It may not have been the “tremendous success” that Donald Trump claimed it as, but the US midterm elections have positioned him well to be returned as president in 2020. Having control of the House of Representatives go over to the Democrats might actually play in his favour, rather than against it.
It is widely accepted that the size of the swing to the Democrats was much less than earlier anticipated, but recent polling had shown a closing of the gap between Republicans and Democrats. The extent of the swing was within keeping of other midterm election swings against first-term presidents, and far less than the swing towards Republicans in Barack Obama’s first term as president in 2010.
This limited swing appears to have reflected two factors. The first factor is that the “Trump effect” is not nearly as negative as many pundits had believed. Trump’s anti-politician populism and truth-stretching hyperbole continue to play in his favour. The second factor is that Trump’s personal campaigning, particularly on the issue of the “illegal migrant caravan”, rallied conservative voters. Regardless of his unsophisticated campaigning style, or perhaps because of it, he appears to have swayed voters.
Within this context, Trump’s sacking of attorney-general Jeff Sessions has been little more than a blip on the US political radar — it was expected, if not quite so soon. Now it has been somewhat buried under the wider impact of the midterm elections and sideshows such as his heated exchange with CNN reporter Jim Acosta.
Trump’s new pick for attorney-general, Matthew Whitaker, can be expected to limit — if not end — the FBI’s Mueller investigation into collusion between the 2016 Trump election campaign and Russian interests. The Democrat majority House of Representatives is likely to launch its own investigation into the Russia affair, as well as to block Trump’s legislative agenda, but this might backfire on the Democrats.
Assuming the FBI investigation is cancelled by a new attorney-general, the Democrats launching a House inquiry would be seen by some voters as vindictive. This would be especially so if the new attorney-general made a strong case for canceling the FBI investigation.
With the Senate even more firmly under the control of the Republican Party — a sign that voters are less than wholly enamored of the Democrats — regardless of what an investigation finds, the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives cannot alone impose an impeachment process on the President. This means the Democrats will go into the 2020 elections complaining about the conduct of the 2016 elections rather than countering Trump’s populist appeal.
Further, by blocking Trump’s legislative program, the Democrats will be able to be portrayed as negative, divisive and potentially destructive. This would further drive divisions over how to respond between the Democrats’ deeply riven “establishment” and “progressive” wings. Short of an Obama-like figure who could charismatically preside over a divided Democrats, they could struggle to present a viable alternative to Donald Trump in 2020.
Assuming that the Democrats choose a good but not stellar presidential candidate, Trump will only have to roll out his populist slogans and negative, fear-based campaigning to remain a strong contender. And, as with 2016, he only needs a slim margin to get across the line.
Damien Kingsbury is Deakin University’s Professor of International Politics.
When I read this piece I marvel at the fact that the author seems to suggest that the Democrats cant do more than one thing at once. Cant continue to champion or sponsor the investigation into the Trump campaign and also run a narrative on “progressive” policy options for the next election. Cant block Trumps legislative agenda, (which up until now has been to undo any deal Obama signed, to reduce tax for the rich and to weaponize racist elements in the blue collar sector), without selling the benefits of their own policies.
It seems for all the world as if the entire democratic party has been stymied by the raw genius of Trump.
Nah – the Dems are just utterly incompetent and beholden to their donors.
I’ll correct you spelling shall I? Nah – the Reps are just utterly incompetent and beholden to their donors.
The opinion of Gore Vidal & Ralph Nader, two utterly opposite pundits, a sybarite & an aesthete respectively, were that they were different sides of the same coin.
Those who held the most coin controll amerika, then, now and into the foreseeable future.
If any.
The above comment was moderated – can anyone guess why?
> The above comment was moderated – can anyone guess why?
Its no great puzzle. As someone pointed out different filtering software is being used
and likely as a free service to the customer given that Crikey has moved to google-based transports and hosting – at least for the comments section.
Notification of comments are not forwarded to China or hit the firewall which was not the case previously. Returning to the point, Crikey indulges in behaviour similar to what it criticises in other publications. Similarly for the comments. It has its “religious-like” view of assessing the world.
Seriously though, there’s a fair way to go before the next US election and Trump is capable of alienating more people than he wins over. The other big factor is turnout. There were just 50% of the US population who got off their arse and voted. I reckon that proportionally the lazy 50 are in urban centres not bucolic backwaters and therefore there’s a rich vein of discontent yet to be exploited. Basically, the GOP has exhausted its store of discontent while the Dems still have some petrol in the tank. This is a real long term problem for the GOP, they are running out of crusty redneck runway. Evolution will catch up with them (take note Tony Abbott and Co).
The other important factor is that next election will be a battle of personalities, as it always is to some degree in a presidential year. The Dems have a chance to put forward a really shiny new product whereas the GOP are going to be stuck with an increasingly erratic and unreliable clunker. Beto (or Beto clone in lady form) is going to be a very tasty snack when you put it net to a plate of cold, lumpy and strangely coloured bowl of porridge.
This post is general but first to R.H.
The guy who writes these pieces is a light-weight; he has about the acumen of an average 2nd/3rd year
student that has undertaken more than the average amount of reading but is rather thin on the comprehension and content of what has passed through his brain.
US politics is rather less overtly confrontational that Oz politics. In fact they regard the public stouchs that
occur here (and in the UK) as somewhat vulgar. But the Congress tends to keep the cards close to their chests and they don’t often realsise that they are indulging in acts of hypocrisy – which they regard as going along to get along.
Your (R.H.) objections of Trump are not shared by the majority of Americans. Shocked and mortified as you might be the evidence resides with retaining the Senate and the House sliding no more than with any other mid-term. Obama, as this guy and I have pointed out, lost the farm after two years. To rebut this position you might be tempted to tot up the blue vote but then you will have to take into account voter absenteeism. Lost cause mate.
What this fellow OUGHT to have done is EXPLAINED the role of the AG in USA politics. It is actually (very) contradictory. The only comparison between a “US” AG and a Westminster AG is the name; and damn all else.
Kennedy, for example trusted ONLY his brother for the role. Ditto (jumping ahead) for Trump. The role
requires two hats – the wearing of which is just not possible in this age of a polarised press and general
political mendacity. The US version of an AG would be a bit like making the DPP a political appointment or filling the ASIC with political devotees.
After 30 odd years of tolerable neo-lib (no role for government; supply-side objectives etc.) the USA has turned populist. Obama was a very great disappointment to everyone from the Democrats, a fair majority of the the American voters to the Palestinians. In the end he sided with Wall-Stree and the Clintons; read neo-Republicans.
Yeah – the Democrats are in as much disarray as the Libs/Nats here. I think it was Bernie K. who said that they can agree only on two things : anti-unionism and less government – or more “supply-side”. The Bernie S. option isn’t going to be accommodated by the Clinton-ism that pervades the Democrats.
I think it was a contributer, Robert Garnett, who gave us a quick tut. on the Democrats. Rob might have mentioned the Democrats initiating the Vietnam war (the KKK come to that) and running a peace deal with Vietnam off the rails in 1968. Kissinger didn’t help but LBJ wanted it his way.
Having been shafted by Obama, Trump’s populism was the only other option for American voters. I knew Trump would win on 11 Aug. 2016 and began taking bets that day. Trump is real man – and we’ve seen damn all yet!
Elsewhere, I have waged a slab for any or all of
(1) Trump completing a full term short of karking it in office
(2) No impeachment
(3) at Trump’s option : a 2nd term. – particularly if he sorts NATO, the UN, The Geneva Convention (as to the location of Embassies) Mexico (with or without a wall) and “looks good” over Korea. A nice smiley handshake with Xi 18 months from now could “swing it” for trade.
Thanks Kyle. I note your admiration of Trumps disruption to the status quo in US politics and will have to agree to disagree with you regarding his worth.
I know very little of the US system and even less about the history of the behaviour of either party. I’ve no skin in the game as the kiddies say. I would make the point though that being snootily offended by the vulgar goings on in Westminster or Canberra seems slightly hypocritical when you’ve voted for or otherwise tolerate a slimy mob funded slob like Trump. I suppose though that this is another example of the Human’s ability to hold 2 incompatible beliefs at once.
“particularly if he sorts NATO, the UN, The Geneva Convention (as to the location of Embassies) Mexico (with or without a wall) and “looks good” over Korea. A nice smiley handshake with Xi 18 months from now could “swing it” for trade.”
Yes, as soon as he starts on this rather ambitious wish list, which is not going to be any time soon ’cause he’s either watching TV or on the golf course.
“US politics is rather less overtly confrontational that Oz politics.” Well, it was, before Trump. Actually this is just bullshit, there’s almost no difference except perhaps a weakness for deference to the POTUS.
“What this fellow OUGHT to have done is EXPLAINED”
Getting shouty!!!!
“The only comparison between a “US” AG and a Westminster AG is the name; ”
WOW! Differences between the US and Australian political systems? Who’s a thunk it? You must be an expert. The quotes around “US” are a nice touch, kind of makes it “contingent” …
“Yeah – the Democrats are in as much disarray as the Libs/Nats here.”
You gotta lay off the sauce before lunch.
“Rob might have mentioned the Democrats initiating the Vietnam war”
And here’s me thinking it was the French! Sacré bleu!
“Trump’s populism was the only other option for American voters”
[Dull monotone] Yes, no other options exist. He is the one. In The Trump we trust. Hail The Trump.
“Trump is real man”
Now we’re getting weird. The bad grammar really gives it a gothic edge. Or maybe he meant “Trump is real … man … cool daddy-o” like a 50s beatnik??
“Wall-Stree” – Yeah, the letter ‘t’ is for loosers.
oh deary me. .mmm Well hello Patrick and Merrie. R.H and I require no introduction. I’ll post under Patrick because he seems to be the most offended. In the spirit of Aussi fair-mindedness (you be the judge) let’s make a start.
Firstly, as R.H. well knows : I’m a spectator at a tennis match. I have half a clue as to who is playing whom but I am quite indifferent as to who wins. My sympathies resided with the Democrats until Carter found himself way out of his depth. A fair few in the party decided to hang him out to dry – a redneck in a Tux was how the northern states regarded him and his brother, Billy, was frequently offered a microphone (or megaphone) to prove the point. To a large extent Sanders has received the same mail.
It is disappointing that zealot-type dispositions create environments were some only see or hear what we like. The hobby-horses are all to apparent. The discussions that I had with wealthy white guys in Manhattan restaurants and with educated black girls travelling on Megabus possessed no room for illusions as to the nature of the profane groping billionaire.
Similarly, a discussion, with a mixed group of young university students in a public place within metres of a statue concerned with Slavery in Montgomery (the location was a former slave market) provided an assessment of Hillary that would have made a Sergeant Major blush. Correct : they were not going to vote for her – or anything that promoted Wall St or the Clinton Foundation. Even The Guardian has accepted that the midterm result was fundamentally pro Trump.
Kurds : in. Palestinians : out. Saudi regime : in. Iran : out. Then the is the stuff with the Geneva Convention and the location of Embassies. The latent bigotry towards Trump serves no purpose. The political choice, dear friends, – even in Australia – is demigod populism or neo-lib. That observation, R.H. addresses your remark of 09Nov18 13:06.
We agree with Patrick that a short time can be a long time in Politics. However the result ought to show that the trend being pro-Trump is (1) well in place and (2) there is nothing fake about it. As to those who didn’t vote – we have the analogy of the Christian Right who did’t vote until Reagan radicalised them almost 40 years ago. Then they voted Right or Red. As to what the Yanks think of our system (hypocritical or otherwise) it is what they think – namely – a grade up from a chimpanzee’s tea party. A note follows below.
Now, let me spend a bit of time with Patrick – taking Patrick’s comments in order.
As to what Trump actually does with his list your guess is no better than mine. Unlike Obama Trump refers to his list every so often. Obama seemed to hope that his list would disappear; and – behold – with a wave of the wand it did disappear! Meaningful action on gun control. Guanny Bay and another 10 others.
You disagree with my assessment of “behavour” in the US Congress and the Senate. Just how many Senators and Congressmen have you met Patrick and what kind of questions have you asked them. Its just conceivable that you have met one or two but your answer reflects the opposite. Let’s argue specifics here – and not generalities.
> What this fellow OUGHT to have done is EXPLAINED” [you -> Getting shouty!!!!]
Why four marks when one suffices? Never mind. The caps are there to emphasise an inadequacy in the article; a very grave misplaced opportunity that was lost on you as well – apparently.
“WOW! Differences between the US and Australian political systems? Who’s a thunk it? You must be an expert.”
I’d admit to “well informed”; others may use the world expert. Happy to debate a topic on the matter Patrick. Choose anything. Not so long ago (long story) I encountered a lawyer turned Civil War Tour Guide for specialists and knowledgeable amateurs. He was acquainted with every source that I had read since high school. Impressive. I spent a few days with this guy and his associates. I doubt if past presidents have as comprehensive a briefing.
I have read the minutes (abridged) of the briefing that Trump had with the various departments that were superintended by General Michael Hayden in is capacity of Head of the NSA. prior to Trump’s inauguration. So, yeah mate, I’d flatter myself with half a clue. Now, lets hear about your background (in more or less point form if you prefer)
> The quotes around “US” are a nice touch, kind of makes it “contingent”
Thanks – I did wonder if anyone would notice. Did I make the point to your satisfaction that the two roles (i.e. AG) are utterly different for the Westminster system and the US system despite the same name? If not, let me know and I’ll be happy to expand on it for you. As an aside – you don’t seem to be above employing caps yourself.
> “Rob might have mentioned the Democrats initiating the Vietnam war”
> And here’s me thinking it was the French! Sacré bleu!
I WAS referring to 1962 with the promise of a two year commitment by Kennedy. I THINK the context is clear. The article was not referring to the 50s Sauce? .mmm tends to compromise the memory Patrick.
> “Trump’s populism was the only other option for American voters”
> [Dull monotone] Yes, no other options exist. He is the one. In The Trump we trust. Hail The Trump.
Unlike you Patrick, it would seem, I am able to tolerate an alternative view. Why don’t you provide an alternative view to what I have written – rather an an amateurish pseudo marking of grammar. I admit not not having much of a feminine side but I do detect that you are not a fan of Trump.
> “Trump is real man”
> Now we’re getting weird. The bad grammar really gives it a gothic edge.
No Patrick – the sentence was not a reference to a character in a novel by Kerouac but it was a quote by a female student at Berkeley (Starbucks again – Oxford street or was it Peets Coffee) – 4th of July this year. A lot of changes over the decades since I was last there. Lived there for a while but not as a student.
> “Wall-Stree” – Yeah, the letter ‘t’ is for loosers.
I’m going to have to ask you to “please explain”.
As to Arky (09Nov 16:57) but germane to Patrick and Merrie, the so-identified celebrities for the Democrats did not take one anticipated run on the board. The office of Governor turned out to be more Red than Blue. The money was on the Democrats for Florida but, apparently, no one asked the voters.
Pleasant dreams as to your last paragraph (09Nov18 16:25) Patrick. As for me (please do take note Merrie) identify what you deem to be in error pertaining to what I have written. Anyone can throw one-liners from the side line. Most of the comments on Crikey are of that ilk.
As to your remark Brief (09Nov2018) You really ought to ask a few yanks “who would vote for Hillary”. Literally two years ago [ONLY] about 300 people turned up to a function of hers in true-blue Phili. The trashing of Bernie pissed a lot of democrat-voting people off.
Hitchens wrote quite a lot about the Clinton machine. Two years ago the Bernie thing motivated any number of Democrats to “down tools” and not assist with the voluntary stuff at all. That reaction in itself had a huge effect on the day. Cast an eye over “No one Left to Lie To”
Also, Bref, accusations, nowadays, are a badge of honour. Let’s discuss facts. In the case of Kavanaugh’s accuser, Christine Ford, let’s begin with her declared fear of flying that didn’t prevent her buying airline tickets (1st of course) for holidays to the Pacific. If you are “shocked” about Trump Bref you might be equally (or more so) shocked when you learn more about Hillary.
I have met people who knew Hillary in the late 60s and through the 70s. I’m told that she has heaps of new friends but no old friends. Hearsay, I admit, but apparently the matter has not been refuted. Her co-opting B grade Hollywood did her show no good at all two years ago either. Let’s agree on this observation : there seems to be, as with Australia, damn all choice of candidate!
Nah – its too dangerous : I’m going to have to say it for this audience. I am not a fan of Trump or of the Libs or of the Country Party or of O.N. or of the Greens or of Labor but I would like to see more of Albo. Its a tennis match guys. Why don’t we just much on the either the pop-corn or a carrot if we wish to be (is it) “hip” – as in hipster – truly I would not know – but ask me something about Yankee politics, climate change, nuclear power stations or encryption.
In keeping with my moniker I try to keep my comments brief. I meant to add a sentence after the Hillary comment clarifying that with all the commenting after the election, I came to realise just how deep the antipathy toward the Clintons is and why.
I’m also not so much shocked about Trump (the man is known quantity by now), rather the cult-like following he still has among American voters and the sycophantic attitude of the republicans.
About Ford and flying, my wife loathes flying to the extent we literally drive or train everywhere, however that doesn’t extend to letting me have solo overseas holidays :-).
Dear kH, from one puerile pissant to another, I want to commend you for your lack of control, humility and, above all, cut through. You’ve graced us with another masterpiece of pleonastic waffle.
TRULY awesome.
mT
p.S Just as a tut tut, you probably shouldn’t dwell on those zingers quite so long. We get it; you don’t think the author’s that smart.
Won’t the dems be in a position now to undo some of the gerrymandering that has enabled trump to win elections with their taking of the house? Even though the dems have again won the popular vote, this is one of the reasons that trump keeps winning the senate.
Yes but a lot of it won’t be undone until after the 2020 census (so after the next presidential election).
There will be a chance to undo a handful of cases before 2020, like the North Carolina districts where the Republicans openly (!) admitted to gerrymandering for political gain and a court already found it was unconstitutional but also decided it was too late to change it before the midterms.
It means for the long term that the State Governor and state congress pickups may well be more crucial than the House of Reps pickups. But it is very much in a long term point.
Gerrymanders are local jiggery-pokery for the Reps.
They have no effect in the Senate which are a single, state wide electorate, just like here.
“With the Senate even more firmly under the control of the Republican Party — a sign that voters are less than wholly enamored of the Democrats”
That particular line gives me little confidence in the analysis given the reasons why the Democrats lost ground in the Senate. It makes me wonder if the author does NOT know.
The Senate is a problem going forward for the Democratic Party due to the issue of states getting equal numbers of senators and small rural states favouring the Republicans, but the midterm Senate vote says nothing about voters generally; the lost Senate seats are in Indiana, Missouri, North Dakota, all safe Republican territory most of the time. and especially under Trump by comparison to Romney.
“This means the Democrats will go into the 2020 elections complaining about the conduct of the 2016 elections rather than countering Trump’s populist appeal. ”
It must have escaped your notice that the Democrats went into the midterms with a deliberate strategy of focussing on health care as the headline issue, not complaints about 2016 or Russia. THEY KNOW ALREADY. Every post mortem for 2016 has said in block capitals that Hillary lost by talking way too much about Trump’s scandals (because anyone who cared was already voting for her, and anyone who didn’t care by the time of the Billy Bush tape wasn’t going to start caring all of a sudden) and not enough about jobs and the economy, and THEY GET IT.
“Further, by blocking Trump’s legislative program, the Democrats will be able to be portrayed as negative, divisive and potentially destructive. ”
Because openly doing this to Obama made the Republicans unelectable?
Well spoken Arky. It seems that because the current state of the world is so confusing and unpredictable more and more commentators and readers, (including some right here in Crikey!), are opting for a “we’ll all be rooned” approach. We’ve got more than enough Hanrahans in this country already. How about more people looking for some more positive interpretations, like you’re doing? The Democrats are well aware of all the issues raised above and are carefully reviewing both their losses and forthcoming tactics. Trump is unwittingly re-energizing the Democratic Party and making the word socialism acceptable again.
I reckon that the great orange one will run out of steam before 2020 and won’t run for president again. He is too old, lazy and disinterested.
“He is too old, lazy and disinterested.” Uninterested maybe, disinterested never.