Tuesday, July 11, 2017








When compared to the 2012 Presidential Election which gave voters a choice of seven candidates, but where the third-party candidates were so insignificant that they pulled only 1.9million votes (1.53%) between the five of them, we see that voter apathy was more widespread in the 2016 race for the White House than was the case in 2012 or 2008. In fact, pundits, the faces of the media and scholars all agree that the number of people who elected not to vote for nominees of either the Republican or Democratic parties increased to 4.5 million votes, nearly tripling the 2012 count.
Votes for third party or candidates outside the major parties in 2012 vs. 2016.

It's difficult to say precisely which of the two major-party candidates these voters would have leaned towards. Libertarian Gary Johnson got more than 4 million votes (or 3 percent), up from 1.3 million in 2012. Green Party candidate Jill Stein got 1.3 million votes in this election, only about 1 percent overall. But one thing for sure is the fact that more young voters chose third party candidates in the 2016 election. In fact, the number of young voters between the ages of 18-29 years remained the same as in 2012. The major difference in 2016 is that more of these young voters voted for third party/others than in the previous election.
Third Party/Other % Vote for the 18-29 age group:
Presidential Election
Third Party/Other Vote (%)
2012
3
2016
8







In one of his standup comedy shows, South African comedian Trevor Noah pointed out something peculiar about American commentators that hardly anyone can dispute―be it in sports, political or other disciplines. He said that American commentators, anchormen and anchorwomen elaborate a lot and come up with too many statistics about the players that he finds baffling. This phenomenon also translates into the political arena. American politicians have been too detailed-oriented during their campaigns when the average voter’s attention span is understandably short. Voters want short simple answers to the problems afflicting the country, succinct statements that are fact-based, that’s all. In fact, the American electorate wants even more concise plans on ways to improve their lives.  And one thing most politicians don’t seem to have realized is the fact that voters now understand there exists more untruths than truths beneath the factual explanations and promises politicians make these days. So, the trust factor comes into play here more than the elaborate promises. Donald Trump did an effective job of tapping the trust factor and it reflected itself where it mattered the those―Midwestern America. They bought his simple messages big time.
Donald Trump’s simple slogan of “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) said a thousand things that Hillary Clinton’s elaborate speeches and promises could not. In fact, the short and striking phrase casted him in the eyes of voters as someone with the ability to do a far better job of turning things around and making America stronger, richer and more secure than his Democratic Party rival. In fact, 82% of Americans viewed him on election day as someone who “Can bring the needed change” as compared to 14% for Hillary Clinton. MAGA made that difference. This contrasts with the 90% who thought Hillary Clinton “Has the right experience”, compared to Donald Trump’s 7%.  When it came to the person who cared about the welfare of the average American more than the other, Hillary Clinton came on top of her Republican rival by 57% to 34%.  65% of the voters thought the Democratic Party candidate “Has a good judgement” compared to Donald Trump, who scored 25% among those polled in October 2016.
Future political campaigns would have to do a better job of reading the mood of voters and of addressing their hopes, dreams, and expectations accordingly. Voters demanding fundamental changes would need to be addressed with pointed plans wrapped around short slogans. These short slogans like Donald trump’s “Make America Great Again”, Vladimir Lenin’s “Peace, Bread and Land”, and Barack Obama’s "Change We Can Believe In" and the chant "Yes We Can", show the effectiveness of simple words and catchy phrases that voters do not need to rack their brains to remember.






It is not surprising that voter turnout in the 2016 Presidential Election was higher than in 2012. It all started right in the primaries. Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump galvanized people who had either opted out of the voting process altogether or were not planning to vote in the 2016 Presidential Election. These were people who back in early 2015, thought the race was going to be between Hillary Clinton and another mainstream politician from the Republican Party, and so convinced themselves that it would be nothing but another electoral charade. Had it been the case of two candidates that were well known in the political arena facing off against one another, candidates from the mainstream political parties, then it would have been a familiar script from the playbook of the political establishment, or a simple vetting process to get the establishment-approved person that most Americans prefer to lead the country in maintaining a system that so many US. citizens thought needed some fixing or overhaul.
Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, two outsiders of the establishment and critics of the system’s inner workings, came into the primaries promising to change things. Bernie Sanders called it a rigged system that caters to the rich and famous, promised to cleanse it, and then went around the country summoning support that came mostly from enthusiastic young Americans who had given up on the American system. He ran a left-wing campaign that was funded entirely by the common folk of America, a campaign that rejected “Corporate Finance” and that treated the media with an indifference that was interesting indeed. Yet he won the wide support of the people, to the point where he almost created an upset against Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries. He lost all right, but his supporters claim the Democratic Party machinery―DNC (Democratic National Committee) rigged the primaries, thereby depriving him of victory in favor of Hillary Clinton.
The Sanders-Clinton primaries involved more Democratic Party voters than any other primaries in the history of the United States of America. The winner was expected to tap this huge enthusiasm among supporters of the Democratic Party and blaze through the election into the White House, many Democrats reasoned. But that was not the case. Even though Bernie Sanders pledged his support to Hillary Clinton, even though he campaigned for her, a substantial number of his supporters failed to heed his call to back the Democratic Party nominee. In short, not all of his supporters voted for Hillary Clinton.

All the same, most of them did. But it was not enough. Why?

·         On the contrary, Donald Trump did a better job of transferring all his gains at the primaries to the election itself on November 08, 2016 than Sanders-supported Hillary Clinton.

It is rational to say that Donald Trump did a brilliant job of bringing new faces into the Republican Party, mostly White Americans who had given up on the democratic process. It is true a sizable portion of the new faces he brought into the party harbor extreme right-wing views, if not ideas, but the truth of the matter is that most of the new supporters of the Republican Party harbor mainstream ideas. In fact, these new faces are mostly people of the Rustbelt who were battered by the waves of deindustrialization that hit the region over the past three decades, and the effects of the millions of jobs that got transferred from there to other countries abroad, mostly to China and Mexico. But then, Donald Trump also did a wonderful job of closing the  ranks in the Republican Party, so that what until election day looked  like  a feud involving him and most of the Republican Party’s top brass, failed to trickle down and affect the rank and file of the party who stood by him, streamed out of their homes and work places on November 08, 2016, and voted him to power in their numbers, so that what many pundits, newspersons, scholars and pollsters thought would be an uninspiring election ended up being one of historic proportions.
With a 55.3% voter turnout, the 2016 Presidential Election surpassed the 2012 race for the White House between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney which had a 54.9% turnout rate. And while this increase was up nationwide by 0.4%, it was higher in most of the Rustbelt states. Overall, 19 states experienced lower turnout rates compared with 2012, defying presidential-year voting that tends to increase on each cycle that an incumbent is not participating in the Presidential Election. Of particular note are Wisconsin and Ohio, where a 3% and a 4% drop respectively in turnout rate compared with 2012 revealed upon analysis that it was mostly Democratic Voters who stayed away from the polling stations. And of course, these were mostly voters who cast their ballots for Barack Obama in the 2008 and 2012 Presidential Elections.
This upswing in voter turnout hid a fundamental fact that explains why Hillary Clinton lost the election. The Democratic base failed to turn out and vote for Hillary Clinton as it did for Obama in 2008 and 2012. It is the combination of these sour-Democrats and the additional liberal Americans who decided not to vote who ended up handing the election to the maverick Donald Trump.
In a nutshell, while Hillary Clinton got 65,844,610 votes in 2016, compared to Barack Obama’s 65,915,795 votes in 2012, it registered as a decline in the participation of Democratic voters in this election. The traditional Democratic base of urban Americans, minorities, and more educated voters, found Hillary Clinton less attractive, and so failed to turn out in their numbers to vote for her. How uninspiring she was as the Democratic nominee, it is difficult to tell. But there are pundits out there who are convinced she failed to ride the very high anti-Trump sentiment among voters, something any other Democratic candidate would have taken advantage of to win the 2016 Presidential Election. Meanwhile, Donald Trump moved up instead, getting 62,979,636 votes compared to the 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney’s 60,933,504 votes.
A big lesson to be learnt from the turnout in the 2016 race for the White House is the fact that the United States of America has a huge reservoir of potential voters, a reservoir that can be tapped by savvy politicians and revolutionaries who voice intentions to address the issues affecting those Americans of voting age who opted out of the country’s electoral process because they thought the political establishment had lost touch with people like them. For that to happen, the mainstream political parties would have to move further to the right and to the left, and the third-party candidates and their political organizations would need to broaden their agendas and political manifestos to cater for these niche voters.





Population Per SQ Mile (2010)



Many of those highly cognizant of the workings of the system are convinced that the Electoral College process does not create the incentives for a broad national campaign that seriously takes the rural areas into account. In fact, it does just the opposite.
The fact that Hillary Clinton lost rural America 3 to 1 to Donald Trump says a lot about the lackluster attitude of the Democratic campaign towards rural voters in the 2016 Presidential Election. Rural males are often macho and even most rural females tend to give a nod to the concept of a “Male Dominated World”. Most pundits are in agreement when it comes to the controversial view that rural America still retains much of the traditional American values of the last century. Concepts or beliefs like gay rights, minority rights, atheism, restriction of gun rights etc., that are associated with liberalism and the Democratic Left are not widely shared in the small towns, villages and homesteads of America. In fact, they are regarded as anathema in some of these parts of the American countryside.
The Clinton campaign should have anticipated pushbacks from rural voters regarding the progress made in the areas of gay rights, abortion, and other advances that liberals and even some moderate Americans consider sacrosanct to the rights of modern man during the past eight years of the Obama presidency, advances that Hillary Clinton shared and even promised to enhance. The realization of these social rights coupled with the fact that the rural areas have been the slowest in recovering from the recent recession and the decades-old malaise that the lower and middle classes are facing, should have set off some alarm bells among Democrats. After all, recent Democratic presidential candidates lost the rural vote to Republicans by 2 to 1.



Changes in Urban/Rural Voting pattern from 2012-2016

Some people would ask:
·         Why then did Donald Trump perform so well among rural voters when he never presented any rural policy plan?

The President-elect did not present a rural plan all right, but he did a great job tapping the long-simmering anger these rural voters had against the establishment for the unfavorable trade deals struck over the years, for the constraining actions of the Environmental Protection Agency, and for what some of them perceived as a "War on American Farmers.” The turnout among these voters of economically depressed communities that were still seething from the feeling of having been dismissed by Washington and the country’s urban elites ended up exceeding the expectations of the Trump campaign. In fact, the high support from rural America would have presented Donald Trump with a higher margin in the Electoral vote as well as the popular vote had the rural voting bloc not shrunk dramatically over the years, owing to the fact that farms have become more efficient and many rural jobs have migrated to cities and suburbs, to the point where less than 60 million Americans or about 20% of the population live in the countryside today.
The fact that the rural population is the fastest aging also explains why rural voters made up only 17 percent of the electorate in the 2016 election. Yet, this shrinking population that’s reliably Republican and which the Clinton campaign thought it really didn’t need, had an outsized impact in contributing to Donald’s Trump’s sweep of crucial Rustbelt swing states, where among other things, turnout in suburban and urban America was lackluster for Hillary Clinton.
The Clinton campaign may have had some good reasons to think that it didn’t really need rural voters, a shrinking population that is reliably Republican. Unlike the 2008 and 2012 Obama campaigns, the Clinton campaign not only failed to name a rural council, it also fell short of coming up with a robust rural-dedicated campaign infrastructure. Yet it had elaborate plans for rural America. That is why when the results trickled in on election day, the Clinton team that had what was on paper clear policy plans, found out that it had lost to a Trump campaign that made it a point of making stops in small towns where they appealed to these common folk “culturally”. Besides, these rural voters never forgave Hillary Clinton for referring to most of them as "Deplorables".
It is likely that future Presidential Elections would see the candidates paying more attention to rural and suburban America, especially in the swing states where they would have to campaign the hardest. Candidates of the Democratic party, in particular, are most likely going to reduce their level of focus in urban areas where most voters live and that traditionally voted Democratic, as exemplified by the case of Pennsylvania, where 72 percent of campaign visits by Clinton and Trump in the final two months of their campaigns were to the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh areas, areas that always voted for the Democratic Party anyway. It was the same situation in Michigan, where the eight times the Clinton and Trump campaigns visited the state in the final two months of their campaigns, they went to the Detroit and Grand Rapids areas. Neither the Republican candidate nor his Democratic rival graced rural Michigan with their presence during those campaign visits.
Most experts agree today that had the Clinton campaign given more time and energy to suburban and rural America, it would not have lost the election. This is a lesson that would not be lost to future Democratic Party campaigns.




America has a unique democracy. It is only in the USA that you will find a system which favors the Electoral College over the popular vote. As a matter of fact, the electoral construct has created a situation where presidential candidates spend virtually all their campaign time in cities in 10 or 12 states instead of in 30, 40 or 50 states as most people would expect.
The 2016 presidential race was not different from previous ones when it came to the nature of the campaign events, which is defined as public events such as rallies, speeches, fairs, town hall meetings etc., during which a candidate solicits the state’s voters. This count of "campaign events" excludes visits to a state for the sole purpose of conducting a private fund-raising event, of participating in a presidential debate or media interviews, of giving a speech to an organization’s national convention, or of attending a non-campaign event such as the Al Smith Dinner in New York City etc.
In fact, there were 399 campaign events in the 2016 race for the White House, two-thirds (273) of which took place in just 6 states (Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Virginia).  
A further 94% (375) of these campaign events occurred in 12 states, 11 of which were identified as "battleground" states earlier in the year. The addition to the six states listed above included Arizona, Colorado, New Hampshire, Nevada, Iowa, and Wisconsin. So, the fact that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote and lost the election because Donald Trump won most of the electoral votes highlights the crucial importance of these battleground states. In fact, when Donald Trump tweeted on December 09, 2016 that “Campaigning to win the Electoral College is much more difficult and sophisticated than the popular vote. Hillary focused on the wrong states!”, there was a lot of truth in his statement.
The other 6% of campaign events went to 14 additional states that hosted 1, 2, or 3 events. Eleven of these states (California, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, Texas, Utah and Washington) were visited by the Republican campaign team 22 times, but hardly saw a Democratic visit.  Both campaigns visited two of these states (Maine and Nebraska) because the states award some of their Electoral votes by congressional district.
As explained further by the map below, the campaign area was not large enough and the focus of the campaign did not sufficiently tap the changing dynamics of America and American society, even though there was an expansion in the scope of the 2016 election campaigns vis-à-vis previous presidential elections.
States that had campaign events

It is easy to deduce from the map above that the post-convention campaign events organized by the major-party presidential and vice-presidential nominees (Donald Trump, Mike Pence, Hillary Clinton, and Tim Kaine) were not as widespread as many people thought.  Further data from the 2016 campaign indicates that 53 percent of campaign events for Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Mike Pence and Tim Kaine in the two months before the November election, took place in only four states (Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Ohio). During those last two months, 87 percent of campaign visits by the four candidates were in 12 battleground states, and none of the four candidates ever went to 27 states, which includes almost all of rural America.






13  |  Education



The Educational Attainment of the Voters
Demographic
Sex

Male
Female
High school or less
Some College
College graduate
Postgraduate
Trump
53%
41%
51%
52%
45%
37%
Clinton
42%
54%
45%
43%
49%
58%
States with a lower level of education of the population and that are known to have an average IQ that is lower in comparison to other states are where Donald Trump did very well on November 08, 2016. and their propensity to back programs, promises or policies whose benefits cannot be clearly substantiated.

States and their Percentage of 25 years old with Bachelor's Degree or Higher in 2009.

States and their percentage of 25 years old with Advanced Degree in 2009.


A school of thought holds that the educational level of the population mirrors the degree of political awareness or ignorance of the people. As it turned out to be, states with lower IQs also ended up having high percentages of underprivileged White Americans and disadvantaged minorities at the lower rungs of America’s social and economic ladder, especially blacks. This category of White and Black Americans, most of whom are inclined to vote Republican, voted for Donald Trump. Meanwhile, most African Americans went to the polls with less enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton than they had for Barack Obama four years ago. They voted for Hillary Clinton all right, but their lower turnout failed to neutralize the support that Asians and Hispanics gave to the Republican candidate, which was higher in 2016 than in 2012.
Hillary Clinton was definitely thinking about the low level of education and low IQ of some of the people supporting Donald Trump when she described her billionaire rival’s supporters during the campaigns as “Deplorables”. Of course, it backfired as those who thought she addressed that adjective at them mounted a robust mobilization against her, especially in the Rustbelt. The maps above and the information below provide more insight into the level of education of the population and voters’ choice in the 2016 Presidential Election




The Educational Level of the Different States
State
 % High School Graduate
Rank
 % Bachelor's Degree
Rank
 % Advanced Degree
Rank
91.8%
1
23.8%
40
7.9%
38
91.7%
2
31.5%
10
10.3%
17
91.4%
3
26.6%
24
9.0%
27
91.3%
5
32.0%
9
11.2%
12
91.0%
6
33.1%
7
13.3%
6
90.8%
7
27.4%
21
8.3%
36
91.4%
3
25.1%
34
7.4%
43
90.4%
8
29.6%
15
9.9%
20
90.4%
8
28.5%
19
9.1%
26
90.2%
10
26.9%
23
9.6%
22
90.1%
11
25.8%
27
6.7%
48
89.9%
12
25.1%
34
7.3%
45
89.8%
13
27.4%
21
8.8%
29
89.8%
13
25.7%
28
8.4%
34
89.7%
15
29.5%
16
10.2%
18
89.7%
15
31.0%
11
11.1%
13
89.3%
17
35.9%
3
12.7%
8
89.1%
18
29.2%
17
10.4%
15
89.0%
19
38.2%
1
16.4%
1
89.0%
19
37.3%
2
16.0%
2
88.6%
21
35.6%
4
15.5%
3
88.4%
22
23.9%
39
7.5%
42
87.9%
23
24.6%
36
9.4%
24
87.9%
23
26.4%
26
10.2%
18
87.6%
25
24.1%
38
8.8%
29
87.4%
26
28.7%
18
11.4%
11
87.4%
26
34.5%
5
12.9%
7
87.1%
48.5%
28.0%
86.8%
28
25.2%
33
9.5%
23
86.6%
29
22.5%
43
8.1%
37
86.6%
29
34.0%
6
14.1%
4
86.4%
31
30.6%
12
11.7%
9
85.6%
32
22.7%
42
7.4%
43
85.3%
27.9%
10.3%
85.3%
33
25.3%
31
9.0%
27
84.7%
34
32.4%
8
14.0%
5
84.7%
34
30.5%
13
11.7%
9
84.3%
36
26.5%
25
8.8%
29
84.2%
37
25.6%
29
9.3%
25
83.9%
38
27.5%
20
9.9%
20
83.9%
38
21.8%
45
7.6%
41
83.6%
40
24.3%
37
8.4%
34
83.1%
41
23.0%
41
7.9%
38
82.8%
42
25.3%
31
10.4%
15
82.8%
42
17.3%
50
6.7%
48
82.4%
44
18.9%
49
6.1%
50
82.2%
45
21.4%
46
6.9%
47
82.1%
46
22.0%
44
7.7%
40
81.7%
47
21.0%
47
8.5%
32
80.6%
48
29.9%
14
10.7%
14
80.4%
49
19.6%
48
7.1%
46
79.9%
50
25.5%
30
8.5%
32










Hillary Clinton emerged from the Democratic primaries a highly-publicized candidate with a questionable popularity. In fact, many Democrats, especially the young who played a pivotal role in voting Barack Obama to office in the last two Presidential Elections, showed some degree of lackluster when it came to committing themselves to the Hillary Clinton campaign. It had to take an energetic endorsement from Bernie Sanders and an open adoption of a substantial portion of his campaign platform for about half of Bernie Sanders supporters to openly embrace Hillary Clinton. A further quarter joined the Hillary Clinton bandwagon and voted for her all right, but the 10%-20% who voted for either Donald Trump or the other candidates, or who ended up not voting at all rather than casting their ballots for any of the  candidates that they did not like, ended  up hurting Hillary Clinton in a  major way, especially in the swing states of Ohio and Florida, and in the other Rust Belt states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin that the Trump campaign managed to convert into Swing States.
The mainstream media did a wonderful job of having Hillary Clinton’s back, but these consent-manufacturers failed to create a Hillary Clinton that voters could regard as the modicum of the quintessential first female president of the United States of America. Something the media did a great job trying to turn around was the fact that nearly 70% of the voters thought she was untrustworthy and dishonest, far higher than the percentage that thought so of Donald Trump. So, not only did she come with a special baggage―as a controversial former first lady, as a controversial former Secretary of State vilified by the Right especially for the September 2012 Benghazi attack that was coordinated against two United States government facilities in Benghazi, Libya by members of  the Islamic militant group called Ansar al-Sharia, which resulted in the deaths of the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, and three other U.S. nationals―she entered the race for the White House as a cofounder of the Clinton Foundation with her husband Hillary Clinton and her daughter Chelsea, a foundation that was recently accused of malpractices in Haiti, a foundation that could even be charged for getting unlawful donations from foreign entities. Even some Democrats expressed misgivings about her personality, citing a lack of warmth among other things as uninspiring qualities she failed to improve on.
Hillary Clinton got a lot of coverage from the mainstream media that was almost always positive, unlike her Republican rival Donald Trump who got almost the same amount of time of mainstream media coverage, though in an overwhelmingly negative light. The discrepancy in the mainstream media’s coverage of the two candidates worked against Hillary Clinton in the long run because many mainstream readers and viewers smelled a rat and most of them finally came to the conclusion that there was a concerted effort to manufacture consent in the 2016 election, which they translated as a move by the establishment to take them for another ride. In fact, many of the voters in the election turned to the social media and the alternative media for news, views and guarded information that they rightfully or wrongfully thought the mainstream media tried was trying to squash or was distorting to suit an agenda.
What became obvious after election day was the fact that the demonization of Donald Trump and the almost deification of Hillary Clinton by the mainstream media worked against her in the 2016 presidential race for the White House. The American public has become wise to the media’s game, some pundits say. In fact, the people are wise enough to determine which side the media is on. They have developed the ability to discount much of what is false that the media reports about the candidates in elections. Whether the mainstream media would be able to recover from the loss in its ability to influence the American public the way it did in the past is something that is difficult to tell at this early stage of its rude awakening. But one thing for sure is that the mainstream media can no longer work with just the corporatocracy in manufacturing consent. It must find common ground with alternative media outlets and the altruists of this world who have made the cause for humanity their missions in life.
The 2016 presidential election would also be remembered as one of the most bizarre in history in the sense that it surpassed previous elections in its failure to dwell on substance, a phenomenon that the media fostered as it focused on the demonization of Donald Trump more than on real policy issues. In fact, less than twelve percent (12%) of coverage focused on the policy positions, leadership abilities or personal and professional histories of the candidates.
And to cap it all, WikiLeaks influenced the election against Hillary Clinton in the sense that it provided the leaks that embarrassed the Democratic Party and exposed the partially of the DNC (Democratic National Committee) for favoring Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders. Its revelation of the fact that Donna Brazile who briefly served as the interim chairperson for the Democratic National Committee provided Hillary Clinton with the questions that she later asked her in the Clinton/Trump debate, served as the single biggest embarrassment for the Democratic Party as it highlighted what some commenters called the growing dishonesty within the party leadership. No one can say whether these revelations by WikiLeaks failed or did not fail to influence the thinking of voters.











So much is being said in the mainstream media and by the political establishment about Russia and its president Vladimir Putin that the average American is being made to think that the United States of America and its NATO allies are facing an imminent attack from Russia or that Russia is an existential threat to the USA. But then information from other media sources and from unbiased analysts point to something else altogether.

Map of Europe and Russia

Most independent analysts, cold war historians and common folk with the knowledge and experience of  post-Soviet Russia and its evolving relationship with the West think it is actually Russia that has been experiencing a growing threat from the USA and its Western allies in the form of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) that has been encroaching on what was Russia’s security space since the collapse of the USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) in 1991, or what could be considered the USSR’s downsizing into the Russia that we have today

Map of the Growth of NATO in Europe


In fact, it is easy to find information online and even in print stating that Russia’s president Vladimir Putin has been ranked for three years in a row as the world’s most influential leader. As curious American voters researched further, they found out that the Russian strongman has an approval rating in his county that is above 80%, a feat not seen in any of the Western democracies. Furthermore, he has the support of his people at a time that his country is reeling from US-led Western sanctions for Russia’s annexation of Crimea and for the war in Eastern Ukraine between the new Ukrainian government the USA and its allies helped bring to power and the Ukrainian provinces of Lugansk and Donetsk that opposed the overthrow of the democratically-elected former Ukrainian president that these two provinces voted massively to power back in the 2010 Ukrainian Presidential Election.
Pro-Trump and anti-Trump pundits who considered the Russian factor important in the Presidential Election all accept the fact that the current state of America’s relations with Russia is highly influenced by the conflict in Ukraine. In short, the Clinton campaign and the political establishment that supported the change of government in Ukraine should have paid more attention to the fact that it is common knowledge in the USA today, than it was the case in early 2014, that the war in Ukraine started following a Western-backed removal from office of the highly corrupt but democratically-elected former president of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych by pro-Western forces, some of them harboring Nazi sympathies or fascist traits. Many Americans that have become familiar with the Ukrainian debacle now understand that Ukraine is and has always been a nation evenly divided between pro-Western and pro-Russian forces, hence a country that can only find stability in a system of governance based on consensus not only within, but also in its foreign relations between the West and Russia.

The language Division of Ukraine


Ukrainian Presidential Election, 2010

17 January and 7 February 2010


Nominee
Party
Popular vote
12,481,266
11,593,357
Percentage
48.95%
45.47%


Results of the February 7 run-off.

President before election

Elected President








The 2010 Ukraine Presidential Election Results (Map)



After getting a better idea of the escalation in hostility between Ukraine’s pro-Western and Pro-Russian forces, it is not surprising that many Americans have become even more curious and ask questions like:
·         Why did the USA get involved in Ukraine?
·         How much of a threat is Russia when its military budget is more than ten times smaller than that of the USA, a budget that is even far smaller than that of the USA and its NATO allies combined?
·         How come NATO moved to Eastern Europe against the earlier pledge of the USA in 1989 not to move one inch east of West Germany, to the point where NATO is at the doorsteps of Russia in the Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia―less than a hundred miles from Russia’s second largest city St. Petersburg, and why is NATO knocking on Russia’s underbelly―Ukraine?
·         Does it make sense that the USSR would end the Cold War with the USA in the late 1980s, and then Russia, the successor of the USSR and a pale shadow of the great superpower the USSR was, which rivalled the USA back in the day, would then want to start a new Cold War or go to war against the all-powerful USA and the NATO military alliance that it is leading?
·         Why is Russia fighting terrorists in Syria, terrorists who have no qualms striking Russia and other Western-countries, if it does not see terrorism as a common threat that it shares with other Western-democracies?
·         Why hasn’t Russia carried out a full-scale invasion of Ukraine as the mainstream media has been predicting over the years, especially after the forced change of government in Kiev etc?
·         Why has Russia become the bogeyman of the United States of America and its allies, who now accuse it not only of hacking and tampering the 2016 Presidential Election, but also of spreading false news and interfering in the democratic process in other Western countries etc.?

The above questions and several others have come to convince a powerful percentage of Americans that they are not being told the truth vis-à-vis Russia and that there is an agenda behind casting Russia as America’s and the West’s natural enemy. And since Hillary Clinton went along with the Putin and Russia vilification, since she was echoing the line of the elites of both the Republican and Democratic parties concerning Russia, and since Donald Trump saw and continues to see Vladimir Putin and Russia instead as potential allies of the USA in the fight against terrorism, more Americans saw and are increasingly seeing Donald Trump as a peace-seeker with Russia and Hillary Clinton as a warmonger who even voted for the Iraq war.
In fact, more Republicans (37%) are viewing Putin favorably today than even before the election. This is a strange development coming from a political party that prided itself in the past for its resolute opposition to the Soviet Union before its demise in 1991, from which Russia became its successor, even though it did so as a pale shadow of the formidable Union of Soviet Socialists Republics (USSR) that for decades shared the title with the USA as the world’s two super powers.
The shift in thinking about Russia among Republicans is highlighted by Ronald Reagan’s former speech writer and anti-communist Dana Rohrabacher who is the U.S. Representative for California's 48th congressional district. The congressman has taken a more open-minded view of Vladimir Putin and Russia. When Rohrabacher told POLITICO  in early December 2016 that “There’s a lot of negative things about [Putin] that are accurate but there are a lot of negative things about him that have been said that are inaccurate…At least the other other side of the coin is being heard now…Finally, there’s some refutation of some of the inaccurate criticisms finally being heard.”, he was merely echoing the sentiments of the GOP, a party that has seen a sudden shift from a hardline position on Russia, toward a position that reflects respect, if not warmth for the Eurasian giant and its popular head of state Vladimir Putin.
Even as president-elect Donald Trump rolls up his sleeves in preparation of taking over from President Barack Obama as the United States of America’s 45th president, he cannot prevent himself from pausing and reflecting on the sensational story of Russian hacking that supposedly influenced the elections. It is difficult to ignore this accusation by anti-Russian and anti-Putin forces in the Obama administration, especially since it has been the frontline or headline news in the different media outlets in the USA and abroad. Based on a Fox News poll, 59% of respondents in the USA think that even if the supposed hacking occurred, it did not influence the 2016 elections. That is why those who do not take the Russian hacking story seriously think it is a last-ditch effort by the political establishment centered around career politicians of both the Republican and the Democratic parties, who think slapping Russia with sanctions for hacking would tie Donald Trump’s hands even before his presidency begins, so that he would think twice before carrying out the far-reaching normalization-of-relations with Russia that he had in mind during the campaigns. This is on the premise that the new president would fear he risked being considered unpatriotic and a Russian apologist if he rolled back the sanctions.
In fact, if the Trump presidency turns things around and makes an ally out of Russia, and then works with Putin’s Russia to realize the defeat of the Islamic State and terrorism in general, Donald Trump may end up becoming as iconic in international affairs as Ronald Reagan was in working with the last Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in ending the last Cold War. And the curious thing is that both Donald Trump and Roland Reagan began their march into the White House as amateurs in international relations.









One can easily deduce from the figures on the demographic breakdown of the 2012 and 2016 Presidential Elections that more minorities (Asians, Blacks, Hispanics) with foreign roots voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 election than they voted for Mitt Romney in the 2012 race for the White House. In fact, Donald Trump got a lower percentage of White votes and even fewer votes from America’s indigenous ethnic or racial groups than Mitt Romney did four years before him. These developments debunk the commonly-held view that it was a nationwide “White lash” or a universal rage of “Angry White Men” that gave Donald Trump victory over Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Presidential Election.
The president-elect who made a name for himself as an American businessman, politician, and television personality, carried out a brilliant campaign by tapping a combination of grievances in the country to his favor. And curiously enough, he tapped the strong Nativist Tradition in America to the point where America’s Asian, Black and even Hispanic minorities felt voting him over Hillary Clinton was a patriotic thing to do.


Breakdown of Votes by Race in the 2012 Presidential Election

Category
Obama
Romney
% Total
White
39
59
72
Black
93
6
13
Hispanic or Latino
71
27
10
Asian
73
26
3
Other
58
38
2

Breakdown of Votes by Race in the 2016 Presidential Election

American citizens are being flooded today by fear-generating information from many pundits, the mainstream media and even from some scholars,  pointing out that the nature of Donald Trump’s campaign, victory and mushrooming administration brings back memories of Germany in the early 1930s and the advent of Nazism, a Germany that was regarded at the time as the most civilized nation in Europe and the world, standing at the absolute peak of Western civilization in the arts, sciences and even democracy. It is true Adolf Hitler, like Donald Trump, had single digit support four years before he won the election to head a German government; it is true the most infamous man in German and world history did a good job, like Donald Trump, of mobilizing those left behind in society; and it is true they both ended up in power in manners that could be called historical accidents. But unlike Hitler who ended up commanding the majority support of ethnic Germans (90% of the population of Germany at the time) by sidelining Germany’s minorities among other policies, Donald Trump is incapable of wining the majority support of an America that is so polarized unless he turns things around in the country to the benefit of all underprivileged Americans irrespective of race or religion. And confronted with a changing demographics that is increasingly disfavoring White Americans, he would have to win over America’s minorities in order to get that majority support that would enable him carry out crazy policies reminiscent of the depravity of Nazi Germany. And as the demographic developments in the USA show, that is not possible.
The statistics below substantiates this position that there is nothing Donald Trump shares with Hitler and there is nothing similar between Nazi Germany and post-2016 America.


Recent Population Change in the USA

Map of Total Fertility Rate (TFR) in 2013 of US. States.



Total Fertility Rate (TFR) of US. States from 2010-2015
State or territory
TFR
2010
[
TFR
2011
TFR
2012
TFR
2013
TFR
2014
TFR
2015
 Guam
3.00
2.88
3.15
2.87
2.96
2.93
3.11
3.10
2.85
2.61
2.60
2.55
 Utah
2.45
2.38
2.37
2.34
2.33
2.29
2.27
2.25
2.27
2.27
2.27
2.27
2.04
2.08
2.12
2.14
2.24
2.16
2.49
2.34
2.26
2.23
2.23
2.22
2.35
2.28
2.19
2.22
2.19
2.17
2.14
2.11
2.12
2.12
2.16
2.15
2.24
2.15
2.19
2.13
2.15
2.13
2.16
2.07
2.08
2.07
2.09
2.07
2.16
2.09
2.12
2.04
2.05
2.05
2.11
2.04
2.04
2.04
2.03
2.00
 Iowa
2.01
1.97
1.99
2.00
2.02
2.01
2.15
2.11
2.10
2.08
2.00
1.97
2.04
1.98
1.99
1.99
1.99
2.01
2.07
2.00
2.00
1.97
1.97
1.92
2.00
2.00
1.97
1.94
1.97
1.98
1.97
1.94
1.95
1.95
1.96
1.95
1.95
1.91
1.92
1.93
1.96
1.96
1.99
1.96
1.96
1.97
1.95
1.96
1.96
1.95
1.94
1.94
1.94
1.93
1.97
1.95
1.93
1.92
1.93
1.93
2.06
2.00
1.98
1.93
1.91
1.90
1.96
1.94
1.89
1.88
1.89
1.87
 Ohio
1.90
1.88
1.89
1.88
1.88
1.87
1.94
1.92
1.89
1.88
1.87
1.86
1.96
1.91
1.87
1.86
1.87
1.86
1.96
1.93
1.88
1.86
1.87
1.85
1.88
1.87
1.87
1.85
1.87
1.85
1.89
1.87
1.86
1.84
1.85
1.85
1.91
1.89
1.88
1.84
1.85
1.82
1.95
1.90
1.89
1.84
1.84
1.79
1.85
1.84
1.82
1.83
1.83
1.81
1.91
1.86
1.84
1.82
1.83
1.82
1.87
1.84
1.81
1.79
1.83
1.83
1.89
1.85
1.83
1.79
1.82
1.80
1.83
1.84
1.85
1.86
1.81
1.78
1.88
1.85
1.84
1.81
1.81
1.80
1.90
1.88
1.85
1.81
1.81
1.80
1.88
1.84
1.82
1.79
1.81
1.81
1.88
1.84
1.82
1.80
1.80
1.79
1.94
1.90
1.85
1.79
1.79
1.81
1.92
1.85
1.83
1.79
1.77
1.75
1.83
1.80
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.81
1.80
1.78
1.75
1.76
1.74
1.81
1.79
1.77
1.73
1.73
1.71
1.79
1.76
1.74
1.73
1.72
1.70
1.70
1.67
1.68
1.67
1.66
1.64
1.72
1.71
1.66
1.63
1.63
1.61
1.66
1.63
1.61
1.59
1.63
1.58
1.67
1.67
1.61
1.60
1.58
1.59
1.67
1.67
1.63
1.60
1.58
1.55
1.63
1.60
1.59
1.57
1.56
1.58
1.65
1.64
1.61
1.53
1.52
1.48
1.62
1.60
1.54
1.47
1.43
1.34
2.19
2.17
1.83
1.58
1.24
1.07
Total United States
1.93
1.89
1.88
1.86
1.86
1.84

















Inflow of New Legal Permanent Residents by continent in 2014

Continent

2013
2014
Percentage
In 2014
Asia

400,548
430,508
42.35%
Americas

396,605
398,069
39.16%
Africa

98,304
98,413
9.68%
Europe

86,556
83,266
8.19%
Australia and Oceania

5,277
5,122
0.50%
Unknown

3,263
1,150
0.11%
Total
990,553
1,016,518











Top 10 sending countries in 2013 and 2014

Country
2013
2014
Mexico
135,028
134,052
India
68,458
77,908
China
71,798
76,089
Philippines
54,446
49,996
Cuba
32,219
46,679
Dominican Republic
41,311
44,577
Vietnam
27,101
30,283
South Korea
23,166
20,423
El Salvador
18,260
19,273
Iraq
9,552
19,153
Total
990,553
1,016,518


The population of the United States of America is rapidly growing, aging and becoming more diverse. These trends are uneven across the different states in the USA and affect the different racial groups differently. The fastest aging is Non-Hispanic White Americans who constitute 63% of the US. Population today and are projected to make up less than 50% in 2043. In fact, statistics today show that non-Hispanic White American children make up just 47% of the children below the age of five. In less than three years’ time in 2019, there would be more minorities under 18 than non-Hispanic white children of that age range. 
The curious thing about these developments is that the fertility rate among non-Hispanic White Americans is highest in states where they are overwhelmingly the majority. The fertility rate of non-Hispanic White Americans is above 2 (the replacement fertility rate in the USA) in states with an overwhelming White majority such as Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Wyoming, Iowa, Arkansas, Kentucky, Indiana, Montana, Washington. Texas is the only state with a high fertility rate where non-Hispanic Whites are barely a majority. And since a high enough fertility rate of 2 is needed to enable a natural growth of the population, states with lower fertility rates that are experiencing a growth in their populations owe this growth to immigration. This phenomenon happens to be experienced by those states where the minorities are the fastest growing.  In the other states where non-Hispanic White Americans do not command an overwhelming majority, their fertility rate turns to be lower. So, in a nutshell, the afore-mentioned states are projected to stay solidly Republican for many more years to come.
It would be wrong to say that those states that are experiencing population growth due to immigration have their demographic house in order and that everything is going on well there. Even though the United States of America is a “Settler Nation”, meaning a nation of immigrants, Americans are conflicted when it comes to immigration, especially when it comes to illegal immigrants. It was the case centuries ago as highlighted by Benjamin Franklin’s statement on German immigrants, and it is the case today. In fact, surveys show that 6 in 10 Americans consider immigration to be good for the country, but more than half of the US. Population deplores illegal immigration.
The foreign-born population in the United States peaked in 1890 to 9.2 million or 14.8 percent of the total population, but then declined over the years until it bottomed out in 1970 to 9.6 million foreign-born people or 4.7 percent of the total population of the USA. Large-scale immigration, primarily from Latin America and Asia has fueled the growth of the foreign-born population so that it is estimated to be 42 million, or 13 percent of the total U.S. population in 2014. Furthermore, second-generation Americans, i.e. “natives” or Americans with one or both parents born in a foreign country, numbered 30.4 million, or 11 percent of the total population. In fact, first- or second-generation residents constitute close to one-quarter of the population of the United States.
The expanding electoral map of swing-states will mostly be in the states that are experiencing population growth from immigration than from natural population growth rate due to high fertility rates. These are the states in the South and the West of the country as the chart below shows. The South’s and the Wests share of the US. Population are projected to increase from 38% to 42.9% and from 24% to 45.8% respectively by 2030.

Table 1: U.S. Population Change by Region, 2000 to 2010
Area
Population in Millions
Change, 2000 to 2010

April 1, 2000
April 1, 2010
Number
Percent
U.S., total
281,421,906
308,745,538
27,323,622
9.7
Northeast
53,594,378
55,317,240
1,722,862
3.2
Midwest
64,392,776
66,927,001
2,534,225
3.9
South
100,236,820
114,755,044
14,318,924
14.3
West
63,197,932
71,945,553
8,747,621
13.8
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "Population Change and Distribution, 2000 to 2010," Census 2010 Brief, March 2011
The Census Bureau groups the states as follows: Northeast: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont; Midwest: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin; South: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia; West: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.


Americans shall experience an increase in the number of swing states that shall alter the electoral calculus in a major way as population growth shifts to the southern and western states of the USA that have more youthful populations and that are the magnets not only for immigrants coming from abroad, but also for internal immigrants coming from mostly Northeastern and Midwestern states of the union.
Most people now believe that the American political establishment, which constitutes the elites of both the Republican and Democratic Parties has failed. This political power structure as we have always known it in recent decades has finally come to the end of its life cycle. It no longer works as its ability to manufacture consent using the mainstream media, the financial institutions, and the giant corporations has finally met a counterbalance in the form of the social media, a more cooperative worldwide  network of dedicated private citizens who are concerned with the wellbeing of humanity, and the widespread rise of fanatical fringe groups whose inhuman actions polarize the world and expose the limits and the helplessness of the American political establishment and its foreign collaborators when they find themselves confronted by unconventional opposition.
The Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump phenomenon will repeat itself again in years and even decades to come. Like Bennie Sanders, Donald Trump opposed the system, even though he did so as someone with a penchant for using “politically incorrect” methods. Unlike Bernie Sanders, he triumphed in the first phase of the struggle against the political establishment’s way of doing business. However, he is incapable of dismantling the system or reforming it in a fundamental manner so that the excesses of the political establishment stops impeding the development, growth and wellbeing of the common folk of America and the rest of the world.  Had Bernie Sanders triumphed, perhaps he would have been able to come up with a committed team to set up the base around which a “New America” can be built, a “New America” with the qualities it takes to lead a multi-polar world where the interests, concerns, and actions of the other rising centers of power would be taken into account. And even as the establishment pushes back on Donald Trump’s initiatives, the fear lurking at the back of their minds that Bernie Sanders could have won and turned everything upside down, the fear that Bernie Sanders could come back to haunt the establishment in the future, and the fear that a failure to see through genuine changes could give rise to alternative political parties and even more Bernie Sanders disciples, would eventually force both the Republican and Democratic parties to work with Donald Trump one way or the other to make changes to the setup of America that the upper echelons of both parties find acceptable.
All the same, Donald Trump’s victory in the October 08, 2016 Presidential Election will change America forever. The world’s most advanced country shall experience a fundamental reassessment of its political establishment, and we shall see the institution of reforms either to prevent the Trump/Sanders phenomenon from ever repeating itself again and posing a challenge to the political establishment (Democratic and Republican elites) or to take the country to a whole new level. The aftermath of this election would also usher in a new understanding between Democrats and Republican regarding not only the need to work together in the future, but also to work with individuals and groups that are committed to the wellbeing of humanity. Furthermore, this election will increase the chances of America becoming a three-party-party or a four-party system.










Voter Demographics: Based on a survey of 24,537 voters leaving 350 voting places throughout the United States on Election Day.
2016 Presidential vote by demographic subgroup
Demographic subgroup
Clinton
Trump
Other
 % of
total vote
Total vote
47.8
46.6
5.6
100
Ideology
84
10
6
26
52
41
7
39
15
81
4
35
Party
89
9
2
37
7
90
3
33
42
48
10
31
Party by gender
Democratic men
87
10
3
14
Democratic women
90
8
2
23
Republican men
6
90
2
17
Republican women
8
89
2
16
Independent men
37
51
10
17
Independent women
47
43
7
14
Gender
Men
41
53
6
48
Women
54
42
4
52
Gender by marital status
Married men
37
58
5
29
Married women
49
47
4
30
Non-married men
46
45
9
19
Non-married women
62
33
5
23
Race/ethnicity
37
58
5
70
88
8
4
12
65
29
6
4
Other
56
37
7
3
Hispanic (of any race)
65
29
6
11
Gender by race/ethnicity
White men
31
63
5
34
White women
43
53
3
37
Black men
80
13
6
5
Black women
94
4
2
7
Latino men (of any race)
62
33
4
5
Latino women (of any race)
68
26
5
6
All other races
61
32
5
6
Religion
37
60
3
27
45
52
3
23
25
61
14
1
Other Christian
43
55
2
24
71
24
5
3
Other religion
58
33
9
7
68
26
6
15
Religious service attendance
Weekly or more
40
56
4
33
Monthly
46
49
5
16
A few times a year
48
47
5
29
Never
62
31
7
22
White evangelical or born-again Christian
White evangelical or born-again Christian
16
81
3
26
Everyone else
59
35
6
74
Age
18–24 years old
56
35
9
10
25–29 years old
53
39
8
9
30–39 years old
51
40
9
17
40–49 years old
46
50
4
19
50–64 years old
44
53
3
30
65 and older
45
53
2
15
Sexual orientation
78
14
8
5
47
48
5
95
First time voter
56
40
4
10
Everyone else
47
47
6
90
Education
High school or less
45
51
4
18
Some college education
43
52
5
32
College graduate
49
45
6
32
58
37
5
18
Education by race/ethnicity
White college graduates
45
49
4
37
White no college degree
28
67
4
34
Non-white college graduates
71
23
5
13
Non-white no college degree
75
20
3
16
Family income
Under $30,000
53
41
6
17
$30,000–49,999
51
42
7
19
$50,000–99,999
46
50
4
31
$100,000–199,999
47
48
5
24
$200,000–249,999
48
49
3
4
Over $250,000
46
48
6
6
Issue regarded as most important
60
34
6
13
32
64
4
13
52
42
6
52
39
57
4
18
Community size
Cities (population 50,000 and above)
59
35
6
34
Suburbs
45
50
5
49
Rural areas
34
62
4
17
Age and Race
White 18-29
43
47
10
12
Black 18-29
85
9
6
3
Latino 18-29
68
26
6
3
White 30-44
37
54
9
16
Black 30-44
89
7
4
4
Latino 30-44
65
28
7
4
White 45-64
34
62
4
30
Black 45-64
90
9
1
5
Latino 45-64
64
32
4
4
White 65 and older
39
58
3
13
Black 65 and older
91
9
0
1
Latino 65 and older
73
25
2
1
All Others
61
31
8
6



The Usurper: and Other Stories
Triple Agent, Double Cross
Disciples of Fortune
The Union Moujik
Splendid Comets
Flash of the Sun
Fortune Calls
Fortune’s Master
Fortune’s Children
The Norilsk Bears
To Be In Love and To Be Wise
The Fire and Ice Legend
The Sweetest Madness
The Grandmothers
The Hunger Fire
The Shades of Fire
Father and Sons
The Doctors
Dark Shades
Fateful Ties
The Verdict of Hades
His Majesty’s Trial
Ngoko’s Folly
The Usurper
The Dowry
I am Hated
The Oaf


Non-Fiction Titles by Janvier Chouteu-Chando
THEIR LAST STAND: Donald Trump’s Upset Victory…
BROKEN ENGAGEMENT: Why a Donald Trump Win…
Ukraine: The Tug-of-war between Russia and the West
Cameroon: The Haunted Heart of Africa








© 2017 by Janvier Tchouteu-Chando

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the publishers, except by a reviewer who may quote brief passages in a review to be printed in a newspaper, magazine or journal.



















No comments:

Post a Comment