tomo, I have some doubts that Hillary is on twitter at all. Probably just a staffer. Same as when Obama used to make silly tweets about the 97%. At least I can believe that DJT is in command of his own tweets.

They covered up a lot before and during the election campaign, but Hillary is reported to be an increasingly sick semi-invalid who possibly may not even see out the Trump Presidency.

The Clinton Archipelago

What America needs is a Macron - I'd wager some Dem strategists are working on that.

Sep 19, 2018 at 12:36 AM | tomo

I think you are right. A Movie, TV or Pop Star?
Democrat strategists do not want to back anyone if they were known supporters of Clinton, they could prove a liability. Clinton may be paying staffers who will tell her she could still run again, not just write messages for social media junkies.

Ravishing Ratty

Democracy is a tricky business. HRC won the popular vote, but lost in accordance with the electoral college rules set out in the US constitution. I don't think she has any right to complain, since that's how their constitution works, and if she had won on that basis (i.e. with a minority of votes but more electoral college votes) I very much doubt she would have complained.

But the losing majority are entitled to feel sick and angry; just as the majority in the UK who voted for Brexit will be entitled to feel sick and angry if the losing side steal/stymie the result, as they seem determined to do.

Ravishing Rabbit. I agree, the complexities of the US Electoral College allow a more nuanced result to be achieved. Previously, however, the successful presidential candidate has won the popular vote, but Trump didn't. I'm not suggesting that on this basis that Trump should not be president.
However, I am somewhat surprised that you feel the way that you do. Using your argument and beliefs, how can you accept the British referendum result? You accept that a relatively small majority is acceptable? If something like an electoral college system had been in place, it might have given much greater weight to the 60+% remain vote in Scotland. I hasten to add that I would not have supported this.
The problem with all democratic systems is dealing with minorities. What I see with both Trump and Brexit is that too often supporters behave as if those in the minority have lost all their rights and cannot continue to advocate for what they still believe in.

Supertroll, I don't disagree with your concern about the rights of losers in an election or referendum, but would point out that if we'd had the equivalent of an electoral college system for the Brexit referendum, then the Brexit side would have won easily, as it would have distorted the result in favour of Brexit. It is estimated that 64% of constituencies voted leave.

Of course the losers have rights, especially if the electoral system has distorted the result against them. But I don't believe they have the right to thwart or undermine the result.

I accept that argument is easier to make in the context of an election (which will definitely be repeated in the not-too-distant future) than in the context of a referendum (where, in normal circumstances, it might be a once-in-a-generation event). However, even though I don't believe that in a Parliamentary/representative democracy we should have such resort to referendums, I do believe that if a referendum is held, its result should be respected and implemented, not undermined.

One final thought. I write, I hope, as a liberal (small "l", but definitely not as a liberal fascist, who seem to comprise the overwhelming majority of "liberals" these days). But, had Remain won the referendum on a 52/48 split I think I can guarantee that the result would have been respected without question, and there would have been no talk of another referendum for a generation. UKIP might not have imploded, and they might have continued chuntering away in the background, but they would have been reviled as undemocratic losers who just couldn't accept the reality of democracy. Similarly, had HRC beat Trump by a small majority in the electoral college, so as to become POTUS, that would have been that for 4 years; not a peep about the MSM, who would have smugly accepted the result.

I think the refusal of the liberal fascists, aided and abetted by the MSM in both countries, to accept either result, and actively to undermine both results (to the point of trying to have the Brexit vote overturned, and trying to have Trump impeached) is simply scandalous. And I repeat, I am no fan of Trump, but I do believe in respecting democracy.

Trump didn't campaign in California because he correctly assessed that his time was better spent in the 'rust belt' states (some of which Hillary took the time to insult potential voters in. Duhh...)
That doesn't mean that there aren't still a large number of Republican voters in California. Quite the contrary. And if there was a possibility of them winning, then there would certainly be a lot more.

Of course the argument works the other way, but I suspect, but cannot prove, that there are relatively fewer hidden Democrat voters in the mid-west States.

Separately, tomo, yes I observe that Hillary seems to be the vampire that won't stay down in the coffin. It is curious.

Many senior Democrats know that she was the reason they lost the election, not that Trump won it. They need to get past her, even if there is nobody who seems suitable at the moment. I think that is a reflection on just how much Clinton co-opted and corrupted Democrat Party internal politics. Until they get post-Clinton the Democrats remind me of the UK Labour Party in the 1980's: They kept shooting themselves in the foot electorally and, with positive economic growth, the Conservatives eventually thought they were just shooting fish in a barrel when it came to winning elections.

The difference may be that the US system is always capable of suddenly turning up a Presidential winner who was previously relatively unknown to most US voters. But, modern sitting Presidents can expect re-election in favourable economic circumstances. The US is now experiencing good economic growth.

"Many senior Democrats know that she was the reason they lost the election, not that Trump won it. They need to get past her, even if there is nobody who seems suitable at the moment. I think that is a reflection on just how much Clinton co-opted and corrupted Democrat Party internal politics. Until they get post-Clinton the Democrats remind me of the UK Labour Party in the 1980's"

Sep 19, 2018 at 1:00 PM | michael hart

They need someone who is already popular. Unfortunately, "populist" is now a derogatory term used by Progressives, including the BBC, anywhere within the EU, to describe candidates that are popular with voters.

From this, it can be concluded that policies driven by Climate Scientists, have fallen out of popularity.

If only progressives could learn that Climate Science is unDemocratic, anti-social, and anti-social welfare, they might remember what socialism is about.

"It's not like DJT is exactly your "average Republican"
Sep 19, 2018 at 5:39 PM | tomo"

The late Senator John McCain was woven into the Steele Dodgy Dossier plot to give a voice to the views of the "average Republican", and this also implicated HMG.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/12/restless-wave-review-john-mccain-book-trump-putin-russia-dossier

I think the "average Republican" would prefer the continuation of Trumponomics

tomo, I am more persuaded that Obama was just the beneficiary of the corrupt Chicago-machine in US Democratic politics. His rapid rise was due to essentially getting the 'appointed' inside-track in the Democrat Party because he was the right face at the right time. (I would have voted for him myself at least once, before he went full-on global-warming and then sided with people who have set race relations back several decades in the US.)

But the Clintons,by contrast, have been playing the Machievellian party game throughout their lives and were not new-kids-on-the-block when it came time for Hillary's 'turn'. Perhaps it was ever thus when selecting a Democrat nominee, but I think many younger Democrat voters were appalled at the way it was stitched up in favour of Hillary such that Bernie Sanders (or any other challenger) was essentially cooked long before the primaries even started.

Of course, many Republicans have recently regretted having a selection system that was not so easily rigged by the Party hierarchy... It will be interesting to see if they change the rules to stop it happening again.