Trump Did Not Win It, Clinton Lost It

James Dancey warned that if Clinton did not change her tune that she would lose. Now he looks at why it was her own campaign that undermined her. 

It was the morning after the election, whereas many people were waking up; I was just about to go to sleep, after watching Trump embarrass Hillary in many marginal states I thought it was best for me to call it a night. I had spent the previous hours of darkness speaking to many Americans, Clinton and Trump supporting and seeing the gradual change in reaction as the results came in. Clinton, who had spent 8 years waiting for the opportunity to run for President since the last attempt had once again failed, this time she had not lost to the charismatic, personable Obama, but to the aggressive, polarising, controversial Trump.

Trump was terrible, some of his actions reprehensible, and his self- control left much to be desired, he was entangled in multiple scandals for the many problematic words he had proclaimed. With all the allegations of narcissism, sexism and racism coming in, many people would ask how he could win. I’d like to ask how Hillary let him win.

In one of my previous publications about how Clinton has a terrible tendency to talk down to the public, I wrote that if she did not change her tune she would lose. She didn’t, and she lost. This was clearly reflected in the discourse, but there were other matters at hand that she also fumbled on greatly. The emails didn’t help, it was exposed that she had cheated during the Democratic debates with leaked questions, and was involved in the DNC which doomed Bernie Sanders into the barrel of should’ve been leaders.

So, that’s pretty bad, but it’s no worse than what Trump has done, why did it damage her reputation so much more than her Republican counterpart’s? Clinton had created this image, that she was this clean, honourable, righteous advocate for social justice, the scandals painted her as this crooked, establishment figure focused solely on self-interest. This specific representation of her undermined the character she had originally displayed to the public, which destroys the trust that they would in her. This can be contrasted in Trump, who always flaunted himself as this aggressive, impolite chauvinist, so a lot of what the media criticised him for didn’t really wash. The media played an important role in feeding Trump’s narrative, that there was this big, bad establishment exclusively driven to prevent this avant-garde insurgent from attaining the keys to the White House. Clinton’s campaign ads also played into Trump’s narrative, always looking for reasons to not vote Trump rather than reasons to vote Clinton.

However, none of this would’ve mattered if the Democrats had fielded a better candidate, Clinton still won the popular vote (albeit by a very small margin), and a majority of the US population are by no means pro-Trump. Nonetheless, Bernie was waiting in the wings, he would’ve motivated and inspired many Americans with his cross-party and swing state appeal (he has been an Independent senator for Vermont) and the polls had him as absolutely trouncing Trump, yet the Democrats decided to take a risk with their corporatist puppet and lost.

I endorsed neither Clinton, nor Trump, from my perspective they were both terrible in their own unique ways. Nevertheless, I could see a Trump win coming from a mile away, people are tired of Hillary’s brand of stale, cliché politics, and her dangerously low charisma. They might as well have propped her corpse up on the podium and no-one would’ve noticed. They should’ve heeded the warnings from Brexit, people are tired of being told what to do and how to do it, and now the American people will live with the implications from a tired, washed-out elite’s myopic decisions.

Why Donald Trump Is Now The President of the USA

The Donald has done it. 

How did this happen? Why did it happen? These questions are abound across the globe, as people wake up to news that the former reality TV star has now taken his seat as the leader of the world's richest and most powerful nation.

Donald Trump's own appeal is obvious, whether you agree with his views or not. His bigoted, nuance-free and racist views and proposals appealed to the evident mass of Americans who may have until now been hiding their views from an environment deemed too 'politically correct'. From the moment Trump glided down the escalators of his New York tower to announce his candidacy, making ridiculous blanket claims about Mexican immigrants, these people felt empowered. And when Trump pledged to ban Muslims from entering the USA, they felt empowered. Finally, they thought. Someone is putting out what we've been thinking all along into the public sphere.

Donald Trump's rallies held a cult-like buzz that was
unparalleled by Hillary Clinton.

Trump empowered the racists in American communities, something that was clearly visible before the vote, at his infamously raucous campaign rallies.

But it goes deeper than this; statistics show that a significant majority of Trump's voters were either poor, lacked college education, or both. We could write a whole book about why so many Americans are in these demographics- but one of the significant causes is lack of access to higher education. Education that is inaccessible to so many has proven a barrier to informed voting decisions, and has further increased the power of meaningless, simplistic rhetoric ('Make America Great Again') and fanciful promises.

But it wasn't just the racists and bigots who formed Trump's support. So many more people voted for Trump for a simple reason; they are sick of the corporatist Establishment. The political elite that have transgressed the boundaries of right and left wing, supported by and doing the bidding of massive corporations, regardless of the impact on the public. It's the Establishment that were largely responsible for catastrophes- whether it's the Iraq War, or the 2008 Financial Crisis.

And Trump, right from the start, made it clear he was not part of the Establishment. During the GOP Primaries, he stood out for his constant criticisms of his competing Republican candidates as puppets of wealthy donors. His outspoken and unpredictable nature makes him a nightmare for those who would want to try to take control of his policymaking. And after years and years of the status quo in the Oval Office, people wanted something new, something fresh.

On the left, this desire manifested itself in Bernie Sanders taking Clinton right to the wire in the Democratic primary. On the right, it has led to today- Trump going against the initial odds to become President.

But as much as Donald Trump was responsible for standing out in this election as the anti-Establishment candidate, it's the DNC's fault for putting out perhaps the worst response they possibly could to Trump.

Clinton proved a weak Establishment answer to
Donald Trump

In Hillary Clinton, not only do you have someone mired in political and personal controversies, but you have arguably the most pro-Establishment candidate ever. Polished, extremely well prepared and scripted, Clinton may have been impressive in the elections of the 20th century, but for today's context, she is totally inappropriate. Fascinatingly, Clinton has been able to unify the left and the right in distrust and dislike of her- whether for her shady ties to Wall Street, hawkish foreign policy proposals or the email scandal. The latter has been shown to be a false accusation- but it doesn't matter so much when it comes to the vote, as the accusation itself immediately left an impression on a significant numbers of people.

Furthermore, she lacks the 'X-factor' of Donald Trump. She's too scripted, too predictable, too typically 'politician'. As a result, the main appeal of Hillary for many many voters was not because of what she stood for, or what she was, rather what what she wasn't- Donald Trump. And this fact seemed to be one of the things she relied upon for much of her campaign. The whole potential for a first female President was something similar (demonstrated in her motto, "I'm with her").  There was really a lack of any meaningful other definition to her campaign.

And this should have been picked up by the Democratic National Committee, the DNC, 8 years ago, when their supporters declared their desire for someone fresh in Barack Obama. And when Bernie Sanders, a popular candidate who threatened to turn over the Democrat status quo, came around, they did their best to stop him winning, as revealed by WikiLeaks. Even if it meant breaking neutrality rules and pushing forward a candidate who had less chance of winning against Trump nationally, the DNC wanted to protect the status quo. At all costs- even the resignation of their chair.

It is important to remember that it's the DNC who fended off perhaps the most qualified candidate to fight Trump. And this shameful behaviour means the DNC have a massive role to play in what has happened today.

But Hillary Clinton was still was predicted to beat Trump after accepting the Democratic nomination. It should have on paper been an easy victory for someone who could take advantage of a competitor as unstable, politically inexperienced and controversial as Donald Trump. This is a man, remember, who has a public record of treating women as objects on multiple counts, someone who continuously commits the political faux pas of professing how wealthy he is (even more wealthy than he might actually be), and someone who has repeatedly offended individuals, communities, and entire nations throughout this campaign. How can Hillary lose to this person? That's what we all thought.

But it seems Clinton had underestimated Trump- perhaps even relying too much on his self-destruction to hand her the Presidency. Clinton failed to sweep up many of the voters who felt disenfranchised by the Democratic party's rejection of Sanders, as well as many anti-Establishment Republicans for whom Trump proved too extreme. She did nothing to quell trust issues held by so many with her. She picked one of the most uninspiring VPs in Tim Kaine. She failed to win over millennials. These moves reeked of overconfidence, and proved fatal on Clinton's part.

At the end of the day, however, we had all underestimated Trump. And, perhaps, we overestimated the American voting population.

On this sombre day, it's important to reflect and learn from how and why exactly Donald Trump fended off Hillary Clinton. Sure, it'll be 4 years until the decision can be changed- but the work starts now to minimise the damage Trump causes, and make sure he can't do it for long.

Because there could be a silver lining to this cloud. This is a momentous moment that has shaken both major political parties to the core. The Establishment and the moneyed interests in American politics has been troubled by Trump's success. The next decade or so could prove to be decisive in changing the fundamentals of politics in America- perhaps, just perhaps, the real fight for progressivism has just begun.

The Economics of Obesity.

Statistics from last year show that the number of obese adults in the developing world has quadrupled since 1980 to a one billion. Over one third of American adults are deemed obese, as are more than a quarter of British adults, resulting in Britain's NHS spending over £5bn a year on health problems associated with being overweight or obese.

Obesity is evidently a growing epidemic, but why? It is almost undoubtable that economic-related factors play a significant role in this.

One of the most notable shifts in the lifestyle of our society has been that the wealthy and the poor have almost switched positions with regards to levels of obesity. A study undertaken by the American Journal of Preventative Medicine compared the dietary and health lifestyles of poorer and wealthy individuals, and determined that those earning under $20k are 50% less likely to exercise sufficiently than those earning over $75k, and instead they are 50% more likely to purchase over the counter 'diet pills' which are pretty much quack medications.

It seems the major reason for this is the lack of time many poorer people are likely to have. With almost 7 million Americans working multiple jobs, and 41 million Americans receiving insufficient hours of sleep according to the Centre for Disease Control, time is becoming a premium for many poorer Americans whose economic straits lead them to take up multiple jobs or jobs with hours that reduce their ability to lead a healthy lifestyle. These people are likely to have less time to go out and exercise (hence their purchasing of 'get slim quick' pills), are more likely to be drawn towards processed 'fast food' as opposed to home cooking and thus are more likely to live a lifestyle that will make them overweight. Wealthier middle and upper class people, on the whole, have access to more free time, which allows them to spend more time cooking their meals from scratch and going out to exercise. In the UK, this is reflected in how average household income of a gym member is 35% higher than the national average.

But you could mention the 8.2% of people who are unemployed in the States, and other developed countries. They should have plenty of free time, no, to go out and run and cook meals? Well, most likely, yes. But this brings us to the other issue in this obesity crisis.

Food prices are becoming more diverse than ever. A study by Dr Pablo Monsivais of the University of Cambridge found that, in 2012, healthy foods were three times more expensive per calorie than less healthy foods. For a more specific example, take a frozen pizza, a typically 'unhealthy' food- in 2002 1000 calories worth of frozen pizza cost £2.10, falling to £1.58 10 years later. On the other hand, 1000 calories worth of tinned tomatoes more than doubled in the same time period. This is emphasised by the massive increase in reliance upon food banks, which are currently unable to provide for a sufficient number of people to change the status quo.

You can see it every day in the shops- look at how much more expensive the top brand meals, which are usually made with less additives and purer ingredients, are than their cheaper, diluted, lower quality alternatives. Look at the difference in price between organic and 'basic' stuff.

Not only are the poorer in society lacking time to create healthy, nutritious meals, but they evidently lack the finances. Ready meals, frozen foods, fast foods (a McDonald's burger for $1, really?) and so on having devastating impacts on the health of not just the poorer in society but its sheer popularity means it is affecting society as a whole.

So it is undoubtable that economic conditions play a significant role in one's health, particularly with regards to the issue of obesity.

Recent trends present a shift from past centuries. Throughout history, a large belly was seen to be a sign of wealth, and indeed it was- it meant you could not just fill your appetite but also afford to indulge in food. The poor in society barely got enough to survive, let alone become overweight. But as society has progressed and peoples' economic standards have risen, this has changed. Significantly more people (though poignantly still not all) in developed countries can afford to feed themselves, but there remains much to improve with regards to quality of life. We are able to feed most people in the developed world- perhaps a move we will soon have to look to is to ensure what people are eating is beneficial for them.

RECOMMENDED READS

Researchers Point to Economic Reasons for Obesity http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/researchers-point-to-economic-reasons-for-obesity-020415.html

Impatience, Incentives and Obesity http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ecoj.12124/abstract

Rich People Exercise, Poor People Take Diet Pills http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/08/rich-people-exercise-poor-people-take-diet-pills/378852/

Trying to Lose Weight: The Association of Income and Age to Weight-Loss Strategies in the USA http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24842735

Price Gap Between More and Less Healthy Food Grows http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/price-gap-between-more-and-less-healthy-foods-grows

Sources for evidence and data can be found within the hyperlinks in the text.

Hussain Manawer Interview | One Young World 2016

At the recent One Young World Summit in Ottawa, Canada, I caught up with mental health advocate, poet and soon to be the first British Muslim in space, Hussain Manawer. Watch this insightful interview below, and make sure to check out his performance 'Mother Tongue' also!

Celebrities Won't "Save The Day"

Donald Trump is threatening in the polls and the liberal elite has dangerously fumbled in their latest heavy-handed ploy to take him on writes James Dancey.

I was perusing through the YouTube trending bar a couple days ago and I saw this ‘Save the Day’ video, a campaign by celebrities telling you not just to vote, but to not vote for Trump. It was 3 minutes of sincere personages looking you in the eye and appealing to your sense of moral righteousness. Sounds perfectly fine right? Wrong.

You see Trump runs a narrative that we’ve seen before, that it’s the big liberal elite and media moguls ganging up against him, and it’s one that has been bought before. Trump himself is not far from the aristocracy, although he won’t release his tax returns he likes to flaunt himself as a self-proclaimed multimillionaire, his father was a property magnate and once upon a time he received a small loan of a million dollars; hardly a working class hero.

Yet he has grappled the popularity of the people he has been so distant from in the earlier years of his life, why? It’s a combination, there’s the obvious brutally honest (and regularly offensive) demeanour he has which attracts the masses who are fed up of being condescended by men and women in suits and ties, however, he is regularly propelled by the media’s coverage (despite nearly all being negative) helps feed his narrative that he is the underdog (despite by no means being that).

So now we have celebrities, doing what celebrities do best, being in front of the camera, and telling you not to vote for Trump, because he’s a misogynist, a racist and an all round disgusting human being. That’s all correct, and they’re all right, but it’s not going to stop people from voting him. A slew of celebrity endorsements, from David Beckham to Steven Hawking didn’t stop people voting leave in the EU referendum. Why?

Celebrities are becoming less idolised in modern society as more and more people view them as glorified civilians, which in many ways is what they are. An actor isn’t really qualified to give you political advice, although most politicians aren’t qualified to give you political advice either, but no-one listens to politicians, so what are the chances they’re going to listen to celebrities?  

Every time the media report on one of Donald Trump’s awful slurs or supposed ‘mishaps’ (which are so common nowadays they can hardly be considered that) they’re just giving him more airtime and attention. I understand it’s hard to find good news about Hillary Clinton, who spends half her time being comatose and the other half being jeered over her emails, but finding ‘bad news’ about Donald Trump is just supporting his beliefs that the media is after him, and despite all the reports being completely true, he is a terrible human being, people have already made up their mind on him.

This new Save the Day campaign is not going to change anyone’s mind about Donald Trump, it’s more likely to change people’s opinion on the celebrities themselves, why? I don’t know, but Donald Trump’s supporters are fiercely loyal to him and that’s not going to change anytime soon, if you really want to sway the undecided voters you should give people reasons to vote for Hillary, not to vote against Trump, because people aren’t going to buy that.

The juvenile jest that Mark Ruffalo will do a nude scene at the end of this film just nails how confused this political advertisement is. The self-conscious near parody tone is meant to add a humorous edge to the video but ends up outlining exactly what is wrong with these campaigns, the ‘We’re famous so you should vote the way that I’m voting’ gimmick that people have heard enough of, it has reached saturation point and there’s more chance that this contrived, calculated political move will backfire rather than succeed.

Hillary’s downfall will be the fact that she does terribly in the swing states; Sanders would’ve destroyed Trump with the impartial voter, but now the Democrats have shot themselves in the feet; they are calling on a liberal elite that the electorate is about to rebel against. People want to hear about policies that are going to enhance their lives, not about why Donald Trump is a bad person. Donald Trump has stolen so much of the media attention and coverage that few have ever commanded that he may just win the Presidential race; well it will be less his win, more the democrats’ loss.

Save the Day will fail, it may even have a negative impact, you’re not going to convince anyone about Donald Trump, people have seen and heard enough of him to have an opinion, favourable or unfavourable. You have to convince people why Hillary is better, not why Donald is worse, it’s the exact same technique tried by the remain campaign in the EU referendum (and failed), same technique tried by Owen Smith against Jeremy Corbyn in the Labour Leadership race (and failed), do the elite not know anything else other than attack with no defence? Or are there actually no reasons to vote Hillary? Or as she’s better known in the media: Not Trump. Both are reasonable theories. How I yearn for Bernie Sanders.

Unless Hillary changes her campaign focus, she will fail, and that has worrying implications for the whole of the progressive world.