Karl Rove on the US election numbers

From the WSJ:

This is the fifth time in history that the winner of the Electoral College also lost the popular vote. It is the 14th time that the winner didn’t receive 50% of ballots. So far Mr. Trump has 61.3 million votes, or 46.8%, to Mrs. Clinton’s 62.4 million, or 47.7%. Her popular-vote lead will likely grow as ballots trickle in from predominantly blue states.

How do those figures compare with 2012? Mr. Trump received about 317,000 more ballots than Mitt Romney, but also a slightly smaller—0.5%—percentage of voters. Mrs. Clinton received 3.5 million fewer ballots and 3.4% less than President Barack Obama. Both candidates this year won fewer white votes—Mr. Trump 1.6 million and Mrs. Clinton 2.3 million—than four years ago.

In other words, Mr. Trump didn’t win because he greatly expanded the GOP, but because Mrs. Clinton lost a significant chunk of the Obama coalition. Compared with 2012 she dropped 1.8 million African-Americans, one million voters age 18-29, 1.8 million voters aged 30-44, 2.6 million Catholics, and nearly 4.5 million voters with family income of $30,000 or less.

Under the rules that govern American elections (not so much the formal rules, but how the game is actually played) Mrs Clinton lost because she wasn’t able to get out the vote in those areas where she most needed the votes. Those people who carry on about the electoral college being unfair blah, blah, blah miss an important point – if the game was to win a majority of the popular vote the campaigns run by both parties would be somewhat different (this is a variation of the Lucas rule – when you change the rules, you change the game).

To my mind this means that Mr Trump was the least disliked candidate. This then suggests:

  • we shouldn’t read too much into his election being a backlash against ‘globalisation’ etc.
  • we shouldn’t read too much into his election being a restoration of values (or racism on the part of the ‘white’ working class ).
  • we shouldn’t expect the same group of voters to re-elect him if he doesn’t perform well (there are widely divergent expectations).

I also think that we, from afar, shouldn’t be too judgemental about Mr Trump’s boorish behaviour – the US electorate in full knowledge of his ‘pussy grabbing’ ways chose to elect him over Mrs Clinton. (Indeed, if the numbers Rove cites above are correct, many of Mrs Clinton’s (natural) constituency chose not to vote at all, either for Mrs Clinton or against Mr Trump).  Clearly US voters had other more pressing concerns and it isn’t our place to second-guess those concerns.

A serious negative consequence of Mr Trump’s election has been the ‘collapse’ of the TPP. Yet there is nothing stopping the remaining partners in the TPP from renegotiating that treaty without the US.  It also occurs to me that the greatest benefits of free trade would be realised by Australia unilaterally allowing free trade. In the meantime, however, Mr Trump’s election has emboldened our Labor Party to try emulate the same anti-free trade and anti-immigration policies that they imagine got Mr Trump elected. As an aside, I think some of Bill Shorten’s comments about migrants taking local jobs may violate s18c.

This entry was posted in 2016 election, American politics, Economics and economy, Hypocrisy of progressives. Bookmark the permalink.

76 Responses to Karl Rove on the US election numbers

  1. Michel Lasouris says:

    Surely the Americans can’t be incensed about Trumps private locker-room comments when they saw the brazen behaviour by Italy’s president Burlesconi, France Zarkosy, and sundry German chancellors, as well as an ocean-going paedophile Prime Minister of the UK. What a crock of shit!

  2. herodotus says:

    There’s a story going around that the Australian government didn’t even have Trump’s contact details.
    That’s shameful. Not even of someone on his team?

    As for the backlash that isn’t – to my mind it certainly is.

  3. JC says:

    There’s a story going around that the Australian government didn’t even have Trump’s contact details.
    That’s shameful. Not even of someone on his team?

    That would be Hockey’s fault. It’s understandable that the Buckle didn’t have private phone numbers, but Hockey’s role would be to ensure contact is seamless and should have been ready for both possibilities. He ought to be booted for this.

  4. . says:

    As an aside, I think some of Bill Shorten’s comments about migrants taking local jobs may violate s18c.

    LOL

    Maybe Obama and BLM turned blacks off the DNC?

  5. Rabz says:

    Ultimately, Clinton as a candidate had zero merit.

    Trump, as preposterous as he may seem, was perceived as possessing several positives, he wasn’t seen as a bi-partisan insider sellout and he addressed certain issues honestly in a way that caused voters’ ears to pick up. While Trump was doing this, Clinton was falling over, delivering public speeches that consisted of little more than her coughing incessantly and cleverly denouncing anyone who’d vote for Trump as a sexist racist homophobic deplorable, etc.

    Like I said above, zero merit. However, had the GOP run an insider sellout (and I think “Macmanus” Rove’s observations bear this out), Clinton would now be president. There’s no need to overcomplicate things.

  6. Rabz says:

    As an aside, I think some of Bill Shorten’s comments about migrants taking local jobs may violate s18c.

    He’s been making these types of comments for a while now. Remember the Japanese subs?

  7. Candy says:

    My hunch is Australians are on board with the anti TPP and Aussie jobs for Aussies fairly signficantly and wait to see how good it is for America.

  8. . says:

    Myes candy, the Japanese are going to put cubicles and cash registers in submarines and take those jobs away.

  9. Baldrick says:

    In this day and age of SJW snowflake numpties, a win is a win. It doesn’t bode well to over-analyse the results. Trump’s first six months should be the most instructive.

  10. Machaggis says:

    I have noticed that in speaking of the so-called popular vote there is rarely if ever mention of the several million votes for other candidates. A good proportion of libertarian votes would, were there 2nd preference votes, have gone to Trump. The commentary ignores what many, particularly in GB know, is that a first past the post election will almost necessarily result in the winner having a minority of total votes cast. Trump won in many states by small margins Clinton won in a few states by massive markings, thus votes were wasted in, for example California. There is no point in winning 70:30, if you can win 51:49.

  11. Tom says:

    (Indeed, if the numbers Rove cites above are correct, many of Mrs Clinton’s (natural) constituency chose not to vote at all, either for Mrs Clinton or against Mr Trump). Clearly US voters had other more pressing concerns and it isn’t our place to second-guess those concerns.

    Damn right, Doomlord.

    I wish the Cat had a volume switch: IT’S THE ECONOMY, STUPID.

  12. Candy says:

    Trump’s ?isolationist ideas have captured people offering a return to the past in some ways.

    Could all fall in a heap of course.

  13. . says:

    That’s correct, McHaggis.

    If America had preferential voting, millions more libertarians and constitutionalists would enrol, vote and second preference decent conservative candidates like Trump.

    Trump would have killed it with preferential voting.

  14. Ant says:

    Karl Rove would know all about winning a presidency and losing the popular vote (under Bush in 2000).

    Interestingly, though, Trump did worse than Bush against Gore – on the bulk numbers, suggesting that both Hillary’s and Trump’s ‘deplorability’ may have been one distinguishing and significant factor.

    I’ll stick to my original position that said that there were at least 6 candidates who ran in Primaries who would have been unassailable against her – and would probably have taken all 57 states 😛

  15. mosomoso says:

    Perhaps people got wind of WW3 and said nahhh.

    Once we had a press, not free, by any means, but in its shabby way it told us about important things like Suez, Cuba etc.

    Now we just have corporate infotainment…but it leaked out about Hilllary and WW3 anyway!

    Now, I know what you’re thinking. If there really was a global war on the way all kinds of smart, educated people would have known and talked about it. But “smart” doesn’t mean what it used to mean. Oh no. As for “educated”…

  16. Joe says:

    As dot would say, sortition, sortition, sortition.

    Voting is the elites kabuki theatre method of distracting us from seeing their usurpation of our power. We are only ever allowed to select from the candidates presented to us. In the end voting can only turn 50% +1 against the 50% -1 and vica versa – which suits the elites just fine.

    Even if we kept the current government structures, parliament, judicial and bureaucracy but just appointed MP’s, senators and senior public servants from the electorate by random selection, we would have a vastly improved “democracy”.

  17. mundi says:

    Everytime some idiots blabs about the electrol college, just tell that “USA isn’t a democracy, its a federal presidential constitutional republic”. It may also be worth adding “you dumb libtard”.

  18. . says:

    Sortition, sortition, sortition.

    Nearly forgot.

  19. bemused says:

    If nothing else, Trump has given hope to all the ‘deplorables’ in the world. If he delivers in the US, just wait to see what happens elsewhere.

  20. pbw says:

    Karl Rove is the paradigm member of the GOP establishment. He has an agenda – survival in the lucrative GOP election consultancy business. Karl and all of his ilk were creamed in this election, and his ludicrous misuse of the figures underlines that fact. The critical elements of Trump’s victory were his wins in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and, on current indications, Michigan. That’s the result that matters, and that’s the result that changes the game. Karl wants to ignore that, and he wants to count people who didn’t vote.

    As Steve Kates pointed out, the unceasing screaming at Trump by the media has an effect. What will happen in the next election depends on how successfully Trump governs for the next four years, whether he can turn the economy around, whether he can stem the immigration flood, and whether he can maintain his “bypass the media” communications strategy. Here Bannon will be critical.

    Reagan never had the support of the media, but the opposition he faced was restrained compared to the complete unmasking of the media daemons that has occurred in this election. If Trump can continue to erode the status of the cosmopolitan elite with his communications and political effectiveness, more and more Americans will throw away identity politics and persuade themselves that they were never in favour of it. If he can shift the baseline of credibility on these issues, he, assuming his health holds, will walk in the next election, and Karl Rove and co can nurse their bitterness in retirement.

  21. Oh come on says:

    I have noticed that in speaking of the so-called popular vote there is rarely if ever mention of the several million votes for other candidates.

    I don’t even think you ought to dignify their position by going that far down the rabbit hole with them.

    It’s a simple matter. All you need to do is propose a hypothetical situation whereby Trump won the PV but lost the EC. Ask the person who’s so outraged by Trump’s victory if, given the opposite scenario, they would be demanding that Hillary relinquish the Presidency to Trump. Most would say no, and then you can point out that in that case it’s clearly not a matter of how Trump was elected (as they just admitted they would have accepted Hillary’s election in such a circumstance) but the fact Trump was elected in the first instance.

    In case they’re intellectually dishonest enough to claim they WOULD demand Hillary step down if Trump won the PV but lost the EC (I say dishonest as we all know they wouldn’t have given a hoot how Hillary won as long as she won), change gears and put another hypothetical to them. Ask them what they’d be doing now if they were American. Ask a few leading questions – would they be out in the streets protesting DT’s election if they were American? What sort of activism would they be engaging in now if they were American? How angry would they’d be right now on a scale of 1 to 10 if they were American? Once you’ve got them to lay out the extent of their outrage, go in for the kill. So they’re saying that, if Trump won the PV but lost the EC, they’d be exactly as vocal, exactly as zealous in their calls for Hillary to step aside for Trump? They’d be out in the street protesting her election in that case, and playing the activist? They’d be equally furious in their insistence that Hillary had ‘stolen’ the election in such a circumstance? And so forth. Any deviation in their response should the shoe have been on the other foot proves they don’t have a problem with the process itself but with the outcome the process delivered in this instance.

    The conversation will be over in no more than a couple of minutes with the complete surrender of the moral high ground by the dismayed Hillary supporter, who abandons their primary argument about Trump’s ‘illegitimate’ victory despite losing the PV, and retreats to weak partisanship.

    I’ve had this conversation a couple of times now. Try it. It works!

  22. Far Right Heretic says:

    This post supposes there was no electoral fraud however there is footage online of Soros owned voting machines changing a vote for Trump and the republican ticket to a vote for Clinton and the dem ticket. There are also reports (and possibly footage) of voting officials filling in ballots for Clinton and reports that at least three million illegals voted (most likely for Clinton). I suspect that Trump won the popular vote and by a wide margin and that just like Brexit the vote was rigged but not rigged enough.

  23. banz says:

    Karl Rove is the paradigm member of the GOP establishment. He has an agenda – survival in the lucrative GOP election consultancy business. Karl and all of his ilk were creamed in this election, and his ludicrous misuse of the figures underlines that fact. The critical elements of Trump’s victory were his wins in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and, on current indications, Michigan. That’s the result that matters, and that’s the result that changes the game. Karl wants to ignore that, and he wants to count people who didn’t vote.

    Oh well said, The republicans are not so different from the Democrats in may ways, they may talk a different position, but….This is the establishment starting to push back against Trump, kinda like, Trump didnt win it, HRC lost it.,,oh yer, lets go ahead with TPP…

    But – he critical elements of Trump’s victory were his wins in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and, on current indications, Michigan. And Minnesota only lost by 1.5%…the MS Senate is now also red, Main lost by .3, the projected federal senate loss expected to hit the republicans never eventuated…not fully.

    Its the economy stupid someone said, well yes it is, and the impact of globalisation on same.

    The genius academic postures that – we shouldn’t read too much into his election being a backlash against ‘globalisation’ etc. Yet the rustbelt went Red and Purple, you dont call that baclklash you farkin idiot.

    Jesus christ, you have been an academic too long..

    But the rust belt turned red, MS is purple, Maine is in play

  24. Mr Skeletor says:

    Sincs post reeks of desperation.
    Seriously how many retarded ways can people ‘call’ what happened in the election?
    If Hillary lost it then why didn’t you pick up the fact she was unelectable prior to the election? Instead everyone said she was a shoe in.

    The libertards can put whatever spin they want on it, but fact is Trump’s win was far more convincing than their boy Malcoms.

    Just accept the fact Open border world is finished as a concept.

  25. mh says:

    There’s a story going around that the Australian government didn’t even have Trump’s contact details.
    That’s shameful. Not even of someone on his team?

    And the Turnbull government relied on Greg Norman to get Trump’s phone number? OMFG. Turnbull needs to shake things up immediately by replacing Joe Hockey as our Ambassador to the United States. Turnbull appointed him, now he should sack him.

  26. . says:

    Skeletor – Trump got in because of libertarians.

    He was criticised heavily and put out a more refined policy position. He listened. We’re happy.

  27. Artist Formerly Known As Infidel Tiger says:

    The GOP have abandoned California and almost given up on New York.

    The popular vote is irrelevant if one party didn’t contest a state with 40,000,000 and another with 20,000,000 people.

    The Dems went all out in Texas and were convinced they could win it.

    Unskew the numbers!

  28. stackja says:

    GOP roved where? DT came!

  29. mr skeletor says:

    Skeletor – Trump got in because of libertarians.

    American Libertarians are a different bred to the softcock libertarians we seem to breed here.

  30. entropy says:

    And the Turnbull government relied on Greg Norman to get Trump’s phone number? OMFG. Turnbull needs to shake things up immediately by replacing Joe Hockey as our Ambassador to the United States. Turnbull appointed him, now he should sack him.

    Jennifer Hawkins for ambassador to the USA!.

  31. Oh come on says:

    The argument that both candidates campaigned to win the EC and not the PV is true, but you don’t even need to go that far. Just get those outraged by the PV to apply their logic consistently. You’ll find they quickly abandon this line of logic when it sees them protesting for Hillary to step aside for Trump in a perfectly possible hypothetical situation.

  32. Paul Farmer says:

    Sinc…………there is some truth to the anti globalization, anti free trade claim due to the changing pattern of the republican voter.

    Trump swapped out a lot of traditional Christian conservatives from his boorish behavior and some of the establishment “Never Trump” right wing types ( corporatist establishment politicians) but he replaced them with white males from the rust belt states. The Christian and establishment republicans he lost all tended to aggregate in the Southern states but these were red states anyway. Ie places like Texas is a good example, conservative Christian heartland . Romney won it by 15.8 %, Trump won it by 9.2 %. Some of the natural republican voters in place like this simply stayed at home or in Utah voted for McMullan.

    This was a good strategy and ultimately allowed him to bring down the Democrat blue wall. The blue wall was never going to come down in California or New York but it did come down alright around the manufacturing heartland of the Great Lakes which even extended as far east as Pennsylvania . So given the way the Electoral College works, Trump played the game far better compared to Hillary from a strategic point of view. Trump built a wider coalition of support geographically and that is the key in the Electoral College .

    People might remember in the republican primaries Trump very early on said he wasn’t worried about pandering to the Christian right but was more interested in building a Reagan style wider coalition of working class voters. I thought this tactic was dangerous as he was going to need very vote he could get. But ultimately by adopting these policies that targeted the fears and aspirations of these forgotten working class Americans who lets be honest , the system has fucked over many of them in the last 20 to 30 years in the industrial hinterland states, Trump’s strategy was street smart. These people at the end of the day are motivated by the hope of higher wages and jobs and to that end a country with secure borders and less open trade gets them real excited, not the social justice crap and victimhood politics that focuses most of the mind of the Democrat party.

    Compare that strategy to Hillary. Hillary just assumed all these industrial states were in the bag for her because the margins they gave to Obama were so huge the wall here almost seemed impregnable in this region. She hardly visited these states at all and nobody in the inner sanctum of the Democrat party went there either to build a grass roots campaign in these states due to the insider beltway mentality of these folks, who like to think they speak for working class Americans as they label themselves social justice warriors but when you boil it down most of them wouldnt have a fucking clue what its like to be poor with limited opportunities. A lot of that mindset I might add infects the local labor party here too, full of hypocrites who claim to speak for working class people but I doubt hardly any of them have ever been working class in their life…………oh that’s right their current leader falls very much into that category.

    The sorts of real working class people who inhabit these industrial states in the main could see through the vacuous bullshit being offered by Hillary in about 2 seconds flat and knew it would be another 8 years of more immigrants , lower wages, throw in a few more crazy muslims for sure likely to come in killing people to boot and the hypocrites in Washington telling you hey…………..all of this is good for you, its globalization. They knew the chance of her delivering a better future was absolutely zero whereas with Donald at least there was hope and sometimes that is all you need to offer people.

  33. Indolent says:

    I’ll let Milo explain Trump’s appeal for me (and at the same time put the BBC in its place).

    Pure gold!

  34. jupes says:

    I’ll stick to my original position that said that there were at least 6 candidates who ran in Primaries who would have been unassailable against her

    You do that you clueless twit.

  35. Indolent says:

    Also, I couldn’t find the red and blue map but these 2 New York Times comparative maps will do. Trump won 85% of the land U.S. land mass. Nothing to sneeze at.

    However, had the GOP run an insider sellout (and I think “Macmanus” Rove’s observations bear this out), Clinton would now be president. There’s no need to overcomplicate things.

    Absolutely right, they had their gracious loser candidates all lined up. And if, by some miracle one of the had won it would have made no difference whatsoever because it would still have been business as usual. The most frustrating thing of all was that, just like here, until Trump there was no real choice in direction.

  36. pbw says:

    Dorothy,

    Trump got in because of libertarians.

    Especially the ones who voted for Johnson.

  37. . says:

    You’ll notice that Johnson’s vote was 3% and he reached 12% in the polls.

    You can thank us later.

  38. . says:

    I’ll stick to my original position that said that there were at least 6 candidates who ran in Primaries who would have been unassailable against her

    Yeah I will. Americans would much prefer Joni Ernst to Clinton and her spirit cooking weirdo friends.

  39. jupes says:

    Trump’s brilliance can be demonstrated by his use of twitter.

    Throughout the campaign The Donald was very much maligned by the MSM for “angrily” tweeting at 3:00 am. The narrative was that here was a man who couldn’t control himself whenever he was angry and obviously didn’t have the temperament to be commander in chief.

    This was the theme to the 60 Minutes reporter’s question about whether Trump would give up tweeting as President. Well no, he wasn’t going to give it up at all. And he didn’t regret any of the tweets because rather than being the sign of an angry man lashing out, they were in fact considered responses to lies put out by the MSM and / or DNC. They were a cheap and very effective way to get his message out. What did he say, tweets are “where it’s at”?

    Indeed.

  40. jupes says:

    You can thank us later.

    You associate yourself with that moron and then wonder why everyone thinks you are a dickhead.

    Struth.

  41. pbw says:

    Paul,

    On the night, Fox News was saying there was a very high evangelical turnout. I haven’t seen any details, though.

  42. pbw says:

    Ant,

    I’ll stick to my original position that said that there were at least 6 candidates who ran in Primaries who would have been unassailable against her

    Aaabsolutely! And thank God Malcon rolled Tony Abbott, or Labour would have won in a landslide.

  43. . says:

    jupes – you have no idea. I got on the Trump train.

  44. . says:

    That’s great pbw. Malcolm won a majority of seats and Trump only won the EC and not the PV.

  45. jupes says:

    I got on the Trump train.

    Toooooootttttt! Toooooooooooottttt!

    Good stuff. There’s going to be so much fun on the TT over the next 4 (8?) years.

    You do know that Qataris and the FSA have been left at the station don’t you Dot?

  46. mr skeletor says:

    That’s great pbw. Malcolm won a majority of seats and Trump only won the EC and not the PV.

    Malcom lost the majority of seats. Lucky Barnaby had an extra to throw him.
    Or maybe you think Country voters actually preferred the Toff over Abbott?

  47. . says:

    The day the Nats grow a spine – oh wait.

    Look at a Nat electorate. Primary votes way over 60% – ALP – lucky to hit 30%.

    So yes, the Coalition can be treated as one party. You’re splitting hairs now.

    If you guys can’t tell the difference between the FSA and SDF – that’s on you. Also note Lavrov was in contact with the FSA and Russia did airstrikes for them before they were completely compromised.

  48. Empire GTHO Phase III says:

    I’ll stick to my original position that said that there were at least 6 candidates who ran in Primaries who would have been unassailable against her

    It all makes sense now. Ant is a satirist.

  49. Jim Hutchison says:

    Sorry Cats this thread has got well off the track. Rupert’s Rag reported correctly that Joe Hockey was in touch with Trump’s team months ago. This has been confirmed by the odious Christopher Pyne recently. I have no opinion on the Greg Norman story – but I suspect it is complete bullshit. Sometimes I despair that a conservative libertarian outfit can lose sight of plain facts. Try harder.

  50. Empire GTHO Phase III says:

    Sorry Cats this thread has got well off the track. Rupert’s Rag reported correctly that Joe Hockey was in touch with Trump’s team months ago. This has been confirmed by the odious Christopher Pyne recently. I have no opinion on the Greg Norman story – but I suspect it is complete bullshit. Sometimes I despair that a conservative libertarian outfit can lose sight of plain facts. Try harder.

    Facts don’t work anymore. The left rejects facts and reason in favour of emotion and propaganda. Consequently I will use whatever means I deem appropriate to destroy them, including their own odious approach to memology.

    What’s with “Try harder”? Are you a school teacher?

  51. Indolent says:

    The Greg Norman story was on Channel 9 News today, complete with interview with Malcolm Turnbull who did not deny it but rather seemed to boast about his wide connections!

  52. BorisG says:

    Surely the Americans can’t be incensed about Trumps private locker-room comments when they saw the brazen behaviour by Italy’s president Burlesconi…

    A few points:

    1) US voters usually don’t care what foreign leaders do. Many have no clue.
    2) Usually US voters are far more concerned about those matters than Europeans. Clinton had to answer questions about say Paula Jones. A French leader could just say, it is a private matter.
    3) Trump indeed is quite similar to Berlusconi in many ways.

  53. BorisG says:

    As Steve Kates pointed out, the unceasing screaming at Trump by the media has an effect. What will happen in the next election depends on how successfully Trump governs for the next four years, whether he can turn the economy around, whether he can stem the immigration flood, and whether he can maintain his “bypass the media” communications strategy. Here Bannon will be critical.

    well many Cats have a different opinion. they think the fact that he beat HRC against all odds is a sufficient achievement. And if he also allows Keysotne pipeline, he will be immortalised.

    but me thinks in a few months the honeymoon will be over and he would have to deliver or face a backlash from his base.

  54. BorisG says:

    If Hillary lost it then why didn’t you pick up the fact she was unelectable prior to the election? Instead everyone said she was a shoe in.

    We did. We hated both candidates. we just didn’t know which one will be more unelectable.

    I did predict Clinton win, but a year ago I said this is GOP election to lose because after 8 years voters usually want change. JC can confirm my words.

  55. Far Right Heretic says:

    @jupes: Welcome aboard. I have been on this train since the start AND IT HAS NO BRAKES

  56. BorisG says:

    I have been on this train since the start AND IT HAS NO BRAKES

    that is scary. I hope you survive.

  57. NewChum says:

    we shouldn’t read too much into his election being a backlash against ‘globalisation’ etc.

    Nice try. But that is exactly what it was. A rejection of open borders. It was the issue that put a rocket in his campaign in the primaries and the thrust was strong enough to push through pussygate.

    People focus on the ‘rust belt’ nature if the victory states and forget these areas are being used as the dumping ground for refugees. People watch the news. They see what is going on in Europe.

    The most popular chant at rallies was ‘build the wall’, followed by ‘lock her up’.

    Lots of globalists trying to put a good spin on things but the truth for them is ugly. Nationalism is on the rise. Watch the Austrian election next.

  58. Malcolm Thomas says:

    Free trade may be optimal for a small country aiming to maximise is long term living standards, but protectionism can boost jobs in the short term.

    Meanwhile, for a large country with market power like the US, protectionism can potentially increase both income and employment.

    The risk for Australia is that our people will see protectionism leading to jobs growth in the US, or here in the short term should we dabble in it, and draw the conclusion that it’s in our interests to switch back more fully to a protectionist industry policy.

  59. A Lurker says:

    This post supposes there was no electoral fraud however there is footage online of Soros owned voting machines changing a vote for Trump and the republican ticket to a vote for Clinton and the dem ticket. There are also reports (and possibly footage) of voting officials filling in ballots for Clinton and reports that at least three million illegals voted (most likely for Clinton). I suspect that Trump won the popular vote and by a wide margin and that just like Brexit the vote was rigged but not rigged enough.

    My thoughts exactly.
    Also, don’t forget the dead – they vote early and often too.

  60. jupes says:

    We did. We hated both candidates.

    Who is this “we” you speak of?

    In actual fact, some of us have been on the train from the start, while others waited on the platform for a while before getting on board.

    Only a fool is still at the station now.

  61. Delta says:

    Not necessarily Sinc. Whilst the WSJ will play analysis games, I’d say a better analysis would have looked at the voter turnout in each state/electorate/division etc and compare that with previous years. It could well be the that there was a greater turnout in Democrat areas as some Democrats responded to “get out the vote”. In a system where voting is non compulsory, the votes counted only represent the concerns of the people who voted. Do the non-voters have views? My guess is that they do, but the opinion polls all got that wrong, didn’t they? [Design of opinion polls?] How many non-voters were included in the opinion polls? Were the polls skewed to favour the Democrats in an attempt to influence the outcome by “discouraging” Republican voters from voting as their vote would then not count for much?

    Then there is the issue of voter fraud: just how many illegal votes were counted? Just how many dead people voted?

    Maybe a Trump administration can clean up this mess. But even then interpreting election results and the overall wishes of the electorate based on the popular vote where voting is optional is fraught with danger especially with substantial voter fraud. Simply with this system, no-one can say with any accuracy just how representative of the opinions of the total population the popular vote happens to be.

  62. Mayan says:

    Let’s not forget that the US became the dominant economic power after WW2 because all the other industrial powers had been reduced to rubble. While there are various explanations for their 20c economic hegemony, that reality cannot be ignored.

  63. Any free trade deal that includes China is a JOKE!

  64. Crossie says:

    It also occurs to me that the greatest benefits of free trade would be realised by Australia unilaterally allowing free trade.

    We did that with Paul Keating and most of our industry then fled to Asia. I call it unilateral disarmament.

  65. Crossie says:

    Let’s not forget that the US became the dominant economic power after WW2 because all the other industrial powers had been reduced to rubble. While there are various explanations for their 20c economic hegemony, that reality cannot be ignored.

    They also had the advantage of widespread automation of industry including the farmwork. Farming automation stopped with cheap illegal labour, it would start up again if farmers had to pay legal workers proper wages.

    I know our farmers use cheap backpackers but so could American farmers. The key word here is “legal”.

  66. Crossie says:

    Another thought to my comment at 8:13 am, why couldn’t refugees do what backpackers do? Or even the “youths” rampaging through Victoria? I will sound like my grandmother but when the youths have put in 8 hours of physical labour they may not be as inclined to riot.

  67. JB5 says:

    Everyone harping on about the popular vote just doesn’t get it. You win by getting to 270 EC votes. Trump worked hard to get those EC votes in places like NC, WI, MI, PA etc, where he wasn’t expected to win but very much needed to take.

    I won’t say he couldn’t have cared less about the popular vote, but apparently he spent FU on CA (both money and time, relatively speaking), knowing it was a waste of time (EC wise), and used his slim resources where it actually mattered (EC wise). Especially as Nov 8 drew closer.

    This is shown in the 2012 v 2016 vote count in CA where Romney got 1.2 million more votes than Trump.

    Clinton also fared far worse than Obama did in CA, but that was always going to be the case as enthusiasm for Clinton was never going to be anywhere near that of Obama for important sections of the Democrat base.

    And yet she still won 2-1 in CA. As expected.

    Whatever pure numbers say, it appears Trump once again outplayed the the experts and accomplished exactly what he wanted to, where he needed to.

    And now we have President Trump.

  68. Robbo says:

    Only 58% of those eligible to vote bothered to do so and it is interesting to note that Trump received 26% of the eligible vote and Clinton 27%. Perhaps the screaming crazies who are demanding that Clinton should be President because she won the popular vote might have a think about those numbers and consider what the word popular actually means. Under the rules that have been in place for a very very long time Trump cantered past the winning post with a lot to spare. If the voting was reversed and it had been Clinton who won would those rioting loonies be yelling for a rule change?

  69. Rococo Liberal says:

    A lot of the analysis of the election in the US falls into the left-wing trap of thinking that certain categories of people vote on the same lines.
    It’s rather like the old statistic that white cars are involved in fewer accidents. That of course might mean that white cars are naturally safer. But it could also mean that people who are safer drivers tend to buy white cars. Or it could even be a combination of the two.
    I think it would be better to divide the voters on socio- political lines rather than on race, sex or educational attainment.
    The fact is that the well-off (other than the Doctors’ wives types) went for Trump, as did the aspirational C2’s who won it for Maggie T in 1979.
    The poor who want free stuff, went for Clinton, as did a few noisy better off people, who were sucked in by the media.
    Blacks and hispanics make up a large swathe of social clases D and E. If they were encouraged to become economically aspirational, rather than to whine about ‘racism’ more of them would move up the social scale and would vote Republican.

  70. justin says:

    If Trump loses the popular vote then he can’t be the least disliked candidate. That is illogical. He won because he won where it mattered. His campaign was more effective. That said we are splitting straws given the closeness of the popular vote and margin of error in things like electoral fraud, illegal immigrants voting, unregistered voters voting and errors in the voting technology or process.

  71. Pat Warnock says:

    WELL, has he lost the popular vote Still counting.

  72. one old bruce says:

    It has been said that the Democrats have lost Appalachia which is traditional Democrat territory. That’s the old American working class in a single zone, crossing many vital state electorates. So the Dem have lost the American working class, very likely permanently. They took them for granted, and even turned against them, “bitter clingers, deplorables, racists, bigots”. Not that the GOP can take them for granted either.

    Does Australia have a working class to compare with the US’s? More like a welfare class, ever since Gough.

  73. one old bruce says:

    “The Popular Vote” seems to come down to a million or so illegals in California who voted Dem! Didn’t Obama encourage them to vote, “There’ll be no penalty”? Of course a million is a lot. A million donkeys?

  74. JC says:

    Does Australia have a working class to compare with the US’s? More like a welfare class, ever since Gough.

    30% of the US British population’s ancestry are the borderers. This dude has a funny story about them. They were the fuckers who seems to have turned it for Trump in Penn and Ohio, I reckon.

    The British movement to the Americas appears to be nothing like a cohesive ethnic group. They were as diverse as anything.

    Ours may have not been as diverse.

  75. BorisG says:

    Meanwhile, for a large country with market power like the US, protectionism can potentially increase both income and employment.

    and prices for consumers.

  76. Malcolm Thomas says:

    … most of our industry flee top Asia.

    Well,iff you define ‘industry’ as manufacturing,then maybe. But if you take the broader and more meaningful definition of industry,which would include primary and tertiary industries and not just secondary,then definitely not. The massive increase in both aggregate employment and per capita income in the decades since Keating is the key. Removing protectionism has been a boon for Australia.

Comments are closed.