This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
26
2
3
11
4
2
In reply to thepeaks:
Corbyn has minus levels of charisma. Trump, much as he's a horrendous person, has some.
Corbyn has minus levels of charisma. Trump, much as he's a horrendous person, has some.
8
13
In reply to thepeaks:
Pollsters have, in the UK GE, Brexit and now the US Election, predicted results further "left" than reality. The silent "conservative" vote appears to be hear to stay. I'm not sure that'll help JC?
Pollsters have, in the UK GE, Brexit and now the US Election, predicted results further "left" than reality. The silent "conservative" vote appears to be hear to stay. I'm not sure that'll help JC?
8
In reply to thepeaks:
No, he wasn't born in the USA.
> I would have said not. But these are strange times.
No, he wasn't born in the USA.
7
In reply to galpinos:
I'm not sure whether the error is further to the left or closer to the centre. Certainly in the case of Jeremy Corbin's election as leader of the Labour Party the conventional wisdom was closer to the centre than the reality.
I'm not sure whether the error is further to the left or closer to the centre. Certainly in the case of Jeremy Corbin's election as leader of the Labour Party the conventional wisdom was closer to the centre than the reality.
1
7
12
In reply to thepeaks:
I don't think it's a foregone that he's going to stand, is it?
Possibly McDonnell, especially as he has made it 'absolutely clear' that he will never stand as leader.
I don't think it's a foregone that he's going to stand, is it?
Possibly McDonnell, especially as he has made it 'absolutely clear' that he will never stand as leader.
2
1
9
1
In reply to thepeaks:
Not if you get elected on the number of lies you tell.
And not only "could" but he SHOULD be, unless of course you like you politicians a bit liey
Not if you get elected on the number of lies you tell.
And not only "could" but he SHOULD be, unless of course you like you politicians a bit liey
Post edited at 12:41
7
6
In reply to thepeaks:
What we are seeing is that despite all the beliefs fondly held by pink and fluffy guardianistas (like me), those who feel alienated, impoverished and disenfranchised are as likely to turn to the Right as to the Left. Corbyn, with his liberal pro-immigration attitude, 'why can't we all be friends' platitudes and unconvincing defence of business doesn't seem likely to convince very many that the Left have got more plausible solutions than the snake oil salesmen of the Right, who now seem to be able to say anything they like without ever being embarrassed at being caught telling downright lies.
This is what happened in Germany and Italy in the 30s, when the fascists clearly competed for many of the same constituents as the Left; and won.
And before anyone mindlessly starts shouting Godwin, I think the parallels between the current zeitgeist and the 30s are too compelling to ignore. Trump and Putin - these aren't good guys, and they're not rational either.
What we are seeing is that despite all the beliefs fondly held by pink and fluffy guardianistas (like me), those who feel alienated, impoverished and disenfranchised are as likely to turn to the Right as to the Left. Corbyn, with his liberal pro-immigration attitude, 'why can't we all be friends' platitudes and unconvincing defence of business doesn't seem likely to convince very many that the Left have got more plausible solutions than the snake oil salesmen of the Right, who now seem to be able to say anything they like without ever being embarrassed at being caught telling downright lies.
This is what happened in Germany and Italy in the 30s, when the fascists clearly competed for many of the same constituents as the Left; and won.
And before anyone mindlessly starts shouting Godwin, I think the parallels between the current zeitgeist and the 30s are too compelling to ignore. Trump and Putin - these aren't good guys, and they're not rational either.
39
6
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
But possibly stop appointing them to the shadow cabinet having done so.
> He needs to start groping women NOW.
But possibly stop appointing them to the shadow cabinet having done so.
7
4
In reply to Simon4:
I'm not sure that two adults having a consensual sexual relationship many years ago - and remaining friends - is comparable with groping unwilling and resisting strangers at every opportunity but both involve sex, so I suppose you're right.
I'm not sure that two adults having a consensual sexual relationship many years ago - and remaining friends - is comparable with groping unwilling and resisting strangers at every opportunity but both involve sex, so I suppose you're right.
12
2
In reply to MG:
If it was a choice between Farage and Corbyn, I would have to back the trouser press, albeit reluctantly.
> Wrong way. More like could Farage be elected?
If it was a choice between Farage and Corbyn, I would have to back the trouser press, albeit reluctantly.
1
In reply to thepeaks:
I doubt it, as others have already said the polls are always off the mark because they are too left weighting, as we have seen with this election and the UK general election. And not just by a small amount but by significant margins, with our GE everyone was forecasting a tie, the idea of a majority forming seemed absurd, but sure enough a majority victory happened, and now with the USA election, only last week polls were predicting a 5 point+ lead for Hillary, it seemed almost in the bag, again she lost and not by a narrow margin.
So for Corbyn it would seem that even his dismal poll ratings may be an underestimation of how bad he's doing really. Labour could be facing a wipe out close in scale to the Lib Dems this time around.
I doubt it, as others have already said the polls are always off the mark because they are too left weighting, as we have seen with this election and the UK general election. And not just by a small amount but by significant margins, with our GE everyone was forecasting a tie, the idea of a majority forming seemed absurd, but sure enough a majority victory happened, and now with the USA election, only last week polls were predicting a 5 point+ lead for Hillary, it seemed almost in the bag, again she lost and not by a narrow margin.
So for Corbyn it would seem that even his dismal poll ratings may be an underestimation of how bad he's doing really. Labour could be facing a wipe out close in scale to the Lib Dems this time around.
5
2
3
1
1
1
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
You would need to be fairly badly informed not to know that is true. It is, after all, a traditional Right trick to promise those alienated people that they can solve their problems. There does seem to be a new, and rather clever, trick of blaming the "elite", "experts" and "professional politicians" whilst claiming not to be such themselves (ok the second one is often a pass).
I would say a far greater problem for the left are the "center" group who are anything but on free markets and globalisation which is whats hitting those groups the hardest. Playing by the rules when no one else does is somewhat dangerous.
> What we are seeing is that despite all the beliefs fondly held by pink and fluffy guardianistas (like me), those who feel alienated, impoverished and disenfranchised are as likely to turn to the Right as to the Left.
You would need to be fairly badly informed not to know that is true. It is, after all, a traditional Right trick to promise those alienated people that they can solve their problems. There does seem to be a new, and rather clever, trick of blaming the "elite", "experts" and "professional politicians" whilst claiming not to be such themselves (ok the second one is often a pass).
I would say a far greater problem for the left are the "center" group who are anything but on free markets and globalisation which is whats hitting those groups the hardest. Playing by the rules when no one else does is somewhat dangerous.
6
2
6
2
In reply to krikoman:
It's easy to claim that everything you say is the truth if you know that you are unlikely to get elected and your strategy is to obfuscate on the tricky issues.
> Not if you get elected on the number of lies you tell.
> And not only "could" but he SHOULD be, unless of course you like you politicians a bit liey
It's easy to claim that everything you say is the truth if you know that you are unlikely to get elected and your strategy is to obfuscate on the tricky issues.
1
In reply to thepeaks:
Well the inevitable happened as I hoped it wouldn’t but feared it would. This is Brexit write large and it is worth considering the comparisons.
1. Both campaigns were big on insults and fear mongering and low on facts. You can blame the media if you will but it is there.
2. Both electorate were disillusioned with the establishment and main stream politics.
3. The polls were wrong in both cases
4. The main parties grossly under estimated the mood of the people
5. Both results rode in on the back of economic downturns
This is the second warning we have had that sound bite, slurring the opposition and dismissing the views of the electorate doesn’t work. Sure Trump joined in the slanging but really what did he have to lose? I have seen so much in the past year of what terrible things would happen if we left Europe or how horrible it would be if Trump got in and did anybody listen? No. I am fed up of politicians telling me what would go wrong if I didn’t vote for them, I am fed up with politicians telling me what a disaster it would be if I voted for the opposition (be it Brexit, Trump of Corbyn, oh yes Jeremy rides the wave of dissatisfaction). I want politicians to tell me how they aim to make things better, to put forward their arguments and trust in my intelligence to understand them. I want to feel that my politicians are being honest with me and that they listen and understand my (and societies) problems even if we don’t agree about how to solve them.
And we really must as a whole stop just dismissing those we don’t agree with and calling them idiots or worse. Find arguments to justify what you believe, listen to their arguments and find arguments that demonstrate where you feel that they are wrong. If we don’t engage in real debates, if we just put up barriers and sit in our echo chambers then will sleep walk into a world that we don’t like.
Well the inevitable happened as I hoped it wouldn’t but feared it would. This is Brexit write large and it is worth considering the comparisons.
1. Both campaigns were big on insults and fear mongering and low on facts. You can blame the media if you will but it is there.
2. Both electorate were disillusioned with the establishment and main stream politics.
3. The polls were wrong in both cases
4. The main parties grossly under estimated the mood of the people
5. Both results rode in on the back of economic downturns
This is the second warning we have had that sound bite, slurring the opposition and dismissing the views of the electorate doesn’t work. Sure Trump joined in the slanging but really what did he have to lose? I have seen so much in the past year of what terrible things would happen if we left Europe or how horrible it would be if Trump got in and did anybody listen? No. I am fed up of politicians telling me what would go wrong if I didn’t vote for them, I am fed up with politicians telling me what a disaster it would be if I voted for the opposition (be it Brexit, Trump of Corbyn, oh yes Jeremy rides the wave of dissatisfaction). I want politicians to tell me how they aim to make things better, to put forward their arguments and trust in my intelligence to understand them. I want to feel that my politicians are being honest with me and that they listen and understand my (and societies) problems even if we don’t agree about how to solve them.
And we really must as a whole stop just dismissing those we don’t agree with and calling them idiots or worse. Find arguments to justify what you believe, listen to their arguments and find arguments that demonstrate where you feel that they are wrong. If we don’t engage in real debates, if we just put up barriers and sit in our echo chambers then will sleep walk into a world that we don’t like.
17
2
In reply to JayPee630:
So you will only vote for someone if they show a certain level of charisma? I think that has been tried in the past and it didn't work out to well
So you will only vote for someone if they show a certain level of charisma? I think that has been tried in the past and it didn't work out to well
2
1
1
4
4
In reply to Bob Hughes:
I think it has more to do with shaking up the status quo and breaking out of an established pattern. In this context UKIP has probably got the best chance of election. So far Labour has failed to appreciate why Corbyn was elected as leader. Until they figure that out they are dead in the water
I think it has more to do with shaking up the status quo and breaking out of an established pattern. In this context UKIP has probably got the best chance of election. So far Labour has failed to appreciate why Corbyn was elected as leader. Until they figure that out they are dead in the water
3
In reply to cragtaff:
When you've lived as long as I have you will realise that in politics nothing is certain and anything is possible..........
> Not a hope in hell!
When you've lived as long as I have you will realise that in politics nothing is certain and anything is possible..........
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
Well it worked for Trump.
Joined in isnt really the right phrase. His entire campaign was based around insults, slurring the opposition and then simply declaring he was the best.
Again, Trumps campaign did anything but that. If anything it shows that promising the earth whilst finding some random group to blame is the best policy. Not reasoned arguments.
Of course there are times when saying someone is an idiot is appropriate. For example saw one supporter of Trump saying that Clinton would have made the USA socialist. That level of wrongness is difficult to attribute to anything but stupidity.
> This is the second warning we have had that sound bite, slurring the opposition and dismissing the views of the electorate doesn’t work.
Well it worked for Trump.
> Sure Trump joined in the slanging but really what did he have to lose?
Joined in isnt really the right phrase. His entire campaign was based around insults, slurring the opposition and then simply declaring he was the best.
> I want politicians to tell me how they aim to make things better, to put forward their arguments and trust in my intelligence to understand them.
Again, Trumps campaign did anything but that. If anything it shows that promising the earth whilst finding some random group to blame is the best policy. Not reasoned arguments.
> And we really must as a whole stop just dismissing those we don’t agree with and calling them idiots or worse.
Of course there are times when saying someone is an idiot is appropriate. For example saw one supporter of Trump saying that Clinton would have made the USA socialist. That level of wrongness is difficult to attribute to anything but stupidity.
7
2
In reply to KevinD:
Exactly and no body had the nuance to properly call him out on it.
The question isn't how Trump won but why he won on those terms. How do we reverse the trend of factless politics and why do the majority of people believe in blatant lies?
May be they didn't believe the lies but just wanted to kick off at the establishment?
If no lessons are learned from this it will happen again
Incidently I would attribute your idiot example to ignorance not stupidity.
Exactly and no body had the nuance to properly call him out on it.
The question isn't how Trump won but why he won on those terms. How do we reverse the trend of factless politics and why do the majority of people believe in blatant lies?
May be they didn't believe the lies but just wanted to kick off at the establishment?
If no lessons are learned from this it will happen again
Incidently I would attribute your idiot example to ignorance not stupidity.
Post edited at 17:33
1
In reply to krikoman:
Think most folks would prefer to have Mayhem at the helm directing our unsinkable ship towards a Titanic success..
> And not only "could" but he SHOULD be, unless of course you like you politicians a bit liey
Think most folks would prefer to have Mayhem at the helm directing our unsinkable ship towards a Titanic success..
2
1
In reply to thepeaks:
Corbyn can't win without taking a lot of votes from the tories, can't think many tories will fancy changing to corbyn
Corbyn can't win without taking a lot of votes from the tories, can't think many tories will fancy changing to corbyn
5
2
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
i dunno. There comes a point where the excuse of ignorance reaches its limits. To think someone as right wing as Clinton is socialist is so far gone its difficult to think how anyone could get to it. Someone has to do their best to avoid any sensible education to get to that.
> Incidently I would attribute your idiot example to ignorance not stupidity.
i dunno. There comes a point where the excuse of ignorance reaches its limits. To think someone as right wing as Clinton is socialist is so far gone its difficult to think how anyone could get to it. Someone has to do their best to avoid any sensible education to get to that.
1
1
In reply to thepeaks:
No.
I think the swing to the right seems to be pretty global. Centre-left governments can be blamed for either causing or not reversing an enormous economic down-turn through which people have lost their jobs and seen their living standards decline. There's no reason to believe that centre left (or of course far left) policies can do much in the face of that. Obama didn't clean up the mess America was in in 2008, there's no credible centre-left option in the UK and I don't know enough about other countries, but no one seems to have risen triumphantly out of the mire by spending a bit more on public services and promoting liberal values. What people seem to see as the results of modern liberal values are too many immigrants and a threat of Islamic terrorism. These are emotionally powerful things, and if you want to get votes, you appeal to these fears. It works, the evidence is plain.
Of course the high levels of immigration are a result of economic growth: people move to find work, and where people's expectations are high because of rapid growth, there will be space of immigrants at the bottom end of the labour market (indeed, throughout the labour market). Then when the crash happens, you're left with no jobs and a country full of foreigners. That's capitalism and globalisation for you, hardly forces that the right has been keen on keeping at bay. And the threat of Islamic terrorism has been exacerbated rather than quelled by right-wing foreign policy.
The left has no answers to offer, because there no answers. What we are experiencing is just the inexorable playing out of the system we've created. It goes in booms and busts, and people move about, and people blame those who aren't like them when they're in trouble. It's just how it is.
The right says "we'll build a wall! we'll stop them coming! we'll bomb the baddies!" and these, at the most superficial level sound like solutions. But of course they're completely empty promises and will do far more harm than good to those who voted for these awful, economically destructive, isolationist policies.
It'll be fascinating to see what happens when the "anti-establishment" right-wingers run the world's biggest economies into the ground. I think we are on the cusp of some big changes to the global pecking order.
No.
I think the swing to the right seems to be pretty global. Centre-left governments can be blamed for either causing or not reversing an enormous economic down-turn through which people have lost their jobs and seen their living standards decline. There's no reason to believe that centre left (or of course far left) policies can do much in the face of that. Obama didn't clean up the mess America was in in 2008, there's no credible centre-left option in the UK and I don't know enough about other countries, but no one seems to have risen triumphantly out of the mire by spending a bit more on public services and promoting liberal values. What people seem to see as the results of modern liberal values are too many immigrants and a threat of Islamic terrorism. These are emotionally powerful things, and if you want to get votes, you appeal to these fears. It works, the evidence is plain.
Of course the high levels of immigration are a result of economic growth: people move to find work, and where people's expectations are high because of rapid growth, there will be space of immigrants at the bottom end of the labour market (indeed, throughout the labour market). Then when the crash happens, you're left with no jobs and a country full of foreigners. That's capitalism and globalisation for you, hardly forces that the right has been keen on keeping at bay. And the threat of Islamic terrorism has been exacerbated rather than quelled by right-wing foreign policy.
The left has no answers to offer, because there no answers. What we are experiencing is just the inexorable playing out of the system we've created. It goes in booms and busts, and people move about, and people blame those who aren't like them when they're in trouble. It's just how it is.
The right says "we'll build a wall! we'll stop them coming! we'll bomb the baddies!" and these, at the most superficial level sound like solutions. But of course they're completely empty promises and will do far more harm than good to those who voted for these awful, economically destructive, isolationist policies.
It'll be fascinating to see what happens when the "anti-establishment" right-wingers run the world's biggest economies into the ground. I think we are on the cusp of some big changes to the global pecking order.
Post edited at 22:53
10
3
In reply to thepeaks:
Everybody is going on about a swing to the right. Think about this: we are off that scale. Trump is not right wing or left, he is in fact an anarchist. And I suppose anarchism has its own political spectrum. He is not as far towards utter nihilism as the much mentioned Alt right who just want to smash everything up for a laugh. He is more like a gangster anarchist who uses politics solely for his own self aggrandisement.
Everybody is going on about a swing to the right. Think about this: we are off that scale. Trump is not right wing or left, he is in fact an anarchist. And I suppose anarchism has its own political spectrum. He is not as far towards utter nihilism as the much mentioned Alt right who just want to smash everything up for a laugh. He is more like a gangster anarchist who uses politics solely for his own self aggrandisement.
3
1
In reply to Pete Pozman:
This is true. However, it is also true that his policies are just plain bog-standard right-wing ideology: social conservatism and laissez-faire capitalism.
> He is more like a gangster anarchist who uses politics solely for his own self aggrandisement.
This is true. However, it is also true that his policies are just plain bog-standard right-wing ideology: social conservatism and laissez-faire capitalism.
3
1
1
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
indeed, the USA is a nation of extremes, religious wackos are not exactly thin on the ground, anti abortion and those who think a women's role is at home weren't ever voting for Hillary. Then you have the gun tooters, red necks etc.. who think every person from overseas is either after their job or their life. Plenty in the USA think Obama is muslim born overseas... and trump knew exactly how to play up to all these people.
There was a guy on the news yesterday said that he thought Hillary had aids, caught from Bill who had been socialising with magic Johnson. Another thought Obama was really a muslim terrorist.
No matter how mad we might think a fanatical Farage, Boris, Sturgeon etc.. supporter is, they are mere amateurs compared to the hard core Trump followers.
> We are talking America here. Sensible education may be a bit thin on the ground
indeed, the USA is a nation of extremes, religious wackos are not exactly thin on the ground, anti abortion and those who think a women's role is at home weren't ever voting for Hillary. Then you have the gun tooters, red necks etc.. who think every person from overseas is either after their job or their life. Plenty in the USA think Obama is muslim born overseas... and trump knew exactly how to play up to all these people.
There was a guy on the news yesterday said that he thought Hillary had aids, caught from Bill who had been socialising with magic Johnson. Another thought Obama was really a muslim terrorist.
No matter how mad we might think a fanatical Farage, Boris, Sturgeon etc.. supporter is, they are mere amateurs compared to the hard core Trump followers.
4
In reply to KevinD:
I've corrected it for you. I think you'll find it's mainly the left and labour who claim to be representing the working man, after having enjoy a privileged education and are currently funding their own kids privileged education or buy a house at taxpayers expense in the right school catchment.
The are a few exceptions, Ashdown being one, privately schooled but sent his kids to a Comp. The same can't be said of the standards of most other MPs or Lords & Ladies.
> You would need to be fairly badly informed not to know that is true. It is, after all, a traditional 'Left' trick to promise those alienated people that they can solve their problems. There does seem to be a new, and rather clever, trick of blaming the "elite", "experts" and "professional politicians" whilst claiming not to be such themselves (ok the second one is often a pass).
I've corrected it for you. I think you'll find it's mainly the left and labour who claim to be representing the working man, after having enjoy a privileged education and are currently funding their own kids privileged education or buy a house at taxpayers expense in the right school catchment.
The are a few exceptions, Ashdown being one, privately schooled but sent his kids to a Comp. The same can't be said of the standards of most other MPs or Lords & Ladies.
2
2
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Hardly, he is racist and a misogynist. Tarrif barriers are the antithesis of laissez-faire capitalism.
> However, it is also true that his policies are just plain bog-standard right-wing ideology: social conservatism and laissez-faire capitalism.
Hardly, he is racist and a misogynist. Tarrif barriers are the antithesis of laissez-faire capitalism.
1
In reply to summo:
No you really havent. Good to see you trotting out the normal confused bollocks though. I was unaware that there was anything saying that once you had a certain level of education you werent allowed to consider those less fortunate? I am guessing its some confused idea melding the left with communism
> I've corrected it for you.
No you really havent. Good to see you trotting out the normal confused bollocks though. I was unaware that there was anything saying that once you had a certain level of education you werent allowed to consider those less fortunate? I am guessing its some confused idea melding the left with communism
3
2
In reply to Jon Stewart:
I think it is possible to overdo the swing-to-the-right storyline in the US. Trump got fewer votes than Romney in 2012 and Clinton won the popular vote. A model based on fundamentals (i.e. disregarding the candidates) predicted a narrow win for the Republicans based on the economy, Obama approval ratings, the fact that the democrats were seeking a 3rd term and a few other reliable predictors. Based on that Trump slightly underperformed (by losing the popular vote). Even the electoral college votes could have looked very different if Hillary had won just one or two more states (Florida, Wisconsin possibly).
As with Brexit, there seems to be a significant dividing line between those with University education (college in the US) and those without. Before yesterday, i thought this was because you have a set off people who are well qualified and feel well equipped to take on the forces of globalization and another group who feel vulnerable in the face of globalization. But now i'm not so sure. Now i think it is more because, during the Great Moderation when everything seemed to be going just fine and Communism was well and truly buried and, with it, by implication Socialism, the left forgot how to talk to those without further education. The group we would previously have called the working classes.
It is striking in the US election that Trump won the hearts of the working man on a set of policies that will withdraw health insurance from the poorest 21 million people in the country. At one point he was promising tax cuts to the tune of 21 trillion dollars - mostly for the rich. His revised plan, less ambitious, still promise big tax cuts for the rich.
Clinton on the other hand, had no engagement with the white working classes even though based on policies she really should have done. But she sold her ideas as ways to help minorities - which is catnip to educated, urban liberals but repellent to the rural, white working classes.
So I think the left does have answers but since the decline of unionism and socialism has been unable to find a new language to communicate them to white working classes.
I think it is possible to overdo the swing-to-the-right storyline in the US. Trump got fewer votes than Romney in 2012 and Clinton won the popular vote. A model based on fundamentals (i.e. disregarding the candidates) predicted a narrow win for the Republicans based on the economy, Obama approval ratings, the fact that the democrats were seeking a 3rd term and a few other reliable predictors. Based on that Trump slightly underperformed (by losing the popular vote). Even the electoral college votes could have looked very different if Hillary had won just one or two more states (Florida, Wisconsin possibly).
As with Brexit, there seems to be a significant dividing line between those with University education (college in the US) and those without. Before yesterday, i thought this was because you have a set off people who are well qualified and feel well equipped to take on the forces of globalization and another group who feel vulnerable in the face of globalization. But now i'm not so sure. Now i think it is more because, during the Great Moderation when everything seemed to be going just fine and Communism was well and truly buried and, with it, by implication Socialism, the left forgot how to talk to those without further education. The group we would previously have called the working classes.
It is striking in the US election that Trump won the hearts of the working man on a set of policies that will withdraw health insurance from the poorest 21 million people in the country. At one point he was promising tax cuts to the tune of 21 trillion dollars - mostly for the rich. His revised plan, less ambitious, still promise big tax cuts for the rich.
Clinton on the other hand, had no engagement with the white working classes even though based on policies she really should have done. But she sold her ideas as ways to help minorities - which is catnip to educated, urban liberals but repellent to the rural, white working classes.
So I think the left does have answers but since the decline of unionism and socialism has been unable to find a new language to communicate them to white working classes.
11
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
Actually I'd have said it shows exactly the opposite.
> This is the second warning we have had that sound bite, slurring the opposition and dismissing the views of the electorate doesn’t work.
Actually I'd have said it shows exactly the opposite.
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
This simply isn't so. It is much more complex, or contradictory, than than that.
He is not "laissez faire" in that he wants to repeal many trade deals and protect domestic jobs. He is "laissez faire" in that he wants to do a trade deal with the UK and cut regulation.
He is "small State" in that he wants to abandon Obamacare and cut taxes (supposedly for the lower middle classes but probably for the rich). He is "big State" in that he wants to increase fiscal spending on infrastructure and social regeneration programmes.
I accept that this low tax/higher spending could be reconciled by the (right wing?) Laffer curve argument but not on the basis of the way he has framed it.
He is standard right wing in that he wants to boost the military, but standard Bernie Sanders/John Pilger left wing in that he wants to rein back from overseas military involvement.
It probably tells us that there are going to be a lot of disappointed and angry people out there.
> This is true. However, it is also true that his policies are just plain bog-standard right-wing ideology: social conservatism and laissez-faire capitalism.
This simply isn't so. It is much more complex, or contradictory, than than that.
He is not "laissez faire" in that he wants to repeal many trade deals and protect domestic jobs. He is "laissez faire" in that he wants to do a trade deal with the UK and cut regulation.
He is "small State" in that he wants to abandon Obamacare and cut taxes (supposedly for the lower middle classes but probably for the rich). He is "big State" in that he wants to increase fiscal spending on infrastructure and social regeneration programmes.
I accept that this low tax/higher spending could be reconciled by the (right wing?) Laffer curve argument but not on the basis of the way he has framed it.
He is standard right wing in that he wants to boost the military, but standard Bernie Sanders/John Pilger left wing in that he wants to rein back from overseas military involvement.
It probably tells us that there are going to be a lot of disappointed and angry people out there.
Post edited at 10:27
2
In reply to KevinD:
Alan Gopnik made a good point the other day about the patronising liberal fallacy of always excusing bad behaviour based on inequality, lack of opportunity and poor education. Lots of horribly disadvantaged people don't grow up to be fascists, racists, bigots or crooks. This in no way excuses the way they are treated by society, but it's wrong to just accept nihilism and anarchy as an inevitable consequence.
Excellent articulate general anti-Trump rant too!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b080xx1r
> i dunno. There comes a point where the excuse of ignorance reaches its limits. To think someone as right wing as Clinton is socialist is so far gone its difficult to think how anyone could get to it. Someone has to do their best to avoid any sensible education to get to that.
Alan Gopnik made a good point the other day about the patronising liberal fallacy of always excusing bad behaviour based on inequality, lack of opportunity and poor education. Lots of horribly disadvantaged people don't grow up to be fascists, racists, bigots or crooks. This in no way excuses the way they are treated by society, but it's wrong to just accept nihilism and anarchy as an inevitable consequence.
Excellent articulate general anti-Trump rant too!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b080xx1r
Post edited at 10:10
In reply to KevinD:
But, that's not what you said, you were referring to the Tory elite pretending to be commoners. I'm pointing out the labour party is littered with them too and many aren't practicing what they preach. Be it putting their kids into private school, grammar or selective schools, all whilst complaining how unfair those schools are on society.
Ps. Corbyn is exactly against the concept of communism, as long as he can keep his big islington house and salary.
> I was unaware that there was anything saying that once you had a certain level of education you werent allowed to consider those less fortunate.
But, that's not what you said, you were referring to the Tory elite pretending to be commoners. I'm pointing out the labour party is littered with them too and many aren't practicing what they preach. Be it putting their kids into private school, grammar or selective schools, all whilst complaining how unfair those schools are on society.
Ps. Corbyn is exactly against the concept of communism, as long as he can keep his big islington house and salary.
Post edited at 10:33
In reply to summo:
Actually I wasnt talking about the tories. The rest of your comment is just as inane.
> But, that's not what you said, you were referring to the Tory elite pretending to be commoners.
Actually I wasnt talking about the tories. The rest of your comment is just as inane.
3
3
In reply to Postmanpat:
isolationism in the USA has never been a left or right thing.
Yeah especially all the builders and builders merchants looking for a few years work on a wall.
> He is standard right wing in that he wants to boost the military, but standard Bernie Sanders/John Pilger left wing in that he wants to rein back from overseas military involvement.
isolationism in the USA has never been a left or right thing.
> It probably tells us that there are going to be a lot of disappointed and angry people out there.
Yeah especially all the builders and builders merchants looking for a few years work on a wall.
1
1
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
A few thoughts:
I watched the BBC coverage until about 3 when it was obvious to me that Trump had either won or it would be many hours before before they could announce. I watched a few intelligent commentators apply Cognitive Dissonance to the fact Hillary had clearly lost key states like Florida (the percentage outstanding was smaller than the gap) and a failure of everyone on the show not to say what I saw after Ohio was won by 12%.
The final poll average was close to the error margins this time (she won the popular vote) Pundits were using complex models to predict state results and they were sometimes way out; the national polls were not.
College educated white men mainly voted for Trump. Despite the racism and much louder dog whistles than Romney an increased percentage of hispanics and blacks voted for Trump. White women mainly voted for Trump.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/who-voted-for...
Trump funded Hillary's campaign in 2008, he is not far right by nature, he is a pretty random demagogue chancer. If I had a time machine and printed out his acceptance speech and took it back a week how many people here would have believe it could be the speech he would make.
Rich Hall did a fun history piece to put the election in context. Its on I-Player "Rich Halls Presidential Grudge Match"
Obama made the point the sun would come up the next day. If you look back at the Republican Presidents in recent history none were friendly to the social liberalism of the majority of the well educated west. I do look forward to Trumps tax returns and the dysfunctional GOP having to face their own problems rather than blaming it on a Democratic president.
A few thoughts:
I watched the BBC coverage until about 3 when it was obvious to me that Trump had either won or it would be many hours before before they could announce. I watched a few intelligent commentators apply Cognitive Dissonance to the fact Hillary had clearly lost key states like Florida (the percentage outstanding was smaller than the gap) and a failure of everyone on the show not to say what I saw after Ohio was won by 12%.
The final poll average was close to the error margins this time (she won the popular vote) Pundits were using complex models to predict state results and they were sometimes way out; the national polls were not.
College educated white men mainly voted for Trump. Despite the racism and much louder dog whistles than Romney an increased percentage of hispanics and blacks voted for Trump. White women mainly voted for Trump.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/who-voted-for...
Trump funded Hillary's campaign in 2008, he is not far right by nature, he is a pretty random demagogue chancer. If I had a time machine and printed out his acceptance speech and took it back a week how many people here would have believe it could be the speech he would make.
Rich Hall did a fun history piece to put the election in context. Its on I-Player "Rich Halls Presidential Grudge Match"
Obama made the point the sun would come up the next day. If you look back at the Republican Presidents in recent history none were friendly to the social liberalism of the majority of the well educated west. I do look forward to Trumps tax returns and the dysfunctional GOP having to face their own problems rather than blaming it on a Democratic president.
Post edited at 11:04
3
In reply to KevinD:
Yes and no. Strictly-speaking of course you are correct but "socialist" has lost its meaning in the US. It really just means "a long way to the left of me".
Bearing in mind that politics in the US is in general more right wing than in Europe and Hillary really was presenting some very progressive policies which would have been the first steps towards a genuine welfare system. Here is a summary: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/3/13318750/hillary-clinton-v...
True, she is hawkish on foreign policy which is where she would have had more influence. But her domestic policy was definitely very progressive, even if hardly anyone noticed it.
> i dunno. There comes a point where the excuse of ignorance reaches its limits. To think someone as right wing as Clinton is socialist is so far gone its difficult to think how anyone could get to it. Someone has to do their best to avoid any sensible education to get to that.
Yes and no. Strictly-speaking of course you are correct but "socialist" has lost its meaning in the US. It really just means "a long way to the left of me".
Bearing in mind that politics in the US is in general more right wing than in Europe and Hillary really was presenting some very progressive policies which would have been the first steps towards a genuine welfare system. Here is a summary: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/3/13318750/hillary-clinton-v...
True, she is hawkish on foreign policy which is where she would have had more influence. But her domestic policy was definitely very progressive, even if hardly anyone noticed it.
1
In reply to Bob Hughes:
Having sensible progressive policies and getting them through an uncooperative republican senate and congress are two different things, as Obama discovered.
Having sensible progressive policies and getting them through an uncooperative republican senate and congress are two different things, as Obama discovered.
1
In reply to Offwidth:
true, I was just making the point that Hillary's policies were actually quite progressive in the context of American politics
true, I was just making the point that Hillary's policies were actually quite progressive in the context of American politics
1
In reply to Offwidth:
One thing I found fascinating is that some of those voting for Trump had voted for Obama last time round and were blaming him for lack of action. Ignoring how crippled he was by the republicans.
> Having sensible progressive policies and getting them through an uncooperative republican senate and congress are two different things, as Obama discovered.
One thing I found fascinating is that some of those voting for Trump had voted for Obama last time round and were blaming him for lack of action. Ignoring how crippled he was by the republicans.
4
1
In reply to KevinD:
Its not true those blue collar workers who switched sides were blaming only him (or in some cases even blaming him at all). They are just sick of the government/establishment not doing anything to help them.
Its not true those blue collar workers who switched sides were blaming only him (or in some cases even blaming him at all). They are just sick of the government/establishment not doing anything to help them.
Post edited at 11:17
2
1
In reply to Offwidth:
Actually it is true. Some specifically said that.
Needless to say that aint all but then again I never said that.
> Its not true those blue collar workers who switched sides were blaming only him (or in some cases even blaming him at all).
Actually it is true. Some specifically said that.
Needless to say that aint all but then again I never said that.
2
1
In reply to Offwidth:
This may be partly because the BBC is, for UK purposes, the media "of record" and so has to be especially careful not to jump the gun, but in this case it just appeared perverse.
Much as dislike Trump, I confess to getting a mischievous pleasure in watching the assembled Beeb hacks choking on their lattes. It was really interesting watching the usually very good Emily Maitliss dealing with Ann Coulter. She was totally wrong footed, as if she had never heard such thoughts before. I don't suppose she hears them much in Shepherds Bush but it's her job to know what is coming.
Incidentally, why does the media establishment say that the result was a "shock and surprise"? 17 months ago it would have been, but for the last few months the polls have been close and all the evidence suggests that polls don't catch the "populist/left behind" voters (cf.brexit). So, I wouldn't pretend that I was sure enough to have money on Trump
but me and most of the people I know expected it to be very close, so hardly a big surprise.
> A few thoughts:
> I watched the BBC coverage until about 3 when it was obvious to me that Trump had either won or it would be many hours before before they could announce. I watched a few intelligent commentators apply Cognitive Dissonance to the fact Hillary had clearly lost key states like Florida (the percentage outstanding was smaller than the gap) and a failure of everyone on the show not to say what I saw after Ohio was won by 12%.
>
Good post, but might I suggest watching ITV next time! I was switching channels and ITV was both quicker in getting key results and other info out and quicker at acknowledging the implications. ie.Trump had won.This may be partly because the BBC is, for UK purposes, the media "of record" and so has to be especially careful not to jump the gun, but in this case it just appeared perverse.
Much as dislike Trump, I confess to getting a mischievous pleasure in watching the assembled Beeb hacks choking on their lattes. It was really interesting watching the usually very good Emily Maitliss dealing with Ann Coulter. She was totally wrong footed, as if she had never heard such thoughts before. I don't suppose she hears them much in Shepherds Bush but it's her job to know what is coming.
Incidentally, why does the media establishment say that the result was a "shock and surprise"? 17 months ago it would have been, but for the last few months the polls have been close and all the evidence suggests that polls don't catch the "populist/left behind" voters (cf.brexit). So, I wouldn't pretend that I was sure enough to have money on Trump
but me and most of the people I know expected it to be very close, so hardly a big surprise.
4
In reply to KevinD:
Some said they blamed him, others didn't. I'm not aware of anyone who just blamed him (the truth bit linked to 'only' if you reread my reply). Yet if you sit down and question those who did say it (as some journalists did during the campaign) the reasons are part of a wider establishment disdain; something that Trump very much tapped into and where Clinton struggled to produce a convincing counter-message.
Some said they blamed him, others didn't. I'm not aware of anyone who just blamed him (the truth bit linked to 'only' if you reread my reply). Yet if you sit down and question those who did say it (as some journalists did during the campaign) the reasons are part of a wider establishment disdain; something that Trump very much tapped into and where Clinton struggled to produce a convincing counter-message.
Post edited at 11:39
1
In reply to thepeaks:
I think it might well come down to when the election is?
If May has a change of heart - possibly forced by the judiciary regarding the triggering of Article 50 - and calls an early election next year, then I doubt it.
However, who knows what could happen by 2020, especially as by then, we'll probably have a far better picture of the real implications of Brexit.
> I would have said not. But these are strange times.
I think it might well come down to when the election is?
If May has a change of heart - possibly forced by the judiciary regarding the triggering of Article 50 - and calls an early election next year, then I doubt it.
However, who knows what could happen by 2020, especially as by then, we'll probably have a far better picture of the real implications of Brexit.
In reply to thepeaks:
As I said on the thread yesterday, I think a lot of people (including the media) are missing the point. It's not about right or left anymore. It's about anger.
I think the problem is that the voters are bl**dy angry with politicians for any number of reasons - including but not limited to things the politicians are actually responsible for - mass surveillance, random unpopular wars - as well as things they are not - changing economies, jobs moving to cheaper parts of the world, 2007 crash, etc.
Pretty much anyone deemed as "part of the establishment" or "related to the establishment" - is toxic. Hillary was promoted as having lots of experience. I think that was exactly the wrong call. It was the experience that was the problem.
This applies both sides of the Atlantic, it's why Trump won, it's why we lost Brexit, its why Corbyn is popular, why Le Pen is doing well in France.
People keep thinking it's to do with policies and politics, and (worringly) I'm not sure they are actually that relevant. In the UK until Corbyn we've been given a choice between two essentially identical sets of suits. Corbyn's policies may - or may not be - popular, but I actually think he's got a decent chance of winning just because he's not one of "them".
I don't think Brexit was won on facts. Trump certainly didn't win on policies. Corbyn may well win on being a rebel against the establishment, repeatedly voting against war, giving a d@mn about people who don't wear suits, and being the only one of a limited number of options who isn't a slimy git.
As I said on the thread yesterday, I think a lot of people (including the media) are missing the point. It's not about right or left anymore. It's about anger.
I think the problem is that the voters are bl**dy angry with politicians for any number of reasons - including but not limited to things the politicians are actually responsible for - mass surveillance, random unpopular wars - as well as things they are not - changing economies, jobs moving to cheaper parts of the world, 2007 crash, etc.
Pretty much anyone deemed as "part of the establishment" or "related to the establishment" - is toxic. Hillary was promoted as having lots of experience. I think that was exactly the wrong call. It was the experience that was the problem.
This applies both sides of the Atlantic, it's why Trump won, it's why we lost Brexit, its why Corbyn is popular, why Le Pen is doing well in France.
People keep thinking it's to do with policies and politics, and (worringly) I'm not sure they are actually that relevant. In the UK until Corbyn we've been given a choice between two essentially identical sets of suits. Corbyn's policies may - or may not be - popular, but I actually think he's got a decent chance of winning just because he's not one of "them".
I don't think Brexit was won on facts. Trump certainly didn't win on policies. Corbyn may well win on being a rebel against the establishment, repeatedly voting against war, giving a d@mn about people who don't wear suits, and being the only one of a limited number of options who isn't a slimy git.
Post edited at 11:43
4
2
In reply to KevinD:
Trump isn't a republican though.........
> One thing I found fascinating is that some of those voting for Trump had voted for Obama last time round and were blaming him for lack of action. Ignoring how crippled he was by the republicans.
Trump isn't a republican though.........
1
In reply to John_Hat:
Trump had respectable poll levels, Corbyn doesn't (they are truly dreadful given the stage in the electoral cycle). Any chance he has depend on really bad things happening to move swing votors; and an SNP pact.
As an aside, of the old SWP activists in my union I knew more than half have now resigned and are now labour party members and very active on constituency committees.. entryism is very much alive and kicking. Anyone who knows their Labour history will realise the party will be as riven as the tories and moderates (well left of Blairites) will be under significant selection pressure with the forthcoming boundary changes.
Trump had respectable poll levels, Corbyn doesn't (they are truly dreadful given the stage in the electoral cycle). Any chance he has depend on really bad things happening to move swing votors; and an SNP pact.
As an aside, of the old SWP activists in my union I knew more than half have now resigned and are now labour party members and very active on constituency committees.. entryism is very much alive and kicking. Anyone who knows their Labour history will realise the party will be as riven as the tories and moderates (well left of Blairites) will be under significant selection pressure with the forthcoming boundary changes.
2
In reply to John_Hat:
Ability to play the media is crucial, though. Farage is a prime example of an establishment slimy git who manages to portray himself as something else.
> I don't think Brexit was won on facts. Trump certainly didn't win on policies. Corbyn may well win on being a rebel against the establishment, repeatedly voting against war, giving a d@mn about people who don't wear suits, and being the only one of a limited number of options who isn't a slimy git.
Ability to play the media is crucial, though. Farage is a prime example of an establishment slimy git who manages to portray himself as something else.
1
1
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
'Groping' is mild compared to Bill ( I did NOT have sexual relations with that woman) Clinton's behaviour.
(Cigars are for smoking)
> He needs to start groping women NOW.
'Groping' is mild compared to Bill ( I did NOT have sexual relations with that woman) Clinton's behaviour.
(Cigars are for smoking)
1
6
In reply to Offwidth:
Interesting, the guardian, today, says:
"To see Trump as a conventional rightwinger is stupid. The left-right spectrum should be in the dustbin. The new politics is that of insider v outsider, city v province, success v failure. At present, it is outsiders who are in the ascendant, in Europe as in America."
Interesting, the guardian, today, says:
"To see Trump as a conventional rightwinger is stupid. The left-right spectrum should be in the dustbin. The new politics is that of insider v outsider, city v province, success v failure. At present, it is outsiders who are in the ascendant, in Europe as in America."
Post edited at 12:24
1
In reply to thepeaks:
Lots of people in the "western economies" know that things aren't working for large parts of the population, people who have been brought up to believe that if they work things will get incrementally better as they move through life this are being royally disappointed. The idea of trickle down economics is proving to be an illusion to many (more like trickle up)
They no longer have any patience with the moderate centre because the centre is about tinkering with a broken system as Blair did and won't solve anything, not one politician has made an issue about housing with a solution that isn't about rearranging the deck chairs on a sinking ship.
We have given over too much of our democracy to the market but allowed the market to go offshore out of west ministers influence and incomprehensibly distant from the people of Sunderland and the rust belt voters of America
Lots of people in the "western economies" know that things aren't working for large parts of the population, people who have been brought up to believe that if they work things will get incrementally better as they move through life this are being royally disappointed. The idea of trickle down economics is proving to be an illusion to many (more like trickle up)
They no longer have any patience with the moderate centre because the centre is about tinkering with a broken system as Blair did and won't solve anything, not one politician has made an issue about housing with a solution that isn't about rearranging the deck chairs on a sinking ship.
We have given over too much of our democracy to the market but allowed the market to go offshore out of west ministers influence and incomprehensibly distant from the people of Sunderland and the rust belt voters of America
1
In reply to John_Hat:
Strange times. I'm agreeing with the guarfisn
> Interesting, the guardian, today, says:
> "To see Trump as a conventional rightwinger is stupid. The left-right spectrum should be in the dustbin. The new politics is that of insider v outsider, city v province, success v failure. At present, it is outsiders who are in the ascendant, in Europe as in America."
Strange times. I'm agreeing with the guarfisn
1
In reply to Jim C:
So non-consensual groping is mild compared to consensual sex of any kind? Interesting and totally f*cked up viewpoint.
So non-consensual groping is mild compared to consensual sex of any kind? Interesting and totally f*cked up viewpoint.
8
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Ditto. This is why I think trial by media about policies and who is right, left, middle and whose policies will or will not be popular is utterly irrelevent.
We have already seen (to return to the OP) that despite wall-to-wall criticism by well, pretty much everyone, Corbyn was popular with Labour members.
The cognoscenti wrung their hands and talked of poor policies. They hung their heads and talked of far left. They then decided that a good idea was criticism of the people that voted as nutters (they used other words too, but "nutters" was the jist).
Exactly the same repeated in Brexit. Exactly the same repeated with Trump.
There is, unfortunately, a total lack of engagement and understanding. Almost a head-in-the-sand repetition of "Corbyn can't be elected as he's unelectable".
Actually, yes he can be elected. Those who don't like the idea need to wind their prejudice in and accept that Corbyn - non-establishment, rebel - is exactly what the voters want right now.
Labour need to understand that they've got a massive asset and stop attacking him, promote him as the "clean slate who correctly predicted disaster and does the right thing regardless of politics", win the election and then start playing with/deconstructing his policies.
The tories need to - ideally for them in my opinion - find a total random who comes across as honest and posessing integrity - drop them in a safe seat and prepare to wheel them out in 2020. Basically, Martin Bell on a larger scale.
> Strange times. I'm agreeing with the guarfisn
Ditto. This is why I think trial by media about policies and who is right, left, middle and whose policies will or will not be popular is utterly irrelevent.
We have already seen (to return to the OP) that despite wall-to-wall criticism by well, pretty much everyone, Corbyn was popular with Labour members.
The cognoscenti wrung their hands and talked of poor policies. They hung their heads and talked of far left. They then decided that a good idea was criticism of the people that voted as nutters (they used other words too, but "nutters" was the jist).
Exactly the same repeated in Brexit. Exactly the same repeated with Trump.
There is, unfortunately, a total lack of engagement and understanding. Almost a head-in-the-sand repetition of "Corbyn can't be elected as he's unelectable".
Actually, yes he can be elected. Those who don't like the idea need to wind their prejudice in and accept that Corbyn - non-establishment, rebel - is exactly what the voters want right now.
Labour need to understand that they've got a massive asset and stop attacking him, promote him as the "clean slate who correctly predicted disaster and does the right thing regardless of politics", win the election and then start playing with/deconstructing his policies.
The tories need to - ideally for them in my opinion - find a total random who comes across as honest and posessing integrity - drop them in a safe seat and prepare to wheel them out in 2020. Basically, Martin Bell on a larger scale.
1
2
In reply to John_Hat:
Good summary. I've confessed before that when I heard the results of the Labour leadership election (the first one post-Miliband) I gave a little cheer that none of the usual suspects had won. Uninspiring as Miliband was, Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper seemed no better and oozed entitlement and smugness - and no-one had heard of Liz Kendall. Could the party not come up with more credibility?
Well, in different ways, David Miliband and Chuka Umunna might have made good leaders but, in the end and for their own reasons, neither was willing to take it on. Were they smart enough to see that they were already too establishment? As I recall Umunna dropped out because of the intrusive interest in his family.
> I don't think Brexit was won on facts. Trump certainly didn't win on policies. Corbyn may well win on being a rebel against the establishment, repeatedly voting against war, giving a d@mn about people who don't wear suits, and being the only one of a limited number of options who isn't a slimy git.
Good summary. I've confessed before that when I heard the results of the Labour leadership election (the first one post-Miliband) I gave a little cheer that none of the usual suspects had won. Uninspiring as Miliband was, Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper seemed no better and oozed entitlement and smugness - and no-one had heard of Liz Kendall. Could the party not come up with more credibility?
Well, in different ways, David Miliband and Chuka Umunna might have made good leaders but, in the end and for their own reasons, neither was willing to take it on. Were they smart enough to see that they were already too establishment? As I recall Umunna dropped out because of the intrusive interest in his family.
In reply to John_Hat:
The trial by media bit isn't relevant as you say. But projecting an image through the media definately is. For all that hate Trump and particularly Johnson and Farage for what they stand for and their dishonesty, they all managed to court the camera and brazen it out in front of them in a way Corbyn simply doesn't manage. So I'd say its not Corbyn's politics that make him unelectable, its his lack of on screen prescence (and presence on screen come to that)
The trial by media bit isn't relevant as you say. But projecting an image through the media definately is. For all that hate Trump and particularly Johnson and Farage for what they stand for and their dishonesty, they all managed to court the camera and brazen it out in front of them in a way Corbyn simply doesn't manage. So I'd say its not Corbyn's politics that make him unelectable, its his lack of on screen prescence (and presence on screen come to that)
2
In reply to GrahamD:
I think he just needs to start coming out as authentically racist, misogynistic, homophobic and islamophobic and he would win by a mile.
I think he just needs to start coming out as authentically racist, misogynistic, homophobic and islamophobic and he would win by a mile.
1
In reply to GrahamD:
Normally I'd agree with you, but these are strange times.
Corbyn has already proved that with a wall-to-wall negative media image he can wipe the floor with his opponents in an election by Labour Members.
That's not a promotion of Corbyn - that's (I think) a result of a media and established political parties that are fundamentally untrusted by a large proportion of the electorate. People feel they have been systematically lied to. Frankly, we know since Snowden that they *were* systematically lied to.
Now, obviously the "establishment" can proceed to portray these voters as delusioned fanboys (and girls) with a severe case of the Trots, but we know that's actually not the case.
Mainstream politics - and mainstream understanding of politics - has broken down. Where we go from here I don't know. However it's beginning to look like there are parallels emerging (Trump/Corbyn/Brexit).
Strange times indeed.
Normally I'd agree with you, but these are strange times.
Corbyn has already proved that with a wall-to-wall negative media image he can wipe the floor with his opponents in an election by Labour Members.
That's not a promotion of Corbyn - that's (I think) a result of a media and established political parties that are fundamentally untrusted by a large proportion of the electorate. People feel they have been systematically lied to. Frankly, we know since Snowden that they *were* systematically lied to.
Now, obviously the "establishment" can proceed to portray these voters as delusioned fanboys (and girls) with a severe case of the Trots, but we know that's actually not the case.
Mainstream politics - and mainstream understanding of politics - has broken down. Where we go from here I don't know. However it's beginning to look like there are parallels emerging (Trump/Corbyn/Brexit).
Strange times indeed.
1
In reply to John_Hat:
I agree and fear that a Corbyn win is not unimaginable. However, I think he has two main problems: the first is that he is not a natural communicator or a leader. One might hate the Trump/Farage message but I don't think Corbyn can match their rhetoric. McDonnell might have a chance.
Secondly. although there would appear to be an open goal in terms of wining back the traditional working class vote, this is at odds with the the identity politics of race and gender that now dominates the left. Your average ex steel worker is unlikely to be much attracted to a man whose core interests seem to be Palestine and ethnic rights. But your average Corbynista will not accept an embrace of the ex steel workers' concerns about immigration and his lack of interest in LGBT issues etc. It's a circle that I don't believe Corbyn can square.
> Labour need to understand that they've got a massive asset and stop attacking him, promote him as the "clean slate who correctly predicted disaster and does the right thing regardless of politics", win the election and then start playing with/deconstructing his policies.
>I agree and fear that a Corbyn win is not unimaginable. However, I think he has two main problems: the first is that he is not a natural communicator or a leader. One might hate the Trump/Farage message but I don't think Corbyn can match their rhetoric. McDonnell might have a chance.
Secondly. although there would appear to be an open goal in terms of wining back the traditional working class vote, this is at odds with the the identity politics of race and gender that now dominates the left. Your average ex steel worker is unlikely to be much attracted to a man whose core interests seem to be Palestine and ethnic rights. But your average Corbynista will not accept an embrace of the ex steel workers' concerns about immigration and his lack of interest in LGBT issues etc. It's a circle that I don't believe Corbyn can square.
4
In reply to ian caton:
Do you actually believe he'll start a trade war anymore than he'll build a wall or magic up 5% growth from which he'll fund a massive scheme of public works and a round of fat tax cuts?
He's a lot of things, stupid isn't one of them. A cynical utterly shameless liar he very clearly is so which of the lies should we believe... none of them obviously but it's too late for that, there's no turning back now, time to see what really is at the bottom of the rabbit hole. My bet is on rabbit shit.
jk
> Hardly, he is racist and a misogynist. Tarrif barriers are the antithesis of laissez-faire capitalism.
Do you actually believe he'll start a trade war anymore than he'll build a wall or magic up 5% growth from which he'll fund a massive scheme of public works and a round of fat tax cuts?
He's a lot of things, stupid isn't one of them. A cynical utterly shameless liar he very clearly is so which of the lies should we believe... none of them obviously but it's too late for that, there's no turning back now, time to see what really is at the bottom of the rabbit hole. My bet is on rabbit shit.
jk
2
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Well, I think everyone thought that she'd win the "popular vote", which she did, and that the electoral college system was thought to be in her favour. Combining the two, meant it seemed likely she would win. That's how I saw it anyway, though I was probably also slightly swayed by the fact I couldn't imagine people actually putting a cross next to "Trump" on the ballot.
> Incidentally, why does the media establishment say that the result was a "shock and surprise"? 17 months ago it would have been, but for the last few months the polls have been close and all the evidence suggests that polls don't catch the "populist/left behind" voters (cf.brexit). So, I wouldn't pretend that I was sure enough to have money on Trump
> but me and most of the people I know expected it to be very close, so hardly a big surprise.
Well, I think everyone thought that she'd win the "popular vote", which she did, and that the electoral college system was thought to be in her favour. Combining the two, meant it seemed likely she would win. That's how I saw it anyway, though I was probably also slightly swayed by the fact I couldn't imagine people actually putting a cross next to "Trump" on the ballot.
1
In reply to galpinos:
I think I was slightly different" the polls are close and they are probably underestimating Trump's vote so logically he wins.......but surely that can't happen... can it?
> Well, I think everyone thought that she'd win the "popular vote", which she did, and that the electoral college system was thought to be in her favour. Combining the two, meant it seemed likely she would win. That's how I saw it anyway, though I was probably also slightly swayed by the fact I couldn't imagine people actually putting a cross next to "Trump" on the ballot.
>I think I was slightly different" the polls are close and they are probably underestimating Trump's vote so logically he wins.......but surely that can't happen... can it?
1
In reply to Jim C:
The difference is consent. F*** sake, you're a grown man not a 15 year old boy!
jk
> 'Groping' is mild compared to Bill ( I did NOT have sexual relations with that woman) Clinton's behaviour.
The difference is consent. F*** sake, you're a grown man not a 15 year old boy!
jk
9
1
In reply to John_Hat:
He is the establishment though, he's a career politician! Trump's line was that he was from outside the political establishment and was neither democrat nor republican, he's Donald Trump! He cares about the man on the street, the average Joe. Corbyn has been a politician for ~30 years and cares more for Palestine than he does for the British working class (in the eyes of those voters).
I’m not sure the comparisons being drawn are relevant.
> Actually, yes he can be elected. Those who don't like the idea need to wind their prejudice in and accept that Corbyn - non-establishment, rebel - is exactly what the voters want right now.
He is the establishment though, he's a career politician! Trump's line was that he was from outside the political establishment and was neither democrat nor republican, he's Donald Trump! He cares about the man on the street, the average Joe. Corbyn has been a politician for ~30 years and cares more for Palestine than he does for the British working class (in the eyes of those voters).
I’m not sure the comparisons being drawn are relevant.
2
In reply to jkarran:
I think its unfair on 15 y/o boys to suggest they wouldn't appreciate the difference...
I think its unfair on 15 y/o boys to suggest they wouldn't appreciate the difference...
5
In reply to GrahamD:
point taken. But I was thinking in the general sense. If everybody does it then no body can make an informed decision.
point taken. But I was thinking in the general sense. If everybody does it then no body can make an informed decision.
In reply to thepeaks:
I wish people would stop going on about the traditional working class; it's finished. The term "Labour" is an anachronism, and just as "Whigs" went out so should "Labour". There are no toiling masses/proletariat. We will never see "The Workers" organise as in decades long gone. Obviously there are poor people but is there "The Poor"?
Those Rust Belt "Blue Collar Workers" are not hard up like there great grandparents were. The Right is only about defending its own privilege and using the resentment of the "not-so-lucky" to that end.
We need a new language and a new momentum to fight this lapse of the West back into hatefulness and it has got to come from the reasonable centre.
I wish people would stop going on about the traditional working class; it's finished. The term "Labour" is an anachronism, and just as "Whigs" went out so should "Labour". There are no toiling masses/proletariat. We will never see "The Workers" organise as in decades long gone. Obviously there are poor people but is there "The Poor"?
Those Rust Belt "Blue Collar Workers" are not hard up like there great grandparents were. The Right is only about defending its own privilege and using the resentment of the "not-so-lucky" to that end.
We need a new language and a new momentum to fight this lapse of the West back into hatefulness and it has got to come from the reasonable centre.
2
1
In reply to Offwidth:
Interesting piece. Thinking back no one would have believed that the Regan administration would have seen the end of the cold war (how much Regan's "stand up to Russia" policies had to do with this I don't know. If anything it probably paid only a peripheral part). So I hope that things won't be so bad as some folk believe or that we all have a wake up call. Even so I fear that there is a general global swing to the right and that the ones on the bottom of the pile will suffer the consequences.
Interesting piece. Thinking back no one would have believed that the Regan administration would have seen the end of the cold war (how much Regan's "stand up to Russia" policies had to do with this I don't know. If anything it probably paid only a peripheral part). So I hope that things won't be so bad as some folk believe or that we all have a wake up call. Even so I fear that there is a general global swing to the right and that the ones on the bottom of the pile will suffer the consequences.
1
In reply to Pete Pozman:
>Obviously there are poor people but is there "The Poor"?
I agree with a lot of what you say there but on this point I would have to say most definitely yes. True most people are not as poor as their grandparents (or great grandparents were) I can honestly say that I grew up in the era of the tin bath and outside loo and my father lived without electricity until 1947. However there are grindingly poor people in the world who fuel us with the raw materials that we use for iPhones, clothing, etc. and they are not always in third world countries. There are areas of America where folk live hand-to-mouth. It is still out there just not as obvious as it once was
>Obviously there are poor people but is there "The Poor"?
I agree with a lot of what you say there but on this point I would have to say most definitely yes. True most people are not as poor as their grandparents (or great grandparents were) I can honestly say that I grew up in the era of the tin bath and outside loo and my father lived without electricity until 1947. However there are grindingly poor people in the world who fuel us with the raw materials that we use for iPhones, clothing, etc. and they are not always in third world countries. There are areas of America where folk live hand-to-mouth. It is still out there just not as obvious as it once was
In reply to jkarran:
For most of my life I would completely agree with you, but a part of me says this time is different.
I can't help thinking of 1930's Germany when many must have been through the same angst thinking " It will come to nothing".
I think he has to try, otherwise he looks stupid.
For most of my life I would completely agree with you, but a part of me says this time is different.
I can't help thinking of 1930's Germany when many must have been through the same angst thinking " It will come to nothing".
I think he has to try, otherwise he looks stupid.
2
In reply to ian caton:
We're he anyone else I'd agree with you, avoiding embarrassment and shame would be strong motivators to go through with even the poorly thought out pledges but he has none, he's seemingly impervious to shame. If America is lucky he'll give them 4 years of negligent kleptocracy with the odd circus spectacle to appease the mob. 4 years is however a long time for an already fractious society to hold together without sensitive leadership.
Edit. You are right to be wary though, it's new to america but power grabs by authoritarian demagogues are nothing new and this one is by the playbook so far.
Jk
We're he anyone else I'd agree with you, avoiding embarrassment and shame would be strong motivators to go through with even the poorly thought out pledges but he has none, he's seemingly impervious to shame. If America is lucky he'll give them 4 years of negligent kleptocracy with the odd circus spectacle to appease the mob. 4 years is however a long time for an already fractious society to hold together without sensitive leadership.
Edit. You are right to be wary though, it's new to america but power grabs by authoritarian demagogues are nothing new and this one is by the playbook so far.
Jk
Post edited at 18:30
1
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
I acknowledge what you say, but I contend that the angry people who voted against the idea of a woman president were not as justified in their anger as were German workers in the decades following the First World War. And I suggest that the "Dirt Poor" of the USA probably had little to do with Trump's ascent. Looking at his supporters, they all seem pretty well fed to me. In fact it was the idea that they'd be supporting these Dirt Poor through Obama Care which got some of them so riled.
I acknowledge what you say, but I contend that the angry people who voted against the idea of a woman president were not as justified in their anger as were German workers in the decades following the First World War. And I suggest that the "Dirt Poor" of the USA probably had little to do with Trump's ascent. Looking at his supporters, they all seem pretty well fed to me. In fact it was the idea that they'd be supporting these Dirt Poor through Obama Care which got some of them so riled.
Post edited at 19:32
2
1
In reply to ian caton:
That's just a different way of saying 'social conservative'.
Fair point. As PMP points out, there are many contradictions in his policies. I had his promises to reduce tax and regulation in mind, but as you say he's also into protectionism.
> Hardly, he is racist and a misogynist.
That's just a different way of saying 'social conservative'.
> Tarrif barriers are the antithesis of laissez-faire capitalism.
Fair point. As PMP points out, there are many contradictions in his policies. I had his promises to reduce tax and regulation in mind, but as you say he's also into protectionism.
1
In reply to John_Hat & others: Can't remember where but I read an article by a historian recently that was interesting on this area.
Basically it said that global trends are relatively easy to spot in historical retrospect and that the path to some (possibly nasty) point in history is almost inevitable once the "background" is ripe, regardless of individual events. One example he talked about was the 1st World War, it wasn't caused by the assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand, it was caused by the "background" trend and almost anything would have triggered it off.
So this year we've got 3 loosely linked anti-establishment trends going on; Corbyn, brexit & Trump. They all seem to have some common characteristics that are showing the current zeitgeist in the western world. The big questions are "what does this all mean?" and "where are we going to end up?".
In the article, the historian put together a possible post-Trump isolationist scenario that led to world war 3. He wasn't saying it would happen, just that it realistically could - oh great .
Basically it said that global trends are relatively easy to spot in historical retrospect and that the path to some (possibly nasty) point in history is almost inevitable once the "background" is ripe, regardless of individual events. One example he talked about was the 1st World War, it wasn't caused by the assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand, it was caused by the "background" trend and almost anything would have triggered it off.
So this year we've got 3 loosely linked anti-establishment trends going on; Corbyn, brexit & Trump. They all seem to have some common characteristics that are showing the current zeitgeist in the western world. The big questions are "what does this all mean?" and "where are we going to end up?".
In the article, the historian put together a possible post-Trump isolationist scenario that led to world war 3. He wasn't saying it would happen, just that it realistically could - oh great .
In reply to thepeaks:
So the consensus to the OP is ,,,,,,,, no
Looks like successful candidates may now have to come from outside "the system". Why don't labour choose someone who is likely to command national respect and weld some policies onto them. Discussed this with my OH and our best effort was .........John Craven
So the consensus to the OP is ,,,,,,,, no
Looks like successful candidates may now have to come from outside "the system". Why don't labour choose someone who is likely to command national respect and weld some policies onto them. Discussed this with my OH and our best effort was .........John Craven
In reply to Michael Hood:
It is something which makes me a tad paranoid. Anyone who reads about history and the various upheavals will fairly inevitably be wondering how the hell people didnt spot the warning signs.
So whilst I am thinking things might not be disastrous thats always in the back of my mind.
Although I am not sure Corbyn really falls into the same category. That really just resetting Labour back to where it was before the "centrists" took over.
> Basically it said that global trends are relatively easy to spot in historical retrospect and that the path to some (possibly nasty) point in history is almost inevitable once the "background" is ripe, regardless of individual events.
It is something which makes me a tad paranoid. Anyone who reads about history and the various upheavals will fairly inevitably be wondering how the hell people didnt spot the warning signs.
So whilst I am thinking things might not be disastrous thats always in the back of my mind.
Although I am not sure Corbyn really falls into the same category. That really just resetting Labour back to where it was before the "centrists" took over.
1
In reply to Bob Hughes:
Great post, interesting analysis of the result.
Fascinating question. I think that it's the substance of the ideas rather than the style of communication that results in less educated people voting for bad, right-wing policies. What is offered by Trump, Farage etc sounds like it will improve people's lives, but it's just manipulation based on common cognitive illusions such as the 'just world' and 'golden age' fallacies, scapegoating 'the other' along the way. It's easy to win the votes of people who aren't well educated and who aren't happy with what they've got if you exploit these natural psychological tendencies. It's a simple con.
Absolutely. But even if on pragmatic analysis many American working class voters would do better under Clinton's policies, this is still - in substance, not just style - bound together with a world-view and values set that has no appeal to the emotions. By voting for state intervention and redistribution you're saying, "yeah OK, I'll take hand-outs" which is completely at odds with a world view built on logical fallacies about how everyone ends up with what they deserves and how everything would be better if only we could return to a world before equal rights. You can't change people's world view by being better at "engagement" - the left can only really succeed when people are pretty happy to begin with and aren't looking to return to the good old days or to blame someone who doesn't look like them for the their problems.
I like your optimism but I think the challenge is more fundamental than "finding new language".
Great post, interesting analysis of the result.
> Before yesterday, i thought this was because you have a set off people who are well qualified and feel well equipped to take on the forces of globalization and another group who feel vulnerable in the face of globalization. But now i'm not so sure. Now i think it is more because, during the Great Moderation when everything seemed to be going just fine and Communism was well and truly buried and, with it, by implication Socialism, the left forgot how to talk to those without further education. The group we would previously have called the working classes.
Fascinating question. I think that it's the substance of the ideas rather than the style of communication that results in less educated people voting for bad, right-wing policies. What is offered by Trump, Farage etc sounds like it will improve people's lives, but it's just manipulation based on common cognitive illusions such as the 'just world' and 'golden age' fallacies, scapegoating 'the other' along the way. It's easy to win the votes of people who aren't well educated and who aren't happy with what they've got if you exploit these natural psychological tendencies. It's a simple con.
> Clinton on the other hand, had no engagement with the white working classes even though based on policies she really should have done. But she sold her ideas as ways to help minorities - which is catnip to educated, urban liberals but repellent to the rural, white working classes.
Absolutely. But even if on pragmatic analysis many American working class voters would do better under Clinton's policies, this is still - in substance, not just style - bound together with a world-view and values set that has no appeal to the emotions. By voting for state intervention and redistribution you're saying, "yeah OK, I'll take hand-outs" which is completely at odds with a world view built on logical fallacies about how everyone ends up with what they deserves and how everything would be better if only we could return to a world before equal rights. You can't change people's world view by being better at "engagement" - the left can only really succeed when people are pretty happy to begin with and aren't looking to return to the good old days or to blame someone who doesn't look like them for the their problems.
I like your optimism but I think the challenge is more fundamental than "finding new language".
2
In reply to Postmanpat:
Totally agree. It's quite sad really that the interests of Labour's traditional working class constituency seem not to coincide with the interests of minorities - the two seem to be in competition (e.g. in housing, jobs, etc) which is catastrophic for the left. How the interests of these groups can all be protected rather than one at the expense of another is quite a policy conundrum.
> Secondly. although there would appear to be an open goal in terms of wining back the traditional working class vote, this is at odds with the the identity politics of race and gender that now dominates the left. Your average ex steel worker is unlikely to be much attracted to a man whose core interests seem to be Palestine and ethnic rights. But your average Corbynista will not accept an embrace of the ex steel workers' concerns about immigration and his lack of interest in LGBT issues etc. It's a circle that I don't believe Corbyn can square.
Totally agree. It's quite sad really that the interests of Labour's traditional working class constituency seem not to coincide with the interests of minorities - the two seem to be in competition (e.g. in housing, jobs, etc) which is catastrophic for the left. How the interests of these groups can all be protected rather than one at the expense of another is quite a policy conundrum.
1
1
In reply to jkarran:
So you think it is ok for people in positions of power and influence over young naive interns , to take advantage of that position and you say it is ok because it is consential, would most people ( other than yourself of course) think it was ok if Trump has a 'consential' sexual relationship with a White House intern?
> The difference is consent. F*** sake, you're a grown man not a 15 year old boy!
> jk
So you think it is ok for people in positions of power and influence over young naive interns , to take advantage of that position and you say it is ok because it is consential, would most people ( other than yourself of course) think it was ok if Trump has a 'consential' sexual relationship with a White House intern?
2
1
In reply to thepeaks:
All I can say is….my Uncle Trump (15th, once removed) has displayed the tenacity that only a dose of the Num Num spunk can bestow.
We view his success with an unsurprised modesty.
As far as we can determine, despite giving post war Chippenham a liberal spraying of our seed up to the 1950's there is no Num Num spunk in the Corbyn line. Obviously a few females escaped, giving rise to the birth of a number of wishy washy individuals.
All I can say is….my Uncle Trump (15th, once removed) has displayed the tenacity that only a dose of the Num Num spunk can bestow.
We view his success with an unsurprised modesty.
As far as we can determine, despite giving post war Chippenham a liberal spraying of our seed up to the 1950's there is no Num Num spunk in the Corbyn line. Obviously a few females escaped, giving rise to the birth of a number of wishy washy individuals.
1
1
In reply to Jim C:
Your argument is total shit.
You equated groping ("grab them by the pussy") with consensual sex, and it was pointed out that this was pathetic and infantile.
Your response,
doesn't relate to the accusation (or fact) that you were wrong to equate groping and consensual sex. Whether or not there was something morally wrong about the consensual sex in question is no defense for your crap remark.
[Edited for spelling and that]
> So you think it is ok for people in positions of power and influence over young naive interns , to take advantage of that position and you say it is ok because it is consential, would most people ( other than yourself of course) think it was ok if Trump has a 'consential' sexual relationship with a White House intern?
Your argument is total shit.
You equated groping ("grab them by the pussy") with consensual sex, and it was pointed out that this was pathetic and infantile.
Your response,
> So you think it is ok for people in positions of power and influence over young naive interns
doesn't relate to the accusation (or fact) that you were wrong to equate groping and consensual sex. Whether or not there was something morally wrong about the consensual sex in question is no defense for your crap remark.
[Edited for spelling and that]
Post edited at 23:31
7
1
In reply to thepeaks:
The voters aren't persuaded by reason - theres too many out there with positive emotional response for a persona with a big mouth - one who can make himself bigger than he is. Its an animal response. A hen doesn't stoop submissively when a smaller bird approaches - but clearly recognises the silhouette of the coq with his plumes and airs.
Anyway the question is almost irrelevant. The elected leaders - whoever are puppets in the hands of those who supply money and intellignece to power the economy. Who will ever be strong enough to break this deadlock ?
The voters aren't persuaded by reason - theres too many out there with positive emotional response for a persona with a big mouth - one who can make himself bigger than he is. Its an animal response. A hen doesn't stoop submissively when a smaller bird approaches - but clearly recognises the silhouette of the coq with his plumes and airs.
Anyway the question is almost irrelevant. The elected leaders - whoever are puppets in the hands of those who supply money and intellignece to power the economy. Who will ever be strong enough to break this deadlock ?
2
3
2
In reply to Jon Stewart:
You are right. Clearly. But I suspect rather a lot of people, particularly US voters, don't see the two as different, which is why "pussygate" didn't stick.
You are right. Clearly. But I suspect rather a lot of people, particularly US voters, don't see the two as different, which is why "pussygate" didn't stick.
In reply to MG:
especially is many of trumps fan are evangelical happy clappers, who don't think a country should have female leaders, a women's place is at home having children etc.., so performing marital duties on demand is perhaps considered part of their role? Whilst coming across as a buffoon, Trump grasped that the total number of happy clappers, gun tooters and racists in the USA is greater than all the sane liberal folk, so he played to the crowd and won.
> You are right. Clearly. But I suspect rather a lot of people, particularly US voters, don't see the two as different, which is why "pussygate" didn't stick.
especially is many of trumps fan are evangelical happy clappers, who don't think a country should have female leaders, a women's place is at home having children etc.., so performing marital duties on demand is perhaps considered part of their role? Whilst coming across as a buffoon, Trump grasped that the total number of happy clappers, gun tooters and racists in the USA is greater than all the sane liberal folk, so he played to the crowd and won.
1
1
In reply to summo:
I think most though would also include the minor detail that marital duties only should be for those who are actually married.
> so performing marital duties on demand is perhaps considered part of their role?
I think most though would also include the minor detail that marital duties only should be for those who are actually married.
1
In reply to MG:
The curious thing about the video, to my mind at least, is how he came across - much more needy and pathetic than predatory. He was bragging that he 'could get away with it' because he was rich and famous. That implied to me that he wasn't very successful in more conventional, consensual relationships, presumably because of his appearance, personality and total lack of a sense of humour.
In fact the more we see of Trump we have to be open to the possibility that he is a deeply insecure, inadequate, none too bright, fragile personality, who may just have got elected because out of all the potential failed Donald Trumps out there (who we hear no more about, because they sank without trace) he just got lucky by being the one who inadvertently pressed enough hot buttons or blew enough dog whistles to win the college system. Where this leaves him as the most powerful man in the world is rather troubling; will he cause mayhem by throwing hissy fits and issuing executive orders, or retreat into some sort of PR netherworld - like Reagan - and leave the day to day stuff to people who like, y'now, know about this stuff. I don't know which I'd prefer.
The curious thing about the video, to my mind at least, is how he came across - much more needy and pathetic than predatory. He was bragging that he 'could get away with it' because he was rich and famous. That implied to me that he wasn't very successful in more conventional, consensual relationships, presumably because of his appearance, personality and total lack of a sense of humour.
In fact the more we see of Trump we have to be open to the possibility that he is a deeply insecure, inadequate, none too bright, fragile personality, who may just have got elected because out of all the potential failed Donald Trumps out there (who we hear no more about, because they sank without trace) he just got lucky by being the one who inadvertently pressed enough hot buttons or blew enough dog whistles to win the college system. Where this leaves him as the most powerful man in the world is rather troubling; will he cause mayhem by throwing hissy fits and issuing executive orders, or retreat into some sort of PR netherworld - like Reagan - and leave the day to day stuff to people who like, y'now, know about this stuff. I don't know which I'd prefer.
1
In reply to KevinD:
Exactly. So, in their eyes, both Clinton and Trump are equal immoral and terrible for breaking this rule. I suspect the consent of the women involved does't feature too much in their reckoning.
> I think most though would also include the minor detail that marital duties only should be for those who are actually married.
Exactly. So, in their eyes, both Clinton and Trump are equal immoral and terrible for breaking this rule. I suspect the consent of the women involved does't feature too much in their reckoning.
In reply to Pete Pozman:
I can't fault you there.
Makes you realise how easy it was for the Nazis to take power in the lead up to the second world war.
I can't fault you there.
Makes you realise how easy it was for the Nazis to take power in the lead up to the second world war.
In reply to birdie num num:
At least someone is taking the big picture view.
> All I can say is….my Uncle Trump (15th, once removed) has displayed the tenacity that only a dose of the Num Num spunk can bestow.
At least someone is taking the big picture view.
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
This was the strategic failure of Hillary's campaign. Despite having incredible depth of substantive policy ideas she was just unable to communicate them. What was her campaign slogan? I couldn't tell you - and I've just been to her website out of curiosity and am none the wiser. Her speeches are long laundry lists of policies which excite policy wonks but leave normal humans cold.
There is a very interesting chart on vox.com (from June) where they map the words most often used by Donald Trump and Hillary on Twitter. By a long way Trump's most used phrase was "make america great again", Hillary's was "we need to..."; her next most used was "we have to...". Its also fascinating that Donald Trump was most likely to tweet to TV news stations whereas Hillary would tweet at other senators and political insiders. (http://www.vox.com/2016/11/7/13550796/clinton-trump-twitter )
On the ground, she didn't even try to win over the traditional Democratic heartland. Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania were where she lost the election. Clinton didn't even have a field office in Michigan and hasn't visted Wisconsin since April. Yet she did set up field offices in Arizona (voted democrat once since 1948), Texas (last voted democrat in 1976) and Georgia (1992). For all the apparent chaos coming from the Trump campaign someone smart noticed the gap and filled it.
I disagree. Don't forget that Obama - a black man! born in Kenya! - brought out unprecedented numbers to vote in 2008 and won again in 2012. His world view was Change and Hope and that got through not just to urban elites and minorities but a lot of blue collar men and women too. People certainly weren't happy to begin with in 2008 or 2012.
Because we have a President Elect Loony it is tempting to think we got here via some great shift but i don't think that's the case I think we got here because of the natural tendency to swing away from the incumbent party after two terms combined with some very prosaic campaign failures from Clinton.
> ...even if on pragmatic analysis many American working class voters would do better under Clinton's policies, this is still - in substance, not just style - bound together with a world-view and values set that has no appeal to the emotions.
This was the strategic failure of Hillary's campaign. Despite having incredible depth of substantive policy ideas she was just unable to communicate them. What was her campaign slogan? I couldn't tell you - and I've just been to her website out of curiosity and am none the wiser. Her speeches are long laundry lists of policies which excite policy wonks but leave normal humans cold.
There is a very interesting chart on vox.com (from June) where they map the words most often used by Donald Trump and Hillary on Twitter. By a long way Trump's most used phrase was "make america great again", Hillary's was "we need to..."; her next most used was "we have to...". Its also fascinating that Donald Trump was most likely to tweet to TV news stations whereas Hillary would tweet at other senators and political insiders. (http://www.vox.com/2016/11/7/13550796/clinton-trump-twitter )
On the ground, she didn't even try to win over the traditional Democratic heartland. Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania were where she lost the election. Clinton didn't even have a field office in Michigan and hasn't visted Wisconsin since April. Yet she did set up field offices in Arizona (voted democrat once since 1948), Texas (last voted democrat in 1976) and Georgia (1992). For all the apparent chaos coming from the Trump campaign someone smart noticed the gap and filled it.
> By voting for state intervention and redistribution you're saying, "yeah OK, I'll take hand-outs" which is completely at odds with a world view built on logical fallacies about how everyone ends up with what they deserves and how everything would be better if only we could return to a world before equal rights. You can't change people's world view by being better at "engagement" - the left can only really succeed when people are pretty happy to begin with and aren't looking to return to the good old days or to blame someone who doesn't look like them for the their problems.
I disagree. Don't forget that Obama - a black man! born in Kenya! - brought out unprecedented numbers to vote in 2008 and won again in 2012. His world view was Change and Hope and that got through not just to urban elites and minorities but a lot of blue collar men and women too. People certainly weren't happy to begin with in 2008 or 2012.
Because we have a President Elect Loony it is tempting to think we got here via some great shift but i don't think that's the case I think we got here because of the natural tendency to swing away from the incumbent party after two terms combined with some very prosaic campaign failures from Clinton.
4
In reply to Bob Hughes:
Therein lies the big problem. People wanting complete complex issues reduced to a soundbite.
> This was the strategic failure of Hillary's campaign. Despite having incredible depth of substantive policy ideas she was just unable to communicate them. What was her campaign slogan?
Therein lies the big problem. People wanting complete complex issues reduced to a soundbite.
In reply to GrahamD:
She tried to go high. Maybe thinking people would give her credit for it. People don't want policy, though, they want "charisma". Well they've got a 4 year long dark night of soul to get through now, Let's hope some of them learn from the experience.
She tried to go high. Maybe thinking people would give her credit for it. People don't want policy, though, they want "charisma". Well they've got a 4 year long dark night of soul to get through now, Let's hope some of them learn from the experience.
In reply to GrahamD:
i'm not sure if its a problem or not. Either way, its not new - it is an obvious failure of Clinton not to be able to provide the soundbites needed to cut through to 100s of millions of people.
> Therein lies the big problem. People wanting complete complex issues reduced to a soundbite.
i'm not sure if its a problem or not. Either way, its not new - it is an obvious failure of Clinton not to be able to provide the soundbites needed to cut through to 100s of millions of people.
In reply to Pete Pozman:
No, she's just not good at campaigning. Never has been - and she'll say so herself.
> She tried to go high. Maybe thinking people would give her credit for it.
No, she's just not good at campaigning. Never has been - and she'll say so herself.
In reply to Bob Hughes:
The problem is not that Clinton didn't do it - the problem is that people seem to need to have highly nuanced information reduced to the level of a soundbite which isn't possible. So you are back full circle. Politicians cannot tell the truth because the truth cannot be condensed onto a banner and if politicians don't tell the truth they are lambasted.
> i'm not sure if its a problem or not. Either way, its not new - it is an obvious failure of Clinton not to be able to provide the soundbites needed to cut through to 100s of millions of people.
The problem is not that Clinton didn't do it - the problem is that people seem to need to have highly nuanced information reduced to the level of a soundbite which isn't possible. So you are back full circle. Politicians cannot tell the truth because the truth cannot be condensed onto a banner and if politicians don't tell the truth they are lambasted.
In reply to GrahamD:
It is possible. Bill Clinton, Obama, Blair, even Cameron to an extent could all do it. Unfortunately Hilary couldn't, sufficiently.
> The problem is not that Clinton didn't do it - the problem is that people seem to need to have highly nuanced information reduced to the level of a soundbite which isn't possible.
It is possible. Bill Clinton, Obama, Blair, even Cameron to an extent could all do it. Unfortunately Hilary couldn't, sufficiently.
1
1
In reply to jkarran:
It was MonkeyPuzzle who came up with the 'Joke' in the first place ... "He needs to start groping women NOW." and gets no grief.
Jim obviously isn't in the clique.
> The difference is consent. F*** sake, you're a grown man not a 15 year old boy!
> jk
It was MonkeyPuzzle who came up with the 'Joke' in the first place ... "He needs to start groping women NOW." and gets no grief.
Jim obviously isn't in the clique.
1
In reply to MG:
> It is possible. Bill Clinton, Obama, Blair, even Cameron to an extent could all do it. Unfortunately Hilary couldn't, sufficiently.
This is kind of why I think the comparisons to Brexit are less useful than comparing to Ed Milliband. It doesn't matter that Ed had some decent qualities in certain regards as he simply didn't have the skill of being a modern political leader. In reply to Lusk:
There's a difference between a crass joke and a ludicrous statement about sexual asault being more acceptable than consensual sex.
If I'm in a clique then it's news to me, I don't know who the other members are. Your name is as familiar to me as monkeypuzzle and I know as much about you and your views. Nothing.
Jk
There's a difference between a crass joke and a ludicrous statement about sexual asault being more acceptable than consensual sex.
If I'm in a clique then it's news to me, I don't know who the other members are. Your name is as familiar to me as monkeypuzzle and I know as much about you and your views. Nothing.
Jk
1
In reply to GrahamD:
The democratic campaign tried about 80 different slogans - none worked.-as per the NYT today.
The democratic campaign tried about 80 different slogans - none worked.-as per the NYT today.
In reply to summo:
Keep reminding yourself: more than half of white women, more than half of white voters earning more than $50k, more than half of white men educated at college level and above, all voted Trump. Trump secured most of the old GOP vote as well as the loons and the disaffected blue collar voters who switched from the Democrats. More than half of intelligent white US voters do not care enough about the outrageous and unconstitutional things he said to not vote for him. Trump increased the Republican share of the black, hispanic and youth votes. This is very different in demographic terms from brexit. Its also not so new... Regan got elected and worse still Bush Jr (both were clearly pretty dumb front men played by GOP advisors) and look at some of the past Republican VPs! Most rich white americans like the way they get treated better than some of their fellow citizens because they believe they have earned it. Their party is the Republican party irrespective of who fronts it.
Keep reminding yourself: more than half of white women, more than half of white voters earning more than $50k, more than half of white men educated at college level and above, all voted Trump. Trump secured most of the old GOP vote as well as the loons and the disaffected blue collar voters who switched from the Democrats. More than half of intelligent white US voters do not care enough about the outrageous and unconstitutional things he said to not vote for him. Trump increased the Republican share of the black, hispanic and youth votes. This is very different in demographic terms from brexit. Its also not so new... Regan got elected and worse still Bush Jr (both were clearly pretty dumb front men played by GOP advisors) and look at some of the past Republican VPs! Most rich white americans like the way they get treated better than some of their fellow citizens because they believe they have earned it. Their party is the Republican party irrespective of who fronts it.
Post edited at 11:27
1
In reply to Bob Hughes:
Yes I'm pretty convinced. A friend of mine pointed out that when you see the world in terms of left and right it seems unimaginable that anyone could be undecided between say Sanders and Trump, as to me they operate in different universes. Their entire value systems underpinning everything about them as politicians are polar opposites and I can't imagine how it's possible to be persuaded from one world to into the other by a few carefully chosen words (said in the right tone with a sincere-looking facial expression). But it's clear this isn't how a substantial chunk of America's voters see the world!
> I disagree. Don't forget that Obama...His world view was Change and Hope and that got through not just to urban elites and minorities but a lot of blue collar men and women too. People certainly weren't happy to begin with in 2008 or 2012.
> Because we have a President Elect Loony it is tempting to think we got here via some great shift but i don't think that's the case...
Yes I'm pretty convinced. A friend of mine pointed out that when you see the world in terms of left and right it seems unimaginable that anyone could be undecided between say Sanders and Trump, as to me they operate in different universes. Their entire value systems underpinning everything about them as politicians are polar opposites and I can't imagine how it's possible to be persuaded from one world to into the other by a few carefully chosen words (said in the right tone with a sincere-looking facial expression). But it's clear this isn't how a substantial chunk of America's voters see the world!
1
In reply to Jon Stewart: First mistake - a lot of Americans don't see the world, they only see America
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...