When Donald Trump was elected as President of the United States earlier this month, the media was quite rightly full of stories of how this may affect the relationship between the United States and Russia, given that Trump had made several statements over the course of the campaign which suggested that he was in favour of a very different relationship with Russia and Russian President Vladimir Putin than his predecessors had pursued. Trump regularly praised Putin during the campaigning describing him as more of a leader than President Obama, and praising his “very strong control” over Russia. Following the election result, many in the Kremlin were understandably very pleased as Trump had seemingly been their favoured candidate over the course of the election process. Many in the Russian Government will likely feel that the election of Trump will have given them more scope to carry out the type of expansionist policy which they have pursued in the likes of Ukraine, and which has been opposed by Nato up to now.
Whilst it seems that Russia now have a friend in the White House in Donald Trump, it seems as though they may well soon have a friend in the Elysee Palace as well following the 2017 French Presidential Election.
The current frontrunners for the French Presidency (and the two candidates expected to progress from the first round into the run-off) are Marine Le Pen of the National Front and Francois Fillon, who is expected to wrap up the Republican nomination this weekend. In the past, both have made very positive statements with regard to Russia, in much the same way which Trump did throughout the US election campaign.
Le Pen’s longstanding pro-Russia views are well known and have been well documented, but she built on that last week by describing how the trio of Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and herself as world leaders “would be good for world peace”; whilst it is also known that the National Front has accepted loans from Russian-backed banks in order to finance their election campaigns.
However, her likely opponent in the final round of the Presidential Election Francois Fillon has also espoused very pro-Russia views in the recent past, although these have been less publicised than Le Pen’s.
Between 2007 and 2012, Fillon served as Prime Minister of France under the Presidency of Nicolas Sarkozy (one of the candidates vanquished by Fillon and Alain Juppe in the first round of the Republican Presidential Primary last weekend). During this time he overlapped with Vladimir Putin who served as Prime Minister of Russia between 2008 and 2012, under the Presidency of Dmitry Medvedev. Following Donald Trump’s election to the US Presidency, Fillon was asked if he was at all worried about the possibility of impending close relations between the United States and Russia, he said he was not, saying: “I don’t only not worry about it, I wish for it.” Fillon has argued that all the sanctions levied against Russia following the invasion of Ukraine should be lifted, whilst he has also backed a coalition between Western countries and Russia, along with Bashar al-Assad, to defeat ISIS in Syria. On Tuesday, following Fillon’s unexpectedly strong showing in Sunday’s primary, the Kremlin described Putin as having “rather good relations” with Fillon.
All this is worrying to many observers. With Le Pen and Fillon the overwhelming favourites to contest the final round of next year’s Presidential Election, it seems almost certain that Francois Hollande’s successor as French President will be sympathetic to Russia, and Russian expansionism.
This adds to a growing trend across Europe of pro-Russian leaders winning power, or at least winning significant support.
Viktor Orban, the populist Eurosceptic Prime Minister of Hungary has long favoured close ties with Russia, at least in terms of business; this led to Hungary agreeing a loan from the Kremlin believed to amount to €10.8 billion to finance the expansion of a nuclear power plant which supplies almost half of Hungary’s electricity. Previously the European Commission had sought to challenge the deal as they felt that it increased Hungary’s dependence on Russia, and would plunge Hungary into debt.
Another European leader who has sought to cultivate close relations with Putin is Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras who came to power as leader of the Syriza party in January 2015. Tsipras has looked to Russia for help with Greece’s economic travails and has described Russia as “Greece’s most important ally”.
There have also been signs that this pro-Russian sentiment is being echoed by others across Europe, in particular among some of the Eurosceptic political leaders who have come to the fore over the past couple of years, and who have recently been emboldened by the political shocks of Brexit and Trump being elected President.
But, it is the development that France may soon have a President who is sympathetic to Putin along with the signs that the United States has one in Trump which will be most worrying to many other members of the international community. Most significant is the impact these countries have upon the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). The UNSC is made up of fifteen member States but of these fifteen, five are permanent members: the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China. Any of these permanent members have the power to block or veto a UN resolution. If the US and France were to begin offering support to Russia in the UN, then this would greatly increase Russia’s ability to act as they please in the international arena.
Of course, although Trump espoused pro-Russian views during the election campaign, we do not know whether he will row back on this in the same way that he has on other issues, for example his pledge to appoint a Special Prosecutor for Hillary Clinton, which he has now confirmed that he won’t be taking any further. Indeed, it has been rumoured that both John Bolton and Mitt Romney are being considered for the role of Secretary of State. Both are known to be anti-Russia, and as such the Kremlin would likely be extremely unhappy if they were to be appointed. However, it does seem that Trump himself is keen for closer relations with Moscow. Similarly from what we can see that is the aim of both Le Pen and Fillon as well.
Of course, it will be a while until we know anything for sure about how these recent political developments have changed international affairs in terms of Russia. But, on the face of it, it seems that the real political winner of 2016 politics so far, is Vladimir Putin and Russia.
At the weekend Nigel Farage and his group of hangers-on travelled to New York to visit President-elect Donald Trump. Among the group was millionaire UKIP and Leave.EU donor Arron Banks. Clearly the visit had some effect upon him because he has since announced his plans to launch a new political party solely dedicated to ‘draining the swamp’ of Westminster.
Banks has suggested that he will be funding a new movement which will look to stand candidates against 200 MPs deemed to be the “worst, most corrupt MPs”. His aim is to harness the ‘anti-establishment sentiment’ which he believes is sweeping through world politics, and which has led to Brexit and the election of Donald Trump.
The idea is modelled somewhat upon the candidacy of Martin Bell, a BBC journalist who stood against disgraced Conservative MP Neil Hamilton in the 1997 General Election, ultimately winning his seat of Tatton. Incidentally Hamilton is now, like Banks, a member of UKIP.
Banks has suggested that the targets will be chosen by some form of direct democracy, however he does seem to have some ideas about who he would like to get rid of. He has said that he would rate MPs by undesirability with “Keith Vaz at number one”, whilst a picture released on the Leave.EU twitter page also suggests prominent Remain campaigners Nick Clegg, Anna Soubry, and David Lammy as targets. One would assume that UKIP’s only MP, Douglas Carswell, for whom Banks doesn’t conceal his contempt, would also be a target for the new party.
Banks’ new party won’t take party positions in the traditional sense, however he has suggested some causes that they would likely support, including: “forcing through a change of the rules so that MPs can only hold office for two terms, abolition of the House of Lords and pushing for an elected senate, and insisting on a lower age limit of 40 for MPs to stop career politicians.”
Now I get that Banks wants to harness some of the hateful rhetoric that came from the Trump campaign for the Presidency, and bring it into UK politics. However, I have some questions about how he thinks he can achieve this.
Firstly, Banks’ attempt to unseat MPs is modelled somewhat on the one-term independent candidacy of Martin Bell, and its success in unseating Neil Hamilton in 1997. Whilst Bell was successful in unseating Hamilton and won the seat with a majority of 11,077, this was in part because of a plan masterminded by Alastair Campbell where he arranged for both Labour and the Liberal Democrats to withdraw their candidates for Tatton so as not to split the anti-Hamilton vote. Banks wouldn’t have this advantage. In most seats he’d face the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats, Green Party, and UKIP; whilst in some he may also face the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru — therefore splitting the vote even further. Therefore, the likelihood of one of his candidates being successful in gaining election is very, very low.
Secondly, Banks suggests he wants to field, “a great candidate, a military guy, doctor, someone who has done something with their life.” However, the chances of him finding 200 candidates that fit this description, and who are also willing to stand on a platform created by someone like Banks (who was a key part of the racist Leave.EU campaign), seem very slim to me. What’s more, Bank’s suggests an upper age limit of forty for MPs. Therefore, quite how he expects to find 200 candidates with amazing life experience, who are also under forty, and are also willing to stand on a platform created by him, is beyond me. Overall, the likelihood of him finding the personnel to complete this ridiculous pet project seems to be very slim indeed.
Thirdly, this project by Banks is an attempt to ride the populist wave from Brexit and the election of Donald Trump. However, Theresa May still insists that the next general election won’t be until 2020, by which time Brexit will be four years in the past and Donald Trump will be struggling to be re-elected. Populism in politics seems to be something which moves extremely quickly, and who knows what its status will be in four years time. My guess is that voters will have long grown tired of the non-solutions offered by populist politicians.
Finally, some of the suggestions which Banks has put forward as issues which his new party might support just don’t seem workable to me. In the previous paragraph I mentioned the proposal of an upper age limit of forty for MPs, but there is also the insistence that each MP should be limited to just two terms in the House of Commons. Although this might sound good when he says it too himself, it just wouldn’t work. With Parliamentary terms being a maximum of five years long, we would never have a Prime Minister with more than ten years experience as an MP — this would not be good for governance in this country. Our last Prime Minister, David Cameron, took office as PM after serving as an MP for nine years. Most of his predecessors had served for much longer: Gordon Brown for twenty-four years, Tony Blair for fourteen years, John Major for twenty-one years, and Margaret Thatcher for twenty years; and the list goes on. I am confident that none of these people could have done the job of Prime Minister after less than two terms as an MP, and I don’t think that the British public would have let them do the job of Prime Minister without this experience. What’s more, I think that it is extremely unlikely that someone could come in with no experience of the workings of Parliament and simply become Prime Minister. For all the talk of Donald Trump’s lack of political experience being a virtue, there have been reports that President Obama is having to spend extra sessions with Trump before the inauguration because his knowledge of government is so lacking. Realistically, to ask someone with no knowledge to do the job of Prime Minister straightaway seems a non-starter to me.
Ultimately, this is pretty typical from Banks, a ridiculous idea attempting to get some publicity and massage his ego — all whilst bringing the likes of Nigel Farage and himself further into the limelight than anyone wants them to be. In an entertaining article from earlier today, Iain Martin describes Banks’ new party as, “The Stupid Party”. That seems like a pretty good name to me.
Since Donald J. Trump beat Hillary Clinton to the Presidency on Tuesday night, various hypotheses have been put forward as to why the Democrats lost an election that so many thought they would win comfortably, against a Presidential Candidate in Donald Trump whom at first glance looked about as unelectable as it was possible to be. With President Obama’s approval rating relatively strong and on the rise, most thought that the election of Hillary Clinton to the Presidency was a foregone conclusion. Alas this was proved to be wrong, and in the days which have followed the inquest has begun into why Clinton and the Democrats failed to win, and why the Republicans managed to win the Presidency and retain control of both Houses of Congress for the first time since 2006.
One of the most popular hypotheses put forward has been that Clinton’s main rival in the Democratic Presidential Primary, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, would have defeated Donald Trump by a comfortable margin. There are many who feel that Sanders, with his own brand of left-wing populism, would have been a better candidate to take on the right-wing populism of Trump.
Indeed, this was a view espoused by Sanders and his supporters throughout the primary campaign. During an appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press, Sanders said:
“Right now in every major poll, national poll and statewide poll done in the last month, six weeks, we are defeating Trump often by big numbers, and always at a larger margin than Secretary Clinton is.”
Sanders and his supporters put this view forward many times throughout the campaign but ultimately they were unsuccessful, with the wider Democratic Party rallying around Clinton and helping her to the nomination despite Sanders running her extremely close in the Iowa Caucus, and winning the New Hampshire Primary by a very wide margin.
Sanders supporters point to various reasons as to why he could have defeated Trump in the Presidential Election, if only the Democrats had selected him.
One key thing that supporters point to is the popularity of Sanders, who has been named the most popular United States Senator for the past two years. In an election where the two main candidates were uniquely unpopular, they suggest that this could have been a huge asset which would have propelled him to victory. Sanders supporters also point to his popularity amongst millennials, many of whom didn’t warm to Hillary Clinton, and as a result cast their votes for the likes of Gary Johnson or Jill Stein, or simply stayed at home. Mostly though, Sanders supporters point to his primary successes in the very States in which Clinton struggled most on Tuesday. During the Democratic Primary, Sanders won victories in Wisconsin and Michigan, both of which were considered Democratic strongholds prior to the election but which were ultimately won by Trump. It has been suggested that Sanders was propelled to success in these primaries by the same forces that propelled Trump to victory in these States on Tuesday, namely the forgotten men and women of the white working class. This means that, in theory, Sanders could have competed with Trump better than Clinton for the votes that ultimately decided the outcome of this presidential election.
However, would Sanders really have done better than Clinton against Donald Trump?
In the Presidential Election, although Clinton had issues gaining the support of the white working class, arguably her biggest problem was failing to energise African-American voters to turn out and vote for her in the same way that Barack Obama did four years previously. In winning the Presidency, Donald Trump actually received less votes than the 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney, however the Democratic vote fell so significantly that Trump won the Presidency. In large part, this was because the African-American vote fell significantly. Around 88 percent of black voters supported Clinton, compared to around 8 percent for Trump, however turnout wasn’t high enough for this margin to make a difference, with black voters making up 12 percent of the electorate as opposed to 13 percent four years ago. Had Clinton been able to garner the same turnout among black voters as Barack Obama, she probably would have won States like Michigan, North Carolina, and Florida, and with them the Presidency.
But would Sanders really have done any better?
During the Democratic Primary, Sanders’ main difficulty was his low support with African-American voters, and in many of the primary contests he lost black voters to Clinton by around fifty points. Clinton struggled with the young and the white working class during the primary campaign, and then struggled with these groups again during the general election. Given that Sanders struggled with African-American voters during the primary, it would be expected that he would also struggle with African-American voters in a general election. Therefore, whilst Sanders may have been able to turn more white working class voters over to the Democratic cause, this would likely be counteracted with a fall in African-American support — meaning that Sanders would have probably suffered the same fate as Clinton when coming up against Donald Trump.
As well as this, although it seems a fair argument that Sanders’ left-wing populism could have matched the right-wing populism of Trump, the results around the United States seem to provide little evidence for this. In Colorado, one of the key battleground States which Clinton won, on the ballot alongside the Presidential Election was a referendum on a single-payer healthcare system. The introduction of a single-payer healthcare system was one of the key planks of Sanders’ candidacy, yet in Colorado it was defeated comfortably. In Wisconsin, former Senator Russ Feingold, who is an ally of Sanders, was attempting to win back his old Senate seat. He lost to Republican Tea Party incumbent Ron Johnson — by a bigger margin than Clinton lost Wisconsin by. Therefore, there seems little concrete evidence that Sanders’ policies would have played better with the electorate than Clinton’s policies.
As well as this, Sanders was a regular surrogate on the campaign trail for the Clinton campaign, consistently telling voters that they had to vote for Clinton lest they get a Donald Trump Presidency. However, this didn’t turn the tide, with Trump still emerging victorious. So perhaps Sanders’ popularity with the white working class is indeed being overstated, and he wouldn’t have gained much more support for the Democrats in a contest between him and Donald Trump.
Also, Bernie Sanders’ policies were scrutinised during the Democratic Primary but not in the same way as they would be during the general election. During the primaries, Donald Trump dismissively referred to Sanders as “Crazy Bernie”. Facing him in the general election would have allowed Trump the opportunity to paint Sanders as a radical socialist, which in all likelihood would have torpedoed his candidacy.
In addition, the presence of two populist candidates on the ticket, could well have precipitated a major third-party candidacy. In January, there was a lot of speculation that former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg would enter the Presidential Race as an independent candidate.
Bloomberg’s candidacy would be unlike most third-party or independent candidacies in that it would have been extremely well funded and able to compete around the country, much like the candidacy of Ross Perot in 1992 and, if you think about it, the candidacy of Donald Trump this time around.
Ultimately, it is hard to see where Sanders could have done better than Clinton. Although he may have lessened Trump’s support amongst the white working class, his candidacy would likely have further reduced turnout amongst the African-American community. And although Sanders is able to pitch himself as a more anti-establishment politician than Clinton, he is still a career politician who has been a Senator working in Washington D.C. for almost ten years. Trump would have been able to tap into exactly the same level of anti-politics feeling against Sanders as he could against Clinton. More than anything, this result was a vote for change and a vote against the Washington establishment. Although Sanders is arguably not an establishment politician, I think that Trump would probably have still been able to paint him that way, and what’s more he would also have been able to deride him as a radical socialist.
Overall, although it makes for a nice and easy conclusion, the reason that the Democrats lost was not because they didn’t choose Sanders as their candidate, he would in fact have probably have suffered the same fate as Clinton. If the Democrats come to this conclusion, and choose to shift to the left as a result, then they would be hugely mistaken. Just look at what has happened to the Labour Party in the UK, where after losing in the 2015 General Election running on Ed Miliband’s centre-left platform, they then chose to elect as leader the arch left-winger Jeremy Corbyn after concluding that the reason for their loss to David Cameron’s Conservative Party was that they were not left-wing enough. However, unsurprisingly, Corbyn is languishing in the polls and shows no sign of being able to compete for power in the UK.
Although Bernie Sanders is clearly a very gifted politician and it would be remiss of me not to praise his excellent primary campaign, it would be a huge mistake for Democrats to conclude that their failure to nominate him for the Presidency caused their loss. To do so could confine them to the electoral wilderness for an extended period of time. Instead, they should concentrate on re-building the party (and although he is not suited as a Presidential candidate, Sanders should certainly have a role in this rebuilding job) and finding another centrist candidate who can challenge Trump in 2020. Because in the 2020 Presidential Election, the Democrats will have a very real chance to regain presidential power, and they will need to be prepared for this.
So I was wrong, Donald Trump has won the Presidency. Going into election day I still felt sure that the trend towards populist candidates would be halted in its tracks, and that normal service would be resumed thanks to the United States somewhat archaic Electoral College system. Before polls began to close, I didn’t really see a path to the White House for Trump. I mean, to win he had to win Florida, and although that would be close high Hispanic turnout would surely allow Clinton to edge the win. Likewise, I fully expected Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania to go Clinton’s way. Michigan and Pennsylvania had voted Democrat in every Presidential Election since 1992, Wisconsin in every Presidential Election since 1988. Surely Trump couldn’t take them, could he?
Alas, I was wrong. Trump didn’t just take one of these States, he took all four. Add to his column North Carolina, Ohio (by an astonishing 8.6 percent), and Iowa, and you’ve got the recipe for a comfortable victory in the Electoral College — currently projected to be 306 votes for Trump to 232 for Clinton. Having said this, it looks as though Clinton narrowly won the popular vote. But, as we know only too well (Gore 2000), it’s all about the Electoral College.
So, why did Trump win? Most of the media and political pundits effectively anointed Hillary Clinton as the next President (and the polls also suggested this outcome), and I must admit that I was only too willing to follow suit, and I am sure that I wasn’t the only one.
Prior to the election, all the talk was about how the sleeping giant of the American electorate, the Hispanic population, was going to play a huge part in deciding the winner. But in actual fact, the Hispanic impact was overstated. Yes, it was arguably the Hispanic population which got Clinton over the line in Nevada (mostly as a result of early voting) but it was always going to be Florida which mattered the most. There was somewhat of a surge in Hispanic voters (particularly in the early voting), and more Hispanics did indeed vote in this Presidential Election than in any previous Presidential Election. However, although Hispanics did vote overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton, they didn’t vote for Clinton quite overwhelmingly enough. In fact, Trump actually received around 27 percent of the Hispanic vote nationwide. This means that he beat Bob Dole’s 1996 tally of the Hispanic vote (Dole got just 21 percent), and received a similar percentage to Mitt Romney’s 2012 share (Romney also took around 27 percent of the Hispanic vote). All this meant that despite the surge in the number of Hispanic voters, Clinton still couldn’t compete in Florida, undoubtedly the most important State in this election.
And on top of this, Trump had a surge of his own. The surge of the white working class. Similarly to those in the UK who voted to leave the European Union in June, these tended to be voters who felt disillusioned by the political elite and left behind by globalisation. Although the results of recent US elections and the ongoing demographic changes in many of the swing states suggested that the Democrats could win an election despite minimal support amongst working class whites, this view proved to be unfounded. In 2012, President Obama won so comfortably in the Midwest because of his strong showing with white working class voters. His low rating with this group was almost purely due to the result in the Southern safe Republican States.
In short, in the swing states Hillary Clinton did not outperform President Obama with Hispanics to the extent required to counteract the huge support Donald Trump was gaining with white working class voters. The biggest surges in Hispanic support for Clinton came in California and Texas, States which were never going to have any bearing on the result. Yes, she did outperform President Obama slightly in some areas of Florida, with Clinton slightly improving the Democratic margins in heavily Hispanic counties such as Miami-Dade, but she did not improve the margin enough to counteract the white working class voters which Trump was winning — many of whom had voted for Obama in 2012.
The same huge support for Trump amongst white working class voters was evident in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. In counties which President Obama had won by twenty points in 2012, Trump was drawing level. In counties which President Obama had won by double figures in 2012, Trump was winning handsomely. In these swing states, the same was true as in Florida, Clinton wasn’t over-performing President Obama in the Democratic strongholds. For example, in Pennsylvania, Clinton was unable to get close to the margin needed in Philadelphia to overturn the white working class vote in over areas of the State. The same was true in Ohio, with Clinton not winning cities like Cleveland by enough to overturn her deficit elsewhere.
In short, Clinton certainly made gains among minority groups and the well educated during this election. However, these gains did not seem to occur in the swing states which needed them the most. Either this, or they were simply overwhelmed by the unexpected huge support Donald Trump had amongst the white working class — a group everyone expected him to win, but very few suggested he would win by as much as he ultimately did.
Perhaps the Clinton campaign’s real failure was to misread which were the actual swing states. Throughout the campaign, Clinton barely visited Wisconsin and Michigan, with the campaign putting out hardly any television advertising in these States. Given that they had voted Democratic in Presidential elections for so many years, they thought that they were absolutely safe. Even in nearby Minnesota, typically an even stronger Democratic State in Presidential Elections, the margin of Clinton’s victory was very, very low.
Given how wrong the polling was about these States it is, in hindsight, no surprise that the Clinton campaign didn’t foresee the problems that they were going to have in these States. The same was true in the Trump campaign, who said that their polling results were much the same as professional pollsters. Very few people saw the surge in Trump support in any of these States, apart from perhaps Ohio — although even there the polls generally only had Trump a point or two ahead, nowhere close to the 8.6 percent margin he ultimately took Ohio by.
It is difficult to now what caused such a huge polling error, but perhaps the most simple explanation was that voters were simply not willing to tell pollsters that they were backing Trump. We saw a similar phenomenon in the recent European Union referendum, where polls before the referendum gave the Remain campaign a surprisingly strong lead, seemingly because many Leave voters were telling pollsters that they planned to vote remain. We also saw a similar thing in the recent referendum in Columbia on the agreement on a peace deal between the Columbian Government and the FARC rebels. Whatever the error is, it will take far a far deeper evaluation of the polls and the methodology used, in order to ascertain what the errors were.
So it was the surge in white voters which took Donald Trump over the line, but that isn’t really an explanation for why Trump was able to win the Presidency.
Was he able to win because of Hillary Clinton’s unpopularity? I’m not sure I buy into this argument, mostly because I think that generally both candidates were disliked, and personality wise Trump probably was disliked more than Clinton. Indeed according to the results of the preliminary exit polls, 54 percent of voters viewed Hillary Clinton unfavourably, whilst 61 percent of voters viewed Donald Trump unfavourably. Therefore, to some extent, I feel that this debunks the argument that Clinton lost because of her national unpopularity — although it was arguably a contributing factor.
Delve more deeply into the exit polls, and I think they shine more light on why Trump won. The exit poll revealed that among Trump supporters, 92 percent felt that the country was on the wrong track, 88 percent were angry with the way the government was working, and 70 percent were voting for a candidate who they felt could bring about change. For Clinton supporters, they were found to generally feel as though the country was on track, and only fourteen percent were voting for a candidate who they felt could bring about change.
So, in short, voters were switching to Trump because they felt that he was the only chance to bring about change. For these voters, many of whom had voted for Obama in 2012, they were willing to vote for Trump despite their misgivings about him purely because he could bring about change, and shake up the Washington establishment. This is much the same as in the EU Referendum, where many people voted Brexit purely to give the Westminster political establishment a bit of a kicking.
Typically, when a single party is in government for an extended period of time (in this case, Obama had been President for eight years) their supporters grow disillusioned, particularly if their ‘champion’ is failing to enact the change that they voted for. This is the main reason why since 1952, there has only been one occasion where the same party has held onto the Presidency for three consecutive terms, with this of course being between 1980 and 1992 when Ronald Reagan was succeeded by George H.W. Bush.
In recent years, gridlock has characterised the workings of Washington D.C., and in his second term President Obama has been able to accomplish little without the use of executive orders. It was here that Clinton’s status as a member of the political establishment counted against her. Throughout his campaign Trump kept saying things along the lines of “she’s been in Washington for thirty years and she hasn’t solved these problems, don’t expect her to solve them now.” Whilst it isn’t true that Clinton had been in Washington D.C. for thirty years, the view that she wouldn’t be able to end the gridlock in government was clearly one shared by many. Indeed, even Clinton’s most ardent supporters would be hard-pressed to support the notion that Clinton would have been able to enact transformative change. It was this reason, that so many voters chose to go for Trump. They simply thought that he was the only chance that they had to change things with regard to healthcare, immigration, manufacturing jobs.
Whether or not he actually has the ability to do, they are not really that bothered. Having exhausted every other avenue for what these voters perceive to be positive change, they are willing to give a complete outsider a go, in the hope that he can shake up the establishment.
This trend in favour of populist and anti-establishment political candidates is one which is replicating itself around the world, on both the left and the right of the political spectrum. Of course we’ve got Trump, and we also had Bernie Sanders during the Democratic Primary. Before that we had the win for Leave in the EU Referendum. Even earlier we had the win for Syriza in Greece. Next year we’ll find out whether the trend continues in the French Presidential Election, where Marine Le Pen continues to look strong.
All over the world, voters are concluding that they want a change from the political establishment who they blame for the poor economic situation which many voters experience in their daily lives. For those who have been more insulated by the economic problems experienced by the developed world over the last eight years, this is perhaps quite hard to comprehend. But the truth is perhaps that voters are willing to vote for anything that they feel will bring about change, and shake up the political establishment.
Overall, Trump won because the voters felt that he was the only candidate who could bring about change. We will soon see whether he manages this task, and if so what changes he brings about.
We’ve known for a long time that the Electoral College makes a Republican Presidential victory that much harder than a Democratic victory — especially when you take into account the ongoing demographic changes in many of the swing states, with the rapid increase in the proportion Hispanics and African-Americans who make up the electorate, which would seem to strongly favour the Democrats.
However, Donald J. Trump won the Republican Party’s nomination earlier this year, and throughout the primary process (and since) has claimed that he can turn States which have voted Democrat in the past six Presidential Elections, meaning that he thinks he can win handsomely.
There are eighteen States (plus Washington D.C), which have voted Democrat in every Presidential Election since 1992. This amounts to 242 votes in the Electoral College, just short of the 270 required for victory. In short, this means that it can be tough for a Republican to win without taking nearly all of the so-called swing states.
I have made my predictions for the Presidential Election, and I broadly stick by them, although I concede that given how the polls have tightened in the past ten days, I may have overestimated Hillary Clinton’s winning margin. However, I maintain that Hillary Clinton is on course to win, as Trump does not really have much of a path to the White House through the Electoral College.
However, this being said, there are some ways that Trump could fashion a road to the White House, albeit a very, very narrow one.
The ‘must-wins’ for Trump:
For Trump, there are several States that he must win, or his chances of winning the Presidency are completely dead and buried.
If we assume that the Electoral College map at present looks a little bit like this:
I’ve been conservative here with the States I have called for each candidate (in particular Clinton). Even though Trump hasn’t led in a poll in Pennsylvania since late June, I’ve put it as ‘leaning’ Democrat rather than ‘safe’ Democrat, in order to be on the safe side. Likewise with Michigan and Colorado.
However, if we assume that Clinton is going to win Michigan, Colorado, and Pennsylvania, then we begin to see the difficult task that Trump has. With these three States added to the ones already wrapped up by Clinton, she would already have a total of 268 votes in the Electoral College, meaning she would need to win just one more swing state for victory.
For Trump, the path to victory is much less simple. He would have to win Florida, Ohio, North Carolina and Iowa. The most recent polling in Florida has suggested that Clinton has edged ahead, but early voting has suggested that although she has an advantage in Florida, it is not quite the same advantage as President Obama had after early voting in 2012. Remember that he beat Mitt Romney in Florida by just 0.88 percent. Therefore, I think it would be fair to say that Florida is a virtual tie at present. As for the other three States I mentioned, Trump appears to have the edge. If we look at the RealClearPolitics polling averages, Trump has a lead of 3.0 percent in Iowa, 1.4 percent in North Carolina, and 3.5 percent in Ohio, meaning that victory in these three States is well within his grasp.
If Trump were to win Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Iowa, then that would leave him with 259 votes in the Electoral College, still short of the 270 needed for victory but not to far away. To get over the finish line, he would need to win both New Hampshire and Nevada, as well as taking the one electoral college vote allotted to the winner of Maine’s Second Congressional District. This would give him 270.
The problem: NEVADA.
Early voting data from Nevada has suggested that Hispanic voters are turning out in record numbers to vote in this year’s Presidential Election. It has been suggested that this is as result of outgoing Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid’s famed Get Out The Vote operation. Given the inflammatory rhetoric used by Donald Trump towards the Hispanic community at large, it is hard to imagine many Hispanics voting for Trump, and the polling throughout the race has reflected this trend. Therefore, it seem sensible to suggest that Nevada is now leaning Clinton’s way. Indeed, experienced Nevadan political analyst Jon Ralston has suggested that Clinton has already built up more of a cushion in the early voting than Obama did when he won the State by seven percent in 2012. If this is indeed the case, then victory for Trump in Nevada is now as good as impossible. Therefore, Trump will have to find a different path to victory than the one I suggested previously.
Could Trump win Michigan or Pennsylvania?
Current polling averages give Clinton a lead of 4.7 percent in Michigan, and just a 2.4 percent lead in Pennsylvania. This means that she is relying somewhat on good turnout in these States, particularly in Pennsylvania. Both States are marked by the limited impact which early voting will have: in Pennsylvania just five percent of voters early voted in 2012, and Michigan doesn’t allow early voting at all. Therefore, it is harder to properly judge the enthusiasm for either candidate this time around. The lack of early voting in these States explains why Clinton has made lots of recent trips to Pennsylvania and Michigan, and why her final rally with Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, Bill Clinton, and Bruce Springsteen in attendance, will be held in Philadelphia on Monday night.
What seems clear, is that Pennsylvania is improbably close, compared to how it seemed just one month ago. However, for Hillary Clinton to lose Pennsylvania on election day would mean an absolute calamity for her campaign, and would suggest the polling is completely wrong. It seems improbable to say the least.
For Trump, the best hope is probably Michigan given the prevalence of ‘blue-collar’ voters. However, the Clinton campaign is extremely organised here, and it is hard to see Trump making to breakthrough he requires.
Realistically, the only path I can see for a Trump victory is the one I mentioned previously. For Trump, winning Florida, Iowa, Maine’s Second Congressional District, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Ohio seems the only way. And with Nevada looking how it does, although a Trump victory remains possible, it is looking very unlikely at this point.
How Clinton could finish Trump off: win Florida.
For Clinton, this is the State which could precipitate a good night’s sleep on Tuesday. She doesn’t have to win Florida, but if she does then the race is as good as over. Assuming she has won Nevada, then if she also wins Florida, Trump could take Pennsylvania and still lose:
If Clinton wins Florida, it is an absolute knockout blow. There is no way Trump will come back from that.
I still think that Ohio and Florida can be won by Clinton, but it is looking more and more unlikely. It has been reported that her early voting numbers in Florida are not quite as good as Obama’s were, which suggests that she is on course for a narrow defeat. However, this doesn’t really matter, as Clinton can comfortably win the Presidency despite losing Florida (and Ohio).
I would be unsurprised if Clinton managed to take Florida but narrowly missed out on Ohio, which would still give her a very comfortable victory in the Electoral College.
Ultimately, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Electoral College map looked something like this:
Overall, I think that despite the late tightening of the polls, Clinton is on course for victory. There have been suggestions that the polls must be wrong, and that they must be underestimating Trump’s support. In fact, I think that the opposite is more likely. It wouldn’t surprise me if Clinton’s victory margin on Tuesday is more than the polls suggest. With the news that the FBI won’t be changing their conclusions in the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, it wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to expect some of the ‘soft Republicans’ who had considered reluctantly voting for Trump, instead casting their votes for Clinton. Given this possibility, I wouldn’t rule out Clinton also taking Ohio; and getting very close in Iowa, Arizona, and crucially North Carolina.
All in all, the stage is set for an exciting election night. Although I would say a Clinton victory is very likely, the real question is, by how much.
Earlier this week, polling released by ABC News and The Washington Post suggested that Trump had moved into a one point lead in national polls for the Presidency. Now it was expected that Trump would gain some support following James Comey’s disclosure that the FBI were re-opening their investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server during her time as Secretary of State, however the result of this poll was particularly remarkable because just a couple of weeks earlier it had found a twelve point lead for Clinton. I would dispute both these findings. It is almost impossible for support for candidates, in what has generally been a pretty close election, to swing by thirteen points in the space of two weeks — it simply does not happen. It strikes me that for the poll to turn up such a swing, then there must be something seriously wrong in their methodology. Now before you say so, this isn’t simply me not wanting to accept that Trump may be in the lead. I expressed the same doubts when the same poll showed that Clinton led by twelve points. It was simply such an outlier from other polls and the polling average, then it surely can’t have been correct.
One of the reasons for this huge swing could be that supporters of candidates often stop responding the polls in quite the same number when their candidates are having a bad day. For Trump, this was following the release of the Access Hollywood tape and following a couple of relatively poor debate performances, when his campaign was arguably at its lowest ebb. For Clinton, this was when it was announced that the FBI was re-opening its investigation into her use of a private email server. This means that it is hard to build up a picture of what it actually going on by simply looking at a single poll in isolation.
In addition, it is worth comparing the polls in this election, with what the polls said at the same stage in previous elections.
In 2012, Mitt Romney led Barack Obama by one point (49–48) with one week to go in the campaign. In 2004, John Kerry led George W. Bush by one point (also 49–48) with one week to go until election day. Both Romney and Kerry lost. Even if Trump is one point ahead at this stage, it does not mean that he is going to win. If anything, what it might do is increase turnout on the Democratic side, with many other unenthusiastic voters coming out to vote in order to prevent a Trump Presidency.
Although this election clearly isn’t over yet, Clinton remains the likelier victor. Given past history, you should certainly be taking the polls with a pinch of salt at this stage.
With the debates over and only a couple of weeks until the Presidential Election, the race is hotting up. Here’s my prediction for how each state will vote, and whether Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will win in November.
Doesn’t even need to be discussed. Has voted Republican in every Presidential Election since 1976, and this won’t change now.
Typically a safe Republican state, and the last time Alaskans voted Democrat was 1964. Although polls suggest the race here is closer than normal this time around, it look likely that Trump will still win relatively comfortably.
Typically Arizona is a relatively safe Republican State, although Arizonans did vote for Bill Clinton in 1996, therefore its definitely possible to turn the State. Polling suggests that this election could be the first since 1996 where Arizona turns blue. The latest polling by the Arizona Republic puts Clinton five points ahead, whilst the RealClearPolitics average has Clinton 1.5 ahead, making it look like a Clinton victory is coming in Arizona.
Arkansas almost always votes Republican. They did vote for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, but that was only because he was previously the State Governor. Polling for this years race has consistently suggested that Trump leads by over twenty points here, and so the result here is a foregone conclusion.
California is one of the safest Democratic states, and hasn’t voted Republican since the days of Ronald Reagan. This will be an easy Clinton win, probably by around twenty points.
Typically considered one of the swing states, Colorado is usually won by the ultimate election winner, with President Obama having won the state in both 2008 and 2012. Polling suggests that Clinton has a relatively comfortable lead here, with the RealClearPolitics average giving her an advantage of 8%.
Has voted Democratic in the last six Presidential Elections and it would be very unlikely for the result to differ this time around. A comfortable Clinton win.
Has always voted Democrat, will do so again this time around.
Often described as the swingiest of all swing states, it was victory in Florida which won the Presidency for George W. Bush in 2000 despite him losing the popular vote to Al Gore, and it could be similarly significant this time around. Florida normally votes for the winner, with 1992 being the last time it didn’t. Obama won here by just 0.9% in 2012, but current polling suggests that Hillary Clinton has a lead of 4% going into the final stages of the campaign. Victory here could ultimately be crucial to her White House bid.
Georgia hasn’t been won by the Democrats since 1992, but even though it tends to be a relatively safe state for the Republicans, the margins are never huge. In short, it is winnable for the Democrats. Current polling provides a mixed picture, with most polling suggesting that Donald Trump is holding a slim lead, but others showing that Hillary Clinton has pulled ahead. Although Georgia can currently be considered a toss-up, I am doubtful that it is really a State that the Democrats can win, and there are certainly easier Republican targets for them to aim at (Arizona for example). At the moment it looks as though Trump will hold on here.
One of the safest Democratic states of all, Hawaii has only voted Republican in Presidential Elections twice in its history. Clinton will win comfortably here.
The last time Idaho was won by a Democrat was in 1964, and it’s been a safe Republican State ever since. There is no chance of that changing.
A safe Democratic State which hasn’t voted Republican since 1988. Current polling puts Clinton close to twenty percent ahead of Trump.
Not considered a swing state, Indiana tends to be strongly Republican. However, the Hoosiers did vote narrowly for President Obama in 2008, before swinging sharply back toward the Republicans four years later. The RealClearPolitics polling average suggests that Trump has a lead of five percent, and although this may lessen as we near the end of the race, it looks as though he will hold on.
Iowa is currently considered a battleground state, but Iowans have in fact voted Democrat in six of the past seven Presidential elections. However, current polling suggests that could be about to change. The latest polling suggests that Trump has pulled into a four point lead, however Hillary Clinton looks as though she is gaining support here, and by the time the election comes around she should probably have taken the lead. In any case, the margin here looks set to be one of the narrowest in this election.
One of the safest Republican States that there is. There is no question about who will triumph here.
Tends to vote Republican, although did vote for Bill Clinton in both 1992 and 1996. Trump has a very comfortable lead in the polls here, and it will remain that way.
Another Southern State which voted for Bill Clinton in both 1992 and 1996, but otherwise a safe Republican State. Looks set to be another comfortable Republican victory here.
One of only two States (the other being Nebraska) who don’t allocate their Electoral College votes on an ‘all or nothing’ basis. In Maine, the statewide winner gets two electoral votes, with one electoral vote up for grabs for the winner of each of Maine’s Congressional districts. As of yet this hasn’t resulted in a split electoral vote, and Maine has voted Democrat in the last six Presidential elections. But current polling suggests that the race is much more competitive this year than in previous years, with Clinton sitting on a five percent statewide lead (a significant fall from the fifteen percent margin President Obama led Mitt Romney by). But, although Clinton leads statewide, Trump leads in by around ten percent in Maine’s Second Congressional District, which would give him one electoral vote.
Prediction: Clinton (3 votes), Trump (1 vote).
Very safe Democratic state which Hillary Clinton will win with ease.
Voted Democrat in the last seven Presidential elections, and a very safe Democratic state this time around. Another easy Clinton win.
During the Republican Primary Campaign, Michigan was a State picked by Trump as one he felt he could capture from the Democrats. Although Michigan has voted Democrat six presidential elections, Trump felt that as a State that was significantly affected by the financial crash, it could be his for the taking. However, it is looking as though this confidence was misplaced, and polling suggests that Clinton has a lead of about eleven percent here. Michigan will remain a safe Democratic state for now.
The last time Minnesotans didn’t vote Democrat in a Presidential election was 1972, when Richard Nixon won a landslide victory. Although Hillary Clinton is leading here in the polls, it is looking much closer than usual. President Obama won Minnesota by ten percent in 2008, and by seven percent in 2012, Hillary Clinton currently leads by only around five percent. Nonetheless, it looks as though she will hold on, and carry the State.
One of the safest Republican States out there. An easy Trump win.
Missouri has voted Republican more than Democrat in recent years, however it does have a relatively good record at picking the overall winner. However, this was lessened in recent years, John McCain carrying the state by just 0.1% in 2008, and Mitt Romney winning comfortably in 2012. Polling suggests that Trump leads in Missouri by about 5–8%, and expect it to stay this way on polling day.
Montana has only voted for two Democrats in the last fifty years, and it looks sure to stay red this year. Trump will win comfortably.
In the same way as Maine, Nebraska allocated its votes by Congressional district with one for the winner of each of these, plus two for the statewide winner. A split has only occurred once, when President Obama narrowly won the Second Congressional District in 2008. The Clinton campaign has put a lot of money into the Second Congressional District, and it looks as though they may be able to replicated Obama’s 2008 success. The overall State vote will be comfortably won by Trump.
Prediction: Trump (4 votes), Clinton (1).
A true swing state, Nevada tends to be one of the best predictors of the overall winner. The last time Nevada didn’t vote for the overall winner was 1976, where it voted for Gerald Ford ahead of Jimmy Carter. This year, most polling conducted in the State has given Hillary Clinton a relatively secure lead, with the current polling average giving her a 4.2% advantage in a three-way race. Expect it to stay this way on election day.
New Hampshire has voted Democratic in five of the last six elections, and although John Kerry carried the State in 2004, it generally has a good record of picking the overall winner. It is a State which Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson suggested he could have a chance of taking on election day, but his challenge seems to have fallen by the wayside a little. Clinton holds a comfortable lead here, and it looks set to remain that way.
Although New Jersey has a Republican Governor, the former Republican Presidential candidate Chris Christie, it has voted Democrat in the last six Presidential elections. Polling suggests that Hillary Clinton has a twenty point lead here, and there is no way this will change.
New Mexico is typically a Democratic State, and has voted this way in five of the past six presidential elections. Nonetheless, as a previous Governor of the State, it was a target for Gary Johnson. However, it looks like Clinton has done more than enough to win it, with polls suggesting that she holds a comfortable lead at this stage.
A safe Democratic State which hasn’t voted Republican since the days of Ronald Reagan. Despite Donald Trump suggesting early on the campaign that as a New York native he stood a chance here, polling has suggested otherwise. Clinton will win comfortably.
A battleground state, North Carolina tends to be Republican more often than Democrat. Having said that, the State was carried by President Obama in 2008, only to be lost to Mitt Romney four years later. This year, Clinton has generally been in the lead here, but it has been very, very close. The latest poll gives her an advantage of just two percent. Despite this narrow lead, she has probably done enough to hold on.
Very safe Republican State which has voted Democrat only once in the past 76 years.
In recent years, Ohio has been a very strong predictor of the overall election winner. Since 1944, Ohioans have voted for the losing candidate just once, when in 1960 they selected Richard Nixon ahead of John F. Kennedy. Polling in Ohio for this race has constantly flitted between Clinton and Trump, and both candidates have held leads of up to seven points here at some point in this election. The current RCP Polling average gives Trump a lead of 0.6%, but recent polls have been tied suggesting that Clinton is gaining momentum here. I think that she has momentum enough to carry the state.
Has voted Republican in all but one of the Presidential Elections here since 1948, will definitely vote Republican again.
Was a relatively strong Republican state until 1988, and since then has voted exclusively Democrat in Presidential elections. Polling suggests Clinton leads by about ten points here, and will win comfortably.
Commonly considered a swing state, but in recent elections Pennsylvania has been carried by the Democratic candidate. This will continue this time.
Safe Democrat, and has only been won by the Republican candidate for President twice in the last fifty years. Easy Democratic win again.
A safe Republican State which hasn’t voted Democrat since 1976 (when Jimmy Carter who was from neighbouring Georgia was on the ticket). Will definitely vote Republican again this time around.
Very safe Republican state which hasn’t voted Democrat since 1964.
In the last two elections, Tennessee has been carried by the Republican candidate for President, but other than this and 1960, the State has sided with every Presidential Election winner since 1928. However, evidence suggests that the State has become more Republican in recent years, and can now be considered safe.
Texas is usually a reliable Republican State, and has voted this way in every election since 1980. In 2012, Mitt Romney won here by almost sixteen percent. However, recent polls have suggested that the State is now in play for the Democrats, and that Trump’s lead here is down to around two or three percent. However, given the dominance of the Republican Party here, it would be a really tough ask for Clinton to win. I expect the Republicans to hold on, but the gains made here in this presidential election could prove very helpful to the Democrats in 2020 or 2024.
Utah is one of the oddest states in this years election. Usually a very safe Republican state, the State’s high Mormon population have not warmed to Trump at all, and the Republican candidate only came third in the caucus here earlier this year, behind Ted Cruz and John Kasich. Enter independent Presidential candidate Evan McMullin, a former Republican aide in the House of Representatives. Recent polling has put support for McMullin in Utah as high as 29 percent, just one percent adrift of Donald Trump. Although polls tend to overestimate support for third-party candidates early on in presidential races, they tend to be pretty accurate later on. Therefore, we should be able to be pretty confident that McMullin can hold on to this support, or increase it. McMullin has the advantage of being able to focus his campaigning efforts on Utah, whilst Donald Trump has to travel all around the country as part of his campaign. Therefore, with only a few percent to make up, I think that McMullin can do it and become the first third-party candidate since George Wallace in 1968, to carry a state.
From 1856 to 1988, there was only one occasion that Vermont wasn’t carried by the Republican candidate for President, in 1964 when the State voted for Lyndon B. Johnson ahead of Barry Goldwater. However, since 1992 the state has been reliably Democratic. In addition, the Democrats could benefit from Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who is campaigning hard for Clinton. All in all, Vermont will be an easy Clinton win.
From 1953 until 2004, Virginia was a safe Republican State, and was only carried by the Democrats once in this period. However, in 2008 and 2012, President Obama won here, both times by around five percent. Virginia has been considered a key state throughout this election campaign, and was perhaps one of the main reasons that the Clinton campaign chose former Virginia Governor (and now Senator) Tim Kaine to be Hillary Clinton’s running-mate. Polling suggests that this move has paid off, and Clinton holds a strong lead here in the run-up to election day.
Has voted Democrat in the past seven presidential elections, and the Democrats have a strong advantage here again. Will be an easy Clinton win.
West Virginia was won by Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis in the 1988 Presidential Election, and held by Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996. However, since then it has been reliably Republican, and the last three Presidential Elections have seen Republican landslides here. Expect another Republican landslide this time around.
Often considered a battleground state, but has actually voted Democrat in the past seven Presidential elections. Clinton leads here comfortably, so expect the same this time.
Reliably Republican, and has voted Democrat just twice since 1944. Will be an easy Republican win.
As you can see from the above graphic, the following predictions would result in Hillary Clinton winning a commanding victory in the Electoral College. As for the popular vote, I do not expect the margin to be as large as Clinton’s margin of victory in the Electoral College suggests. In 2012, President Obama beat Mitt Romney by just 3.9 percent in the popular vote. If the polls are to be believed, and they sound believable, then the popular vote margin in this election will be greater. Although Hillary Clinton is doing slightly worse than Obama in many of the North-Eastern Democratic strongholds, she is doing considerable better in many of the Southern states. In 2012, Romney won most of these by double figure margins. Texas was won by more than fifteen percent, Arizona by eight, Missouri by nine, Idaho by almost 32. In this election, these margins will be much, much narrower. Given this, it would be unsurprising to see Clinton’s lead in the popular vote getting closer to seven or eight percent, maybe even ten if she does particularly well on the day.
But, it is the Electoral College that matters, and in the Electoral College Clinton is set to win comfortably, consequently winning the Presidency.
With the Presidential Election on November 8, we’ll find out soon enough whether these predictions are correct.