Don’t Mourn Hillary’s Loss

We are all tired. Exhausted from what feels like years of election mania. First the primaries, the hilarious, made-for-TV Republican debates, the Democratic talk shows, the Sanders revolt to the months of boring presidential squabbles between Hillary and The Donald. The FBI. The emails. The groping. It’s finally over. Time to exhale.

Election Day has come and gone and we are now sitting in an ugly new era, stunned that the Trump revolution won, and won big. Hillary Clinton and whatever she actually stood for, lost. And lost bad. Far worse than any polls suggested, even the few that had Trump squeaking out a victory.

There will be plenty of blame flying around in the weeks and months ahead. Yet, no matter what bullshit excuse Democrats come up with for Hillary’s historic embarrassment, they have only themselves to blame. She lost because she deserved to lose. She ran an awful campaign, mired in controversy, and was unable to excite voters to the polls. She believed neoliberalism could carry the day, but she was wrong. The DNC was wrong. The establishment lost because the establishment deserved its fate.

By no means does this mean Trump will overthrow the status quo, it only means the outsider Trump was better able to exploit the boiling rage of middle America. All the workers who were undercut by Bill Clinton’s NAFTA. The hundreds of thousands that never rebounded from the Bush recession. Trump provided an outlet of hope for these lost souls – a fabricated hope no doubt, but hope nonetheless – wrapped in rage. His mastery of social media, of vindictive and racist rhetoric, helped him gut the provincial electorate. Against all odds, against allegations of sexual misconduct, against common sense, being anti-Trump wasn’t enough to get Hillary elected.

In many ways, Hillary was her own worst enemy – a poor campaigner, a flat platform and only an ounce more personality than her VP pick Tim Kaine (and that’s not saying much).

With no ground game, far less money than the Democrats, nearly zero endorsements from Hollywood and the media, Trump still prevailed. Somehow he understood a fair portion of the American psyche better than Hillary ever could. It seemed she learned little from the branding genius of Barack Obama or the accessibility of her husband Bill. By night’s end it was clear she gleaned nothing from Bernie Sanders’s movement and cared little about his searing critiques of Wall Street and our corrupt political system that’s left so many behind.

Being against Trump, in the end, was not nearly enough.

The years ahead will be telling. How will Democrats respond to a Trump presidency? Will they view it as an opportunity to reimagine themselves in a progressive light, or will they continue to believe neoliberalism and identity politics are enough to win elections?

Don’t hold your breath.

In the end, progressives shouldn’t be depressed by this election’s outcome (and I’m not talking about legal weed in California and elsewhere). They should be invigorated. They should be ready for a fight. Where the left failed to oppose the most sordid policies of the Obama administration, from drone strikes to the dreadful ObamaCare, perhaps progressives will be awakened under Trump’s reign and fill the streets in disgust at every turn.

One can only hope. Hope and rage against the new machine.

  • Published in Specials

Trump Calls for Unity of Americans

Washington, Nov 9 (Prensa Latina) US President-elect Donald Trump called on Americans to join and promised that he would be the leader of all his compatriots.

In a conciliatory tone, the real estate tycoon pointed out that 'we must unify our great country', and look for a better future for millions of people, above the differences of races, genders and religion in order to renew what he called 'the American dream'.

Every American will have the opportunity to fulfill his aspirations, we will rebuild our infrastructures, schools, hospitals, we will put millions of people to work, we will take care of our veterans, he added.

He said he has a grand economic plan to strengthen the economy, and said he will tell the international community that the interests of the United States are first, 'we will seek common ground with other nations, without hostility to other countries.'

He thanked the support of his work team and his family throughout the campaign, in which he said, worked a considerable group of talented people, and in particular mentioned the role played by Rudolf Giuliani, ex-mayor of New York.

Trump won the November 8 election, winning 288 electoral votes against Clinton, who reached 215.

  • Published in World

TV Stations, the Big Winners in U.S. Elections

Washington, Nov 8 (Prensa Latina) The big TV stations are the main winners in the presidential elections in the United States, with estimated revenues of billions of dollars.

According to the website The Hill, the upset caused by both Democratic Candidate Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump have provided prime material to the big media organizations, whose news coverage resembles a bad but entertaining soap opera.

However, such news coverage has been as rejected as the candidates to the White House, because, according to a joint survey by The Wall Street Journal and NBC, only 19 percent of U.S. adults approve of the coverage.

In addition, one third of U.S. citizens believe in the press, according to a Gallup poll in September, while Republican voters strongly think that their candidate is a victim of prejudices.

Such a fall in credibility contrasts with an increase in TV viewing rates and revenues, as shown by nearly one billion dollars of net profits that CNN will report in 2016, according to The Washington Post.

It is the largest profit reported by CNN in 36 years, while the coverage of the elections by its rival, Fox, exceeded the broadcasts of college American football and the Major Leagues' playoffs.

Last year, Fox made 2.3 billion dollars by concept of advertisements, plus 1.6 billion dollars more in profits by its associated company 21st Century Fox, and according to the firm SNL Kagan, profits will be higher in 2016.

Although the trend is positive among TV stations, the written media, in particular the newspapers, have reduced the number of issues and have lost clients to advertise, therefore money.

  • Published in World

Hollywood Ceremony Turns into Space for Discussing Politics

The 20th edition of the Hollywood Film Awards ceremony became the main topic of the specialized media after becoming a space where several celebrities discussed about the US elections.

This was James Corden second year hosting the show and right in the beginning he said that he still had no idea of what the awards represented: 'Literally none of this is real. It's the awards-show equivalent of a Donald Trump campaign promise'.

Later, Corden continued by saying that this year they brought back to Star Wars with a female protagonist and made a Ghostbusters remake with a female cast, so he 'prayed to God they reboot t the Clinton presidency with a female lead.'

Most of the comments were in favor of the Democratic candidate. Several celebrities called on their fellow citizens no to miss the opportunity to vote, among them Leonardo DiCaprio, who said: Let's all use our power as citizens to do the right thing. Please vote this Tuesday, Nov. 8.'

Robert de Niro was awarded the Hollywood Comedy Award for his performance in The Comedian and while accepting his award he said: 'We have the opportunity to keep a comedy from turning into a tragedy. Vote for Hillary on Tuesday. '

  • Published in Culture

How Hillary Clinton could win 270 electoral votes

Hillary Clinton is the favorite to win Tuesday’s presidential election. But the race has tightened of late in both national and swing state polls, and there’s been increasing chatter suggesting that Clinton’s “firewall” protecting an electoral college majority could be in danger.

The big picture, though, is that Clinton has two broad paths toward reaching 270 electoral votes:

1) Holding her six “firewall” states: Virginia, Colorado, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire. Those states, combined with the solidly Democratic states, would give her the presidency.

2) If she loses one or more firewall states, she’d likely have to make up for those losses with similarly-sized wins in one or more of the following: Nevada, North Carolina, and Florida — the diverse toss-up state trio.

 

Let’s walk through the math. Clinton starts off with 200 or so likely electoral votes, from the blue states, below:

 Vox

Now, this list of solid Clinton states does include New Mexico, Minnesota, and the statewide Maine contest (its congressional districts award electoral votes separately). The Trump campaign has argued that all of them are competitive, but political observers have greeted those claims with intense skepticism. And in any case, if Clinton is losing those states she probably has much bigger problems elsewhere.

If Clinton does win this batch of blue states, though, she’d need to put together a combination of 70 or more electoral votes in the remaining contests to get to 270. Here’s how she could do it.

 

Clinton’s first shot at winning is through protecting her firewall

Back around August, polls started to indicate have that Clinton’s easiest path to 270 electoral votes could be through winning six states in particular where she’s led the vast majority of polls this year: Virginia, Colorado, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire.

These states have often been referred to as the “firewall” protecting Clinton’s electoral college majority. If she won them, while holding on to the solid blue states, she’d win 272 electoral votes and therefore the presidency, without even needing to win other swing states like Florida, North Carolina, and Nevada.

 Vox

Yet as election day approaches, the strength of Clinton’s firewall is coming into question.

Analysts generally think that Clinton is still in good shape in Colorado (nine electoral votes) and Virginia (13 electoral votes), two states with sizable nonwhite populations and growing numbers of educated white voters. And high-quality polling in Wisconsin (10 electoral votes) suggests she’s still ahead there too.

Yet she’s gotten more mixed news in the three other firewall states.

In Pennsylvania (20 electoral votes), the biggest and most important firewall state, no recent poll has shown Trump ahead. But Clinton’s lead appears to have shrunk to just a couple of points, on average.

In Michigan (16 electoral votes), the second-biggest firewall state, Clinton’s team has long thought the race wasn’t seriously competitive, and didn’t bother to run ads there until recently. But the newest polls have shown her lead shrinking to the low single digits all of a sudden, and the Clinton campaign is scheduling several last-minute campaign events there to shore up her support.

And in New Hampshire (four electoral votes), Clinton had led every poll since July — until last week, when five new polls all either showed a tie race or Trump taking the lead. Now, another poll just released shows her up 11, but still, it’s not entirely clear whether the Granite State is really still part of the firewall.

Overall, if Clinton holds the firewall, she wins. But if one or more firewall states do end up falling, she’ll have to make up for those losses elsewhere.

Clinton could compensate for some firewall losses by winning more diverse toss-up states

Outside of the firewall are three states that appear from polls to be pure toss-ups — Florida, North Carolina, and Nevada.

This trio of states has tended, over the course of the campaign, to be tighter in the polls than the firewall states. In normal circumstances, that would suggest that they are inherently less pro-Clinton — and so, if the firewall states moved out of her reach, they would move similarly away from her.

Perhaps that would happen. But the demographic aspects of Trump and Clinton’s respective support bases suggest it’s not guaranteed. Trump’s support is heavily concentrated among non-college educated white voters — who are actually a pretty big share of the electorate in several firewall states, like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Hampshire. So Democrats have increasingly gotten nervous that those non-college whites could turn out heavily in those states, particularly after reports of lower black voter turnout so far than 2012.

Florida, Nevada, and North Carolina, on the other hand, all have populations that are a third or more nonwhite. In the former two those nonwhite voters are mostly Hispanic, and Hispanic voters appear to have been galvanized in opposition to Trump. North Carolina has a much smaller Hispanic population, but it has a reasonably high amount of college-educated white voters, many of whom have also tended to oppose Trump.

Furthermore, early voting has proceeded apace in this trio of swing states for weeks — and many observers believe the Clinton campaign is better at turning out early voters than the Trump campaign. Indeed, in all three, votes equivalent to more than 60 percent of total 2012 votes have already been cast. So the Clinton campaign’s ground game had much more time to turn out voters compared to Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Hampshire, where there is no in-person early voting.

The toss-up states Clinton would need to plug up various firewall losses

The firewall states in which Clinton’s prospects appear to be diciest right now are, again, New Hampshire, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. So if she lost one or more of them, she’d probably have to make up for it by winning some combination of the toss-up states (Nevada, Florida, and North Carolina) that’s at least roughly equivalent in electoral votes.

Here are the possible ways that could play out:

1) If Clinton wins only Nevada and its six electoral votes, while losing North Carolina and Florida, she’d only be able to cancel out a loss of New Hampshire’s four electoral votes, so she’d need the whole rest of the firewall to hold strong. (Many observers now expect Clinton to win Nevada despite the tight polls, since early voting seems to have gone well for Democrats there.)

2) If Clinton wins only North Carolina (where 15 electoral votes are at stake), that would probably be a good enough substitute for the loss of Michigan’s 16 electoral votes to give her the presidency. It could also, of course, make up for a New Hampshire loss. But it wouldn’t be sufficient to make up for a loss of both Michigan and New Hampshire, or for the loss of Pennsylvania.

3) Now, if Clinton wins both North Carolina and Nevada, that would give her 21 electoral votes, which would be enough to cancel out the loss of either Pennsylvania, Michigan, or New Hampshire alone, or the loss of Michigan and New Hampshire combined.

4) The easiest way Clinton could help herself is by winning Florida and its yuge haul of 29 electoral votes. That would cancel out the loss of any one firewall state, the loss of New Hampshire and Pennsylvania, or the loss of New Hampshire and Michigan.

5) If Clinton wins Florida and Nevada (35 electoral votes) she’d also be able to cancel out the loss of Michigan and Pennsylvania together, so long as she held on to New Hampshire.

6) Then, if Clinton wins both Florida and North Carolina (a hefty 44 electoral votes) she could survive the loss of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire together (whether or not she won Nevada).

7) Finally, if Clinton won Florida, North Carolina, and Nevada together (50 electoral votes), she could survive some pretty massive losses of firewall states.

This last scenario is what we might call the “full Brownstein”— referring to Atlantic journalist Ron Brownstein, who has long argued that Democratic support is being concentrated among a “coalition of the ascendant” (nonwhites, young voters, and socially liberal college-educated whites), while the party is losing whites without a college education.

 

Indeed, here’s what one version of the “full Brownstein” scenario might look like — in which Clinton loses the firewall states of New Hampshire, Michigan, and Pennsylvania (along with Ohio and Iowa) while making up for it with North Carolina, Florida, and Nevada. It’s certainly not the most likely map based on current polling (which, again, shows Clinton still ahead in Michigan and Pennsylvania), but it would be a tremendously significant map for the future of the Democratic coalition.

The Full Brownstein.
Vox

Of course there are many plausible scenarios where Clinton wins bigger, too. She could hold the firewall and win all three diverse toss-up states. She could also still have a shot at Arizona and Ohio, both of which she continues to contest even though polls indicate they’re leaning toward Trump.

But as far as how Hillary Clinton can get over 270 votes in the first place, the answer seems clear — either she holds her firewall states, or she makes up for firewall state losses with wins among the three diverse swing states.

  • Published in World

New Poll Shows Tie Between Clinton and Trump

Less than a week before the US election polls poorly define picture, when one of them speaks today of a tie between Republican, Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton.

According to a survey by Washington Post-ABC News conducted from October 28 to 31 and broadcast on Wednesday, each candidate has the support of 46 percent of likely voters.

A similar study released yesterday gave one-point lead to the billionaire, while since more than a week ago Clinton was ahead with two- digit difference, which shows the ground gained by the tycoon in recent days.

The survey conducted among 1,182 likely voters also showed that 46 percent of respondents considered the Republican more honest and trustworthy, versus 38 percent who chose their opponent; one month ago they appeared tied in that section.

The new numbers are recorded a few days after the FBI Director James Comey, send a letter to the House of Representatives to announce the reopening of the investigation on the use that Clinton made of a private e-mail server.

Such news aroused the rejection of the democratic formation and even supporters of Trump, by considering that they are seeking to influence the outcome of November 8 elections.

  • Published in Specials

New Poll Shows Tie Between Clinton and Trump

Washington, Nov 2 (Prensa Latina) Less than a week before the US election polls poorly define picture, when one of them speaks today of a tie between Republican, Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton.

According to a survey by Washington Post-ABC News conducted from October 28 to 31 and broadcast on Wednesday, each candidate has the support of 46 percent of likely voters.

A similar study released yesterday gave one-point lead to the billionaire, while since more than a week ago Clinton was ahead with two- digit difference, which shows the ground gained by the tycoon in recent days.

The survey conducted among 1,182 likely voters also showed that 46 percent of respondents considered the Republican more honest and trustworthy, versus 38 percent who chose their opponent; one month ago they appeared tied in that section.

The new numbers are recorded a few days after the FBI Director James Comey, send a letter to the House of Representatives to announce the reopening of the investigation on the use that Clinton made of a private e-mail server.

Such news aroused the rejection of the democratic formation and even supporters of Trump, by considering that they are seeking to influence the outcome of November 8 elections.

  • Published in World

Biden tops Clinton list for U.S. secretary of state: reports

Vice President Joe Biden tops a short list for secretary of state that is being compiled by the transition team of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, two media outlets reported.

Politico on Thursday night cited an unidentified source as saying Clinton and her aides were discussing how to approach Biden about the post, should she win the Nov. 8 presidential election.

Most national opinion polls show Clinton, who served as President Barack Obama's first secretary of state, leading Republican Donald Trump in the race for the White House.

Biden became a respected voice on foreign policy during his 36 years in the U.S. Senate, where he was chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and at one point served alongside Clinton, when she was a senator from New York.

"He'd be great, and they are spending a lot of time figuring out the best way to try to persuade him to do it if she wins," the source familiar with Clinton's transition planning told Politico.

NBC News later confirmed that Biden was under consideration for the job of top U.S. diplomat.

Biden, of Delaware, had considered running for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016. He has campaigned vigorously for Clinton in her race against Trump, a New York real estate tycoon and former reality television personality who has never run for office.

The vice president said at a campaign event for Clinton in Pennsylvania this week that he is frequently asked whether he wished he had been debating Trump, who has insulted women, Muslims and immigrants and thumbed his nose at political norms.

"No, I wish we were in high school. I could take him behind the gym. That's what I wish," Biden said, prompting a similarly pugilistic retort from Trump a couple of days later.

In excepts from an interview released from CBS' Sunday program "Face the Nation," Biden made it clear he wanted to continue his public service.

"I'm not going away. I'm, you know, everything from this issue of violence against women, to income inequality, to the cancer moonshot, I'm gonna devote the rest of my life to this."

  • Published in World
Subscribe to this RSS feed