Well since Hillary is going to speak, here is the list of the mistakes her campaign did:
1. Arrogance, not campaigning in some swing states like Wisconsin or Minnesota, campaigning in Michigan only in the last moment.
2. Secrecy, it made most people suspicious about their intent.
3. Reliance on control of the media, shameless media bias for Hillary turned people off.
4. Reliance on big data, they couldn't even see defeat until it was too late, didn't shift many votes despite the cost.
5. GOTV, 100k volunteers to bank votes early did nothing like for Romney in 2012 to give victory.
6. Reliance on other people to do Hillary's job, Lady Gaga, Jon Bon Jovi, Michelle Obama ect.
7. Lack of policies and a positive message.
The biggest one is the Democrats failed to realise how broad their coalition is. Sanders was a warning shot they failed to heed in the presidential campaign. Beating Sanders in the primary was never going to be enough to bring them on side.
do u think in the short term it is actually the democrats that have the bigger demographics problem.
I would have thought, given the bombshell that the result turned out to be, that it was unwise to rush to too hasty conclusions about what went right for Donald Trump and what went wrong for Hillary Clinton. Time for some quiet reflection I'd have thought.
In Hindsight those are plain to see.
Both Trump and Hillary made plenty of mistakes, but Trump had the growing populist wave behind him while Hillary was doing an old school campaign in a new era.
Do you know what the phrase "most extreme" means? He is literally the furthest left wing election winner we have ever had in my whole lifetime. In the last 40 years.
You seem to think "most extreme" and "furthest to the left" are synonyms. Technically perhaps, but to most normal people "most extreme" means that from a bunch of people all of whom are extremists you refer specifically to the one who is even more extreme than all the rest :-)
I can't believe my first post for months is about grammar
It isn't. It's about semantics! (And how's that for pedantry? )
It took weeks to finish counting all the votes in 2012 so this is not comparing like with like. I know because I was filling in a spreadsheet with the results last time. California took ages to complete its count.
Well since Hillary is going to speak, here is the list of the mistakes her campaign did:
1. Arrogance, not campaigning in some swing states like Wisconsin or Minnesota, campaigning in Michigan only in the last moment.
2. Secrecy, it made most people suspicious about their intent.
3. Reliance on control of the media, shameless media bias for Hillary turned people off.
4. Reliance on big data, they couldn't even see defeat until it was too late, didn't shift many votes despite the cost.
5. GOTV, 100k volunteers to bank votes early did nothing like for Romney in 2012 to give victory.
6. Reliance on other people to do Hillary's job, Lady Gaga, Jon Bon Jovi, Michelle Obama ect.
7. Lack of policies and a positive message.
The biggest one is the Democrats failed to realise how broad their coalition is. Sanders was a warning shot they failed to heed in the presidential campaign. Beating Sanders in the primary was never going to be enough to bring them on side.
do u think in the short term it is actually the democrats that have the bigger demographics problem.
Dems now have a very serious demographic problem. They need to work out what they are doing for 2018 fast.
I think the biggest take away from this, and Brexit, is that people aren't stupid. In both cases, the establishment has sought to ensure the continuation of their desired status quo by highlighting the distastefulness of the other side. But the choice was binary, and the other option was to give an AOK to things going exactly the same. People were therefore forced into a choice between the unacceptable and the merely unpalatable. In both instances, a winning margin of people decided to go with the latter.
Except, politics as we know is the art of the possible. Politicians begin their journey wanting to save the world and provide free owls for all. The reality is that compromises are made from the moment they take office.
At the moment, we have the increasing maturity of the hitherto latent emerging economies which are making a huge challenge to gain primacy in any number of industrial and service sectors. It is the march of history. "Made in Hong Kong" these days would mean Morgan Stanley writing a CNY-USD swap. Chongqing is the largest city in the world where only 25 years ago it was full of mud huts. South Asia and Eastern Europe are going through similar transformations.
In the face of this, westerners continue to expect a standard of living that their productivity and value-add doesn't necessarily support. Disappointment is inevitable and people look for someone to make it all ok again.
But no one can. Not Trump, not Brexit, not Jezza.
I think the answers to that require more time and space than I have here! But in my opinion whilst upsetting the establishment applecart does not equal a revival in fortunes for the working populations of 'The West', it ought at least to challenge some of it's more pernicious aspects. Overgrowth of corporate power, overgrowth of bureaucracy and state control in every area of life, endless and costly foreign military interventions, power of supranational bodies without democratic accountability, etc.
By 2020 it is now certainly possible Trump will have taken the US out of NAFTA and the WTO and of course the UK will be out of the EU. The tide is turning against globalisation and nationalism is on the rise again, protectionism is also almost certain to see a revival under President Trump. Indeed Joseph Chamberlain's ideas are perhaps seeing a big revival, he is also the hero of May's chief adviser Nick Timothy
Trump supporters are either ridiculous illiterates...in which case you feel sorry for them; or terrible racists, or quite simply unashamedly facists. I cannot think of any other reason why one would support him.
Sad to see your ignorance and lack of the ability to put yourself in the mind of those who disagree with you. My wife voted Trump, and she is none of the things you describe - a physician, feminist, libertarian, who works with and has friends in various ethnic and LBGT communities. She could vote for Trump because she thinks his views on those issues are immaterial - the battle for their rights have been won and the victory is irreversible, as it is not in the power of the Presidency to overturn them and there is no support in congress for that. Same for abortion rights.
So all the things you find awful in Trump were immaterial to her voting decision.
My wife, my daughter, and I all voted for Trump. Getting beyond the noise the choice we all felt was simple - it ain't working and Clinton represents more of the same. Something has to change and Trump was the only one who had a chance of making some changes. Will he be successful? Who knows, but the status quo was not an option. Given a choice between ongoing failure and the chance of success, however small, you take the chance.
We are not racists, fascists, or illiterates. We don't call our opponents silly names either.
Have to say, I've thoroughly enjoyed being an honorary Deplorable over the last few months.
And today's ululating on Twitter is even more entertaining. I've heard hyperbolic cry bullying that puts even hardcore Remoaners in the shade.
Having thought about it for a while I find that I am not close to as worried or upset about Trump winning as I thought I would be. He is a dealmaker, not an ideologue, so a lot of the stuff he said on the campaign trail will be forgotten and a lot of the rest of it will run up against Congress. Once he starts getting his secret service briefings, foreign policy might become a bit more nuanced. Most of all, though, the right now has control - here and in the US. There can be no ifs and no buts. There is nothing standing in the way. It's time to deliver. I am genuinely intrigued to see how it plays out.
That's does put they hyperbole into a bit of perspective, and I generally agree.
The trouble is which Right? A great deal of what people were protesting about e.g. hollowing out of industry happened under laissez faire economics of Reagan and neo-liberalism. Bill Clinton followed along to certain extent. There's plenty in GOP who will not want to turn away from this way of working the world, especially the funders.
Do you know what the phrase "most extreme" means? He is literally the furthest left wing election winner we have ever had in my whole lifetime. In the last 40 years.
You seem to think "most extreme" and "furthest to the left" are synonyms. Technically perhaps, but to most normal people "most extreme" means that from a bunch of people all of whom are extremists you refer specifically to the one who is even more extreme than all the rest :-)
I can't believe my first post for months is about grammar
It isn't. It's about semantics! (And how's that for pedantry? )
Lol I just thought that reading my own post back...
Erdogan's actions on (social) media, the judiciary and so on are not the actions of a man who believes in an open democracy.
I have seen no evidence that Erdogan's first election in 2002 was unfair.
My point is that he changed once in power, as did Putin. As electors, we need to beware of people who might wish to twist democracy to give themselves more power, and extend their power over non-governmental things like the media. This is one reason I'm wary about Leveson.
And as I keep on mentoning: Erdogan is only following where Putin's already gone. And from his viewpoint, why shouldn't he: no-one's stopped Putin.
Where is the parallel in what Erdogan is doing now with what Putin has done?
Putin's gone much further when it comes to control, for instance of the media. Erdogan's just following.
This is what amuses me of the pro-Putin, anti-Erdogan crowd. They're both doing the same things.
Having thought about it for a while I find that I am not close to as worried or upset about Trump winning as I thought I would be. He is a dealmaker, not an ideologue, so a lot of the stuff he said on the campaign trail will be forgotten and a lot of the rest of it will run up against Congress. Once he starts getting his secret service briefings, foreign policy might become a bit more nuanced. Most of all, though, the right now has control - here and in the US. There can be no ifs and no buts. There is nothing standing in the way. It's time to deliver. I am genuinely intrigued to see how it plays out.
I've been saying for some time that Trump isn't an extremist, he's a chameleon. Amewrica doesn't know what they'll get. We don't know what we'll get. I'm not sure he knows either. It's a roll of the dice. Let's hope for the best...
Well since Hillary is going to speak, here is the list of the mistakes her campaign did:
1. Arrogance, not campaigning in some swing states like Wisconsin or Minnesota, campaigning in Michigan only in the last moment.
2. Secrecy, it made most people suspicious about their intent.
3. Reliance on control of the media, shameless media bias for Hillary turned people off.
4. Reliance on big data, they couldn't even see defeat until it was too late, didn't shift many votes despite the cost.
5. GOTV, 100k volunteers to bank votes early did nothing like for Romney in 2012 to give victory.
6. Reliance on other people to do Hillary's job, Lady Gaga, Jon Bon Jovi, Michelle Obama ect.
7. Lack of policies and a positive message.
The biggest one is the Democrats failed to realise how broad their coalition is. Sanders was a warning shot they failed to heed in the presidential campaign. Beating Sanders in the primary was never going to be enough to bring them on side.
do u think in the short term it is actually the democrats that have the bigger demographics problem.
Their problem is their diversity. It's hard to keep them all sweet, especially if the other side pick a candidate specifically targeting one of their blocs.
The impression I have is that Trump's voters were overwhelmingly people who always vote Republican. In a divided politic it was a very small insurgency from the disaffected unionised working classes that got him over the line. Clinton did well with Hispanics who are all in Texas and California where they don't make any difference. Otherwise she was too dependent on people who always vote Democrat.
How come all my attempts at play-doh animals look like the result of some weird genetic experiment that would have made Frankenstein think twice about continuing his experiments?
Trump supporters are either ridiculous illiterates...in which case you feel sorry for them; or terrible racists, or quite simply unashamedly facists. I cannot think of any other reason why one would support him.
Sad to see your ignorance and lack of the ability to put yourself in the mind of those who disagree with you. My wife voted Trump, and she is none of the things you describe - a physician, feminist, libertarian, who works with and has friends in various ethnic and LBGT communities. She could vote for Trump because she thinks his views on those issues are immaterial - the battle for their rights have been won and the victory is irreversible, as it is not in the power of the Presidency to overturn them and there is no support in congress for that. Same for abortion rights.
So all the things you find awful in Trump were immaterial to her voting decision.
My wife, my daughter, and I all voted for Trump. Getting beyond the noise the choice we all felt was simple - it ain't working and Clinton represents more of the same. Something has to change and Trump was the only one who had a chance of making some changes. Will he be successful? Who knows, but the status quo was not an option. Given a choice between ongoing failure and the chance of success, however small, you take the chance.
We are not racists, fascists, or illiterates. We don't call our opponents silly names either.
Have to say, I've thoroughly enjoyed being an honorary Deplorable over the last few months.
And today's ululating on Twitter is even more entertaining. I've heard hyperbolic cry bullying that puts even hardcore Remoaners in the shade.
They say that madness is being in a minority of one. A lot of us here thought that you had gone mad. Turns out you were the warden and the rest of us were the patients.
Having thought about it for a while I find that I am not close to as worried or upset about Trump winning as I thought I would be. He is a dealmaker, not an ideologue, so a lot of the stuff he said on the campaign trail will be forgotten and a lot of the rest of it will run up against Congress. Once he starts getting his secret service briefings, foreign policy might become a bit more nuanced. Most of all, though, the right now has control - here and in the US. There can be no ifs and no buts. There is nothing standing in the way. It's time to deliver. I am genuinely intrigued to see how it plays out.
I've been saying for some time that Trump isn't an extremist, he's a chameleon. Amewrica doesn't know what they'll get. We don't know what we'll get. I'm not sure he knows either. It's a roll of the dice. Let's hope for the best...
Trump a chameleon? Can you name a single Hillary policy she didn't u-turn on during the primary campaign?
Having thought about it for a while I find that I am not close to as worried or upset about Trump winning as I thought I would be. He is a dealmaker, not an ideologue, so a lot of the stuff he said on the campaign trail will be forgotten and a lot of the rest of it will run up against Congress. Once he starts getting his secret service briefings, foreign policy might become a bit more nuanced. Most of all, though, the right now has control - here and in the US. There can be no ifs and no buts. There is nothing standing in the way. It's time to deliver. I am genuinely intrigued to see how it plays out.
And by the way I believe you said that Trump would be "powerful" in the sense that he'd have both sides of the Congress. Well, you were right about him getting elected, and you might well be right about the rest. God help us, but we'll see, fingers crossed. I hope he gets good advisers and listens to them.
The impression I have is that Trump's voters were overwhelmingly people who always vote Republican. In a divided politic it was a very small insurgency from the disaffected skilled working classes that got him over the line. Clinton did well with Hispanics who are all in Texas and California where they don't make any difference. Otherwise she was too dependent on people who always vote Democrat.
Bush versus Gore all over again.
Yep - hence the lowish turnout. It was an amazing result in what was actually a pretty run of the mill election. The little people did not rise up and flock to the polls like never before. They stayed at home. Just as they usually do.
Margaret Beckett on Sky: Trump is a vile and horrible man.
Sky's just as bad as BBC now - Gillian just let Beckett go on and on without interruption. I muted it again. I honestly prefer to get my news from anywhere but UK TV now. It's lost the plot re politics/immigration/SJWs.
Trump supporters are either ridiculous illiterates...in which case you feel sorry for them; or terrible racists, or quite simply unashamedly facists. I cannot think of any other reason why one would support him.
Sad to see your ignorance and lack of the ability to put yourself in the mind of those who disagree with you. My wife voted Trump, and she is none of the things you describe - a physician, feminist, libertarian, who works with and has friends in various ethnic and LBGT communities. She could vote for Trump because she thinks his views on those issues are immaterial - the battle for their rights have been won and the victory is irreversible, as it is not in the power of the Presidency to overturn them and there is no support in congress for that. Same for abortion rights.
So all the things you find awful in Trump were immaterial to her voting decision.
My wife, my daughter, and I all voted for Trump. Getting beyond the noise the choice we all felt was simple - it ain't working and Clinton represents more of the same. Something has to change and Trump was the only one who had a chance of making some changes. Will he be successful? Who knows, but the status quo was not an option. Given a choice between ongoing failure and the chance of success, however small, you take the chance.
We are not racists, fascists, or illiterates. We don't call our opponents silly names either.
Have to say, I've thoroughly enjoyed being an honorary Deplorable over the last few months.
And today's ululating on Twitter is even more entertaining. I've heard hyperbolic cry bullying that puts even hardcore Remoaners in the shade.
They say that madness is being in a minority of one. A lot of us here thought that you had gone mad. Turns out you were the warden and the rest of us were the patients.
Well since Hillary is going to speak, here is the list of the mistakes her campaign did:
1. Arrogance, not campaigning in some swing states like Wisconsin or Minnesota, campaigning in Michigan only in the last moment.
2. Secrecy, it made most people suspicious about their intent.
3. Reliance on control of the media, shameless media bias for Hillary turned people off.
4. Reliance on big data, they couldn't even see defeat until it was too late, didn't shift many votes despite the cost.
5. GOTV, 100k volunteers to bank votes early did nothing like for Romney in 2012 to give victory.
6. Reliance on other people to do Hillary's job, Lady Gaga, Jon Bon Jovi, Michelle Obama ect.
7. Lack of policies and a positive message.
The biggest one is the Democrats failed to realise how broad their coalition is. Sanders was a warning shot they failed to heed in the presidential campaign. Beating Sanders in the primary was never going to be enough to bring them on side.
do u think in the short term it is actually the democrats that have the bigger demographics problem.
Dems now have a very serious demographic problem. They need to work out what they are doing for 2018 fast.
There's been a lot of talk about States trending away from the Republicans, like Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, North Carolina, Georgia, and perennially Texas (although that one never seems to materialise).
But, there are also quite a few States that have trended towards the Republicans over the past twenty years, Missouri, Kentucky, Arkansas, Louisiana, West Virginia, Tennessee, and now Iowa, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan.
Margaret Beckett on Sky: Trump is a vile and horrible man.
Sky's just as bad as BBC now - Gillian just let Beckett go on and on without interruption. I muted it again. I honestly prefer to get my news from anywhere but UK TV now. It's lost the plot re politics/immigration/SJWs.
Yes Sky has become as bad as the BBC. Is it the Faisal influence or a sign of the leanings of those that hired him? With the ITV News heavy shift to the left with Peston and Allegra, we now have the three main broadcasters spouting the same left leaning line.
The impression I have is that Trump's voters were overwhelmingly people who always vote Republican. In a divided politic it was a very small insurgency from the disaffected skilled working classes that got him over the line. Clinton did well with Hispanics who are all in Texas and California where they don't make any difference. Otherwise she was too dependent on people who always vote Democrat.
Bush versus Gore all over again.
Yep - hence the lowish turnout. It was an amazing result in what was actually a pretty run of the mill election. The little people did not rise up and flock to the polls like never before. They stayed at home. Just as they usually do.
Just one thing I got right about the result. Low turnout benefits the Republicans.
Margaret Beckett on Sky: Trump is a vile and horrible man.
Sky's just as bad as BBC now - Gillian just let Beckett go on and on without interruption. I muted it again. I honestly prefer to get my news from anywhere but UK TV now. It's lost the plot re politics/immigration/SJWs.
The impression I have is that Trump's voters were overwhelmingly people who always vote Republican. In a divided politic it was a very small insurgency from the disaffected skilled working classes that got him over the line. Clinton did well with Hispanics who are all in Texas and California where they don't make any difference. Otherwise she was too dependent on people who always vote Democrat.
Bush versus Gore all over again.
Yep - hence the lowish turnout. It was an amazing result in what was actually a pretty run of the mill election. The little people did not rise up and flock to the polls like never before. They stayed at home. Just as they usually do.
Looks like a re-aligning election.
Minorities moved a bit Republican, college educated moved a bit democrat, working class moved way towards republicans.
A bad choice for VP as I said in the summer, might have cost Hillary the election given the margins, just like Joe Lieberman cost Al Gore in 2000.
Hillary lost the election because -
she is simply a terrible candidate and not a natural politician at all. (pretty much everyone thought Trump was an equally bad candidate until last night, but he connected with the public in a way she didn't)
She represented continuity of failed and unpopular policies when the country wanted change.
Everyone knew what Trump stood for - wall, immigration, economy, repeal Obamacare etc, whereas Clinton had no clear message at all, as her campaign was based simply on proving Trump unreliable and temperamentally unsuited. She asked her campaign to come up with reasons why she wanted to be president and they couldn't. She famously got annoyed with them at this.
The impression I have is that Trump's voters were overwhelmingly people who always vote Republican. In a divided politic it was a very small insurgency from the disaffected unionised working classes that got him over the line. Clinton did well with Hispanics who are all in Texas and California where they don't make any difference. Otherwise she was too dependent on people who always vote Democrat.
Bush versus Gore all over again.
Figures I saw elsewhere were c5/6% of GOPers and Dems swapping sides nationally - with exceptions like Kentucky where 24% Dems voted Trump. Reagan Democrats for 2016.
A bad choice for VP as I said in the summer, might have cost Hillary the election given the margins, just like Joe Lieberman cost Al Gore in 2000.
Hillary lost the election because -
she is simply a terrible candidate and not a natural politician at all. (pretty much everyone thought Trump was an equally bad candidate until last night, but he connected with the public in a way she didn't)
She represented continuity of failed and unpopular policies when the country wanted change.
Everyone knew what Trump stood for - wall, immigration, economy, repeal Obamacare etc, whereas Clinton had no clear message at all, as her campaign was based simply on proving Trump unreliable and temperamentally unsuited. She asked her campaign to come up with reasons why she wanted to be president and they couldn't. She famously got annoyed with them at this.
But she's got more votes than Trump. More people wanted to vote for her than vote for Trump.
There is some bad narrative writing going on about this election already. He connected with different people more crucial to winning the election due to the state they were in but he didn't connect to more people.
The impression I have is that Trump's voters were overwhelmingly people who always vote Republican. In a divided politic it was a very small insurgency from the disaffected unionised working classes that got him over the line. Clinton did well with Hispanics who are all in Texas and California where they don't make any difference. Otherwise she was too dependent on people who always vote Democrat.
Bush versus Gore all over again.
There are at least 3m votes for Clinton not counted yet and 1.5m for Trump These numbers are not the final ones he refers to
A bad choice for VP as I said in the summer, might have cost Hillary the election given the margins, just like Joe Lieberman cost Al Gore in 2000.
Hillary lost the election because -
she is simply a terrible candidate and not a natural politician at all. (pretty much everyone thought Trump was an equally bad candidate until last night, but he connected with the public in a way she didn't)
She represented continuity of failed and unpopular policies when the country wanted change.
Everyone knew what Trump stood for - wall, immigration, economy, repeal Obamacare etc, whereas Clinton had no clear message at all, as her campaign was based simply on proving Trump unreliable and temperamentally unsuited. She asked her campaign to come up with reasons why she wanted to be president and they couldn't. She famously got annoyed with them at this.
But she's got more votes than Trump. More people wanted to vote for her than vote for Trump.
There is some bad narrative writing going on about this election already. He connected with different people more crucial to winning the election due to the state they were in but he didn't connect to more people.
Most vote either Dem or GOP regardless. Connecting with people better is merely another arrow in the quiver. But having been to both a Clinton and a Trump event, the Clinton event was flat whereas the Trump event had an exciting vibe to it. It wasn't a difference maker but it helped.
Well since Hillary is going to speak, here is the list of the mistakes her campaign did:
1. Arrogance, not campaigning in some swing states like Wisconsin or Minnesota, campaigning in Michigan only in the last moment.
2. Secrecy, it made most people suspicious about their intent.
3. Reliance on control of the media, shameless media bias for Hillary turned people off.
4. Reliance on big data, they couldn't even see defeat until it was too late, didn't shift many votes despite the cost.
5. GOTV, 100k volunteers to bank votes early did nothing like for Romney in 2012 to give victory.
6. Reliance on other people to do Hillary's job, Lady Gaga, Jon Bon Jovi, Michelle Obama ect.
7. Lack of policies and a positive message.
The biggest one is the Democrats failed to realise how broad their coalition is. Sanders was a warning shot they failed to heed in the presidential campaign. Beating Sanders in the primary was never going to be enough to bring them on side.
do u think in the short term it is actually the democrats that have the bigger demographics problem.
Dems now have a very serious demographic problem. They need to work out what they are doing for 2018 fast.
There's been a lot of talk about States trending away from the Republicans, like Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, North Carolina, Georgia, and perennially Texas (although that one never seems to materialise).
But, there are also quite a few States that have trended towards the Republicans over the past twenty years, Missouri, Kentucky, Arkansas, Louisiana, West Virginia, Tennessee, and now Iowa, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan.
And finally Pennsylvania after trying to win it two elections in a row third time lucky. They have to drop the sjw stuff, men with lipstick in women bathrooms? Er, no.
And finally Pennsylvania after trying to win it two elections in a row third time lucky. They have to drop the sjw stuff, men with lipstick in women bathrooms? Er, no.
It seems that on some issues you're more reactionary than Trump.
PB's voting intentions were representative. That doesn't correlate to every right-wing thought this site has being representative. I just don't like a bunch of right-wingers who look down on the views of everyone to the left of Tony Blair. Proven right 'time and time again'. On what, exactly? On forecasting GEs, I don't dispute that. Somehow though, I think you're talking about more than that.
I also don't get how getting betting predictions right means that someone's politics is representative.
Tony Blair is the most extreme left wing election winner in my lifetime, in fact in nearly half a century.
While many left-wingers look down on the views of everyone to the right of Tony Blair, let alone to the right of Cameron, Major or Thatcher.
The fact that Blair is seen as extreme left wing on here says everything. You may as well just say the only reasonable view points on anything are right wing/
Can you name a further left-wing GE winner since 1975 than Tony Blair?
(I think Philip's point wasn't that Tony Blair was some kind of raving cypto-Marxist, but within the pantheon of British PMs elected within the past 40 years, arranged in political order, he is indeed the one on the extreme left...)
Most of the British PMs in the last forty years have been Conservative, haven't they? So Blair as a Labour leader will obviously be more left wing than them. But that doesn't mean he's 'extreme left'.
@MyBurningEars is spot on with what I meant. Arranged from left-to-right he is literally the one on the extreme left of all the election winners in the last 40 year period. Your comment on people looking down on those to the left of Blair would be equivalent to someone saying that left-wingers can look down on those to the right of Thatcher.
Arranged from left to right Blair is not extreme left. Relatively more left-wing than other PMs, yes. But that doesn't equal extreme left.
If he is the most left-wing, that does put him on the extreme. It's just a poor choice of adjective given the context.
Most left wing and extreme are not the same thing though. Glad another PBer has also made a similar point.
Comments
Both Trump and Hillary made plenty of mistakes, but Trump had the growing populist wave behind him while Hillary was doing an old school campaign in a new era.
The US stock market would seen to agree with you!
And today's ululating on Twitter is even more entertaining. I've heard hyperbolic cry bullying that puts even hardcore Remoaners in the shade.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEOb3Apxhyw&feature=youtu.be
This is what amuses me of the pro-Putin, anti-Erdogan crowd. They're both doing the same things.
It's about control.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-37919658
Bush versus Gore all over again.
How come all my attempts at play-doh animals look like the result of some weird genetic experiment that would have made Frankenstein think twice about continuing his experiments?
Never count faces, count votes.
2012 - 58.6%
2008 - 62.2%
2004 - 60.7%
2000 - 55.3%
But, there are also quite a few States that have trended towards the Republicans over the past twenty years, Missouri, Kentucky, Arkansas, Louisiana, West Virginia, Tennessee, and now Iowa, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan.
IIRC - Obama can pardon her even if she hasn't been indicted - Ford did that for Nixon I gather.
It doesn't stop the NYPD using state laws against her though.
Minorities moved a bit Republican, college educated moved a bit democrat, working class moved way towards republicans.
https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/796232076941000704
North+South, like Carter in 1976.
she is simply a terrible candidate and not a natural politician at all. (pretty much everyone thought Trump was an equally bad candidate until last night, but he connected with the public in a way she didn't)
She represented continuity of failed and unpopular policies when the country wanted change.
Everyone knew what Trump stood for - wall, immigration, economy, repeal Obamacare etc, whereas Clinton had no clear message at all, as her campaign was based simply on proving Trump unreliable and temperamentally unsuited. She asked her campaign to come up with reasons why she wanted to be president and they couldn't. She famously got annoyed with them at this.
Or I scream
There is some bad narrative writing going on about this election already. He connected with different people more crucial to winning the election due to the state they were in but he didn't connect to more people.
personably I'm disappointed the Libertarians did not brake to 5% threshold.
These numbers are not the final ones he refers to
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/28/politics/caitlyn-jenner-bathroom-trump-tower-donald-trump/