are re-living the 1930s, an older head with a sense of history is possibly more in tune with modern times.

The next Democrat leader can be any age - it doesn't matter. Their policies and their ability to convince the electorate they can deliver benefits from the policies are what matters.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom