US elections – who should you be angry with?


I know – it is easy to blame others for an accident or a tragedy than it is to accept responsibility oneself. But  am amazed at the blame going around at the moment over the US presidential election result.

Trump’s election is being blamed on racist Americans, red-necks, the uneducated “deplorables,” Republican voters, third party voters, etc. People are out in the streets demonstrating, venting their anger on social media and generally working off their anger at a result that should not have been so surprising.

Not all, of course. Some people are looking at the results more critically – refusing to make such outrageous claims about their fellow citizens. I just wish more would do so.

In fact, the voting figures just do not support the outrageous claims being made. It is a bit simplistic to take just the bare party votes – but even these should give food for thought.

Fewer voters supported Trump than supported the Republican nominee in 2012 – almost 700,000 less. But the telling figures is that far fewer voters supported Clinton than supported the democratic nominee in 2012 – about 5 million less!

The difference with 2008 is even more striking – 8.7 million less.

The fact is that Democratic voters turned away from the democratic nominee in their droves. They did not go to Trump – they just didn’t vote.

It seems that both Clinton and Trump turned at least some of the voters off in this election. But the vote went to Trump because many more potentially Democratic voters just couldn’t bring themselves to vote for her.

Those anti-Trump demonstraters out on the streets at the moment are attacking the wrong target. They should get stuck into Clinton for being a lousy or unsuitable candidate. And the Democratic establishment for manipulating the system to allow her to become their candidate.

Similar articles


12 responses to “US elections – who should you be angry with?

  1. The assertion here is we (Soros-backed protestors) will allow peace at home if you break your promise and allow us to continue military action as we have been overseas.


  2. Good article.



  3. Ken, I know you understand the primary election process, and the way that it was set up to take the power of nominating candidates for election away from the party bosses and vest it in the rank and file (and in the US that means anybody who wants to register with the electoral authorities as a supporter of this or that party). I just wish you’d write as if you understood it.

    The voters in the primary elections, and not the party bosses, were responsible for both Clinton and Trump.

    There is something that the protesters could be angry about, although I doubt that it’s motivating many of them. And that is the archaic Electoral College system for electing the President. For a system set up 227 years ago, it does give a remarkably good approximation to the popular vote. But it’s not perfect, and it does sometimes get it wrong, as in 2016, when the candidate with the most votes is not going to become President. Can you give a rational explanation for why Clinton, with the majority of votes, should not get elected?


  4. Riccard, the electoral college system is quite a separate issue to the fact that the Democratic nominee turned voters away and that is where the demonstrator’s anger should be directed. If she had been a better candidate the Democrats would have won.

    Interestingly, President Putin raised the issue of the electoral college and the fact that Presidents with a minority of the votes get elected as an example of faults in the US democracy. He was making the point that the US should address its own problems before thinking it had any right to change the situation in other countries.

    I actually think the electoral college system should be changed – but it is the height of stupidity to raise that as something to do now – when one’s desired nominee missed out. I am sure if she had won the election with a minority of votes you would not be raising it.

    So, yes, my rational explanation for why Clinton should not be elected is that she lost by the existing system, by the existing rules. Go ahead and change the system – make it more democratic – but it would be completely irrational and undemocratic to do that just for Clinton’s advantage, wouldn’t it?

    By the way, the leaked emails show that even with a more democratic system the primaries (and the whole nomination process) can still be manipulated. Especially by the establishment and financially powerful interests.


  5. Riccardoluij: “Can you give a rational explanation for why Clinton, with the majority of votes, should not get elected?”

    The system should always be decided before the election. Because I think it changes where campaigning is done. The candidate woul … interrupted for quakes …d not restrict campaigning to swing states if it were by total votes.


  6. Ken, the Electoral College system is not going to change. People have been criticising it for years, but I see no appetite amongst US politicians for a change. And to be fair, it does get it right most of the time.

    I am no fan of Putin, but it does disturb me when the nation known as the “leader of the free world,” and which regards itself as the great exemplar of democracy, should display such obvious democratic flaws. That is one thing you and I agree on. So yes, it would disturb me if Clinton had won with a minority vote. But perhaps you are right – probably not as much as Trump’s victory disturbs me.

    It was illuminating to see the great fall in the Democratic vote that you have graphically demonstrated. My point was that under a more democratic system, it would not have been enough to cause Clinton to lose the election.

    Manipulation by the establishment and financially powerful interests is deplorable, but unfortunately rampant in many countries, including mine (Australia), as I suppose you would concede in yours too. But under the primary system that’s all they can do – manipulate. The people pick the candidates.


  7. “Those anti-Trump demonstraters out on the streets at the moment are attacking the wrong target”

    I’m not sure they should be attacking any targets. Beating people up, burning cars and flags, rape threats against Melania Trump, death threats against Donald by journalists and CEOs.

    What the hell is going on? Has everyone just lost their mind?

    Liked by 1 person

  8. I hope you are not suggesting people shouldn’t protest, Andy.

    The point is that they have been decived and are directing their anger at the wrong target. Clinton lost the election for them, not Trump.

    As for protesting agaisnt real or imagined deficiences in the new presedent – I say go ahead. But make the protests specific. He is the president now, that is not going to change and these current protests are just silly. But one can protest each policy as it comes to hand.

    After all, the neocons have not lost any time protesting agaionst his policy of talking to the Russians and (hopefully) cooperating in the fight against terrorism.

    If he is forced to back down on that everyone should be out in the streets.


  9. On Larry King Politicking Omar Repp is saying he hasn’t seen Trump in the past express the notions he has while campaigning. So he questions whether they were only intended to pander to popular feeling to get in and may not be continued with. He will now be exposed to a lot of info he was not privy to.

    Previous show with a former Republican senator who says though controversial he has a sympathy for taking the pressure off Russia which USA has beaten right down. So maybe that feeling is wider and who knows if the process is all stage-managed. An attempt to sustain cultural diversity. Russia has quite a few of the Judaeo-Christian culture which has some place in world culture. I think Arabs developed algebra and Chinese are getting back their old power.


  10. Like myself, Yuja grew up listening to Russian romantic music, her mother being a ballet dancer in Beijing. Tchaikovsky’s Swan Lake sort of thing. What is the world about? A piece by Liszt which has always moved me since my youth:


  11. I’m not suggesting people shouldn’t protest
    I’m suggesting people should beat people up, set fire to cars etc

    If the losers taking part in these kind of actions had bothered to vote, they might have got the result they wanted


  12. Are we seeing a desperate propaganda reaction to Trump’s job offer to Michael Flynn, then?

    Trump had said Hillary to be trigger-happy. I think Hillary hoped people would get off on that. But Putin is one of the more popular people in USA
    and Trump has given Americans a way to show it.


Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s