X Close

Trumpism is here to stay Even with the President gone, his shadow will loom large over the Republican Party

Not all Trump voters want him to run again. Credit: Scott Olson/Getty

Not all Trump voters want him to run again. Credit: Scott Olson/Getty


January 18, 2021   3 mins

Will the spectre of Trump 2024 haunt American politics after he leaves the White House this week? Arguably not, even if the Senate vote to impeach the outgoing President, which would prevent him from running again, falls short of the required two-thirds majority. But Trumpism — a set of beliefs defined by hostility to politically correct elites, support for border control and cultural nationalism — is likely to persist. There will be no going back to the Reagan and Bush years, a Republicanism defined by tax cuts, family values and missionary militarism.

For the pro-Trump rioters who ransacked the Capitol this month, the bogus claim that the election was stolen remains at the heart of their belief system. But surely this isn’t the majority view among the 76 million Trump voters? Actually, it appears it is. Republican voters really believe their man won. Take, for example, a recent Data for Progress poll which offered respondents three choices: “I trust the election results and believe Biden should be inaugurated”, “I have some doubts about the election results, but believe Biden should be inaugurated”, and “I don’t believe Biden should be inaugurated”.

Of the 463 Republicans sampled, only 16% said Biden won cleanly, while 29% claimed he won despite some irregularities. Meanwhile, 49% replied that Biden should not be inaugurated. If we screen out the 6% who said that they didn’t know, this means that over half of Republicans think the election was stolen.

When I conducted my own poll of almost 400 Trump supporters two days after the Capitol was stormed – using Prolific, an online survey platform – the results were much the same. I asked “Which statement comes closest to your view of what happened in the 2020 election?”. The answers, with emphasis added, were as follows:

  • Trump lost to Biden fair and square: [17%]
  • Trump almost certainly lost to Biden, but it would have been closer without rule violations that helped Biden: [13%]
  • Trump probably lost to Biden, but it would have been closer without rule violations that helped Biden: [19%]
  • Trump would have got more votes than Biden without the rule violations that helped Biden: [51%]

Even with my attempts to tease out a nuanced response, a majority of Trump voters echoed Trump’s conspiracy theory that the election was fraudulent. And surely it is a conspiracy theory. While none of us was there to count each ballot, I trust the US legal system, electoral process and the social science of election fraud more than hearsay. The same, however, cannot be said for Trump’s supporters, whose trust in the electoral process appears to have frayed. It’s a result, I suspect, of the wider social disconnect between voters and elites that both Michael Lind and Robert Putnam link to the demise of mass-membership associations such as unions and churches. They used to give people a rooted social connection to national political institutions, a phenomenon which since the 1960s has faded.

Does this mean that Trump supporters are putty in his hands, devoted to a cult figure? Not necessarily. If they were, they would enthusiastically support him running for president in 2024. It would be a chance for their stabbed-in-the-back leader to redeem himself. But when I asked my Trump-voting sample, “What is your preferred vision for the Republican Party’s future?”, they were decidedly cool on Trump when compared to a hypothetical Trumpist politician with more respect for liberal democracy:

  • Donald Trump runs again in 2024: [29%]
  • A candidate who is more presidential, respectful and gets things done, while adopting Trump’s views on controlling immigration, nationalism and being willing to challenge the mainstream media, political correctness and elites: [55%]
  • A candidate who is more presidential, respectful and gets things done, and avoids Trump’s views to focus on older Republican arguments like limited government, free markets, the family and resisting tyranny in the world: [16%]

All of which suggests that there is certainly room for a Republican candidate who can articulate the so-called “left-conservative” populist views espoused by anti-Trump intellectuals such as Andrew Sullivan and David Frum. Meanwhile, support for a candidate espousing the post-Reagan “fusionist” Republicanism of tax cuts, family values and promoting democracy garnered a paltry 16%.

And so the hope for a return to the ideological status quo in American politics appears a vain one. As the below table — which compares the results of my two questions — reveals, even among those who accept that Biden won fair and square, a respectable Trumpist candidate beats the fusionist conservative 53-35. On the other side, moreover, even the die-hards who say that Trump won narrowly prefer a Trumpist over the man himself. In fact, the Trumpist always comes out on top.

Source: Prolific, January 8, 2020. N=393.

What this shows is that while a cultish devotion to Trump’s charismatic authority is important, it is secondary to the mainly cultural grievances — such as the policing of speech — which provided his 2016 election with an impetus. A skillful politician who fights back intelligently but unapologetically on these issues, while respecting democracy and procedural liberalism, has a serious chance of emerging as the next Republican presidential candidate. And though Josh Hawley, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Tom Cotton will no doubt be leading figures jockeying for that mantle, we shouldn’t neglect the possibility that an outsider may ride into town once again.


Eric Kaufmann is Professor at the University of Buckingham, and author of the upcoming Taboo: Why Making Race Sacred Led to a Cultural Revolution (Forum Press UK, June 6)/The Third Awokening: A 12-Point Plan for Rolling Back Progressive Extremism (Bombardier Books USA, May 14).

epkaufm

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

196 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago

I’d be perfectly happy if a republican other than Trump ran on removing US troops from around the world, controlling immigration, keeping taxes and business regulation to a minimum, energy independence and maintaining low minority unemployment. In fact, I’d be just as happy if a democrat ran on that as well. It was never about Trump as a person.

It is most certainly not a conspiracy theory to believe that there were last minute rule violations as well as election law changes that were not properly handled and that are very questionable. Election law changes should be made well ahead of an election. This was well covered by the media and it’s why Biden takes office under a cloud.

Fraser Bailey
Fraser Bailey
3 years ago

We would all be happy if a Rep or Dem ran on those policies. But none of them will because the Deep State and the media will not allow it. Thus it is back to the endless disaster of Clinton/Bush/Obama – with steroids – and I can only see ongoing moral, societal and economic decline for the US, a decline that has been significantly accelerated by Covid.

J StJohn
J StJohn
3 years ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

Don’t drag OBAMA into this! He was awarded the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE immediately upon assuming office. So he can’t possibly be part of the deep state, can he? ! ?

stephen f.
stephen f.
3 years ago
Reply to  J StJohn

Truly…speaking of “a cultish devotion…”.

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
3 years ago
Reply to  stephen f.

Do you suffer from ODS?

Anjela Kewell
Anjela Kewell
3 years ago
Reply to  J StJohn

Love the irony.

Neil John
Neil John
3 years ago
Reply to  J StJohn

/S

Henry Longstop
Henry Longstop
3 years ago
Reply to  J StJohn

My instinct has always been that the Deep State let Obama have ‘ObamaCare’ as his pet project (first thing he did), as long as he then fell into line with everything else.

toyinajidele
toyinajidele
3 years ago
Reply to  J StJohn

Lol 😂

Anjela Kewell
Anjela Kewell
3 years ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

So true. The corruption on Western politics is deep. We have been ruled by globalist socialism and it is falling apart so they have to try something else called globalist communism.

So many people only look at socialism in places like Venezuela. They do not realise it has been insidious in the West for many years. Probably really taking off in the Clinton/Tony Blair pairing.

Joseph McCord
Joseph McCord
3 years ago
Reply to  Anjela Kewell

Communism, in contrast to socialism – is?

Pete Kreff
Pete Kreff
3 years ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

We would all be happy if a Rep or Dem ran on those policies. But none of them will because the Deep State and the media will not allow it.

Why would the “Deep State” not allow keeping taxes and business regulation to a minimum? Why would it be against energy independence and maintaining low minority unemployment?

Starry Gordon
Starry Gordon
3 years ago
Reply to  Pete Kreff

Because the Deep State is about power. The current US ruling class believes its interests are best served by a sort of globalist capitalism, which lets out such liberal nostrums as laissez-faire and conservative nostrums such as nationalism.

James Pelton
James Pelton
3 years ago
Reply to  Pete Kreff

They are the regulators and the handout people. Those policy changes will cost them their jobs. If I make my living “administering” regulations and signing cheques, then I need regulations and recipients to justify that role.

Pete Kreff
Pete Kreff
3 years ago
Reply to  James Pelton

When I hear the words “Deep State” I think of something much more sinister than some civil servants looking to keep their jobs. I thought the Deep State was shady billionaires and the secret services pulling strings behind the scene.

Joseph McCord
Joseph McCord
3 years ago
Reply to  Pete Kreff

It’s a pretty vague phrase, of course – but mostly, as I’ve seen it used – it does refer, to highly-placed career bureaucrats – and that sort of thing… Also, in the U.S. – to some “think tanks” – etc…

Bernard Hill
Bernard Hill
3 years ago
Reply to  Pete Kreff

….because any success from those policies is a signal that the Administrative State should shrink in its scope and importance (and therefore careers and pay), and any failure of such policies would signal that the State is to blame. Better to shut the gate, stay inside and do what mummy tells you.

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
3 years ago

“..keeping taxes …”
How are you going to do that while paying for the welfare state that is mostly consumed by white voters – and most likely to vote Republican (trump?)?

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

I’m not a big welfare fan and don’t live in a welfare heavy state. We also pay no state income taxes while many states do tax their residents. The key of course is to do what Trump did, shrink the welfare roles by getting people to work. So they can pay for themselves.

Ian Terry
Ian Terry
3 years ago

Totally correct

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
3 years ago

It was never about Trump as a person
For the left, it’s always been personal. He crashed DC’s chummy little club where everyone had their hands in some of the pie and the two sides gave the illusion of competing. The outsider had to be attacked. The day of his inauguration, WaPo was running a piece on impeachment.

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

Yes but I would say it was more about him beating Clinton than anything. And the media getting it so wrong is partially why they have been against him all the way.

Joseph McCord
Joseph McCord
3 years ago

And, beating Clinton – also meant, beating the Dimocratic Party. And that, in that particular year – just wasn’t, to be allowed…

toyinajidele
toyinajidele
3 years ago

The crowning of Clinton was disgusting and they paid the price and punished trump for it

Ian Terry
Ian Terry
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

Alex. How conveniently the media forget the impeachment word you are correct it started from day one. If the politicians had at least tried to support some of his visions America would have been a lot more united today. What they have shown they will reap and they will have to keep looking over there shoulders.

Walter Brigham
Walter Brigham
3 years ago
Reply to  Ian Terry

What’s amazing is how the media mocked Trump when he said his campaign was ‘wiretapped’ by Obama. But that is exactly what happened- illegal warrants, prosecution of staff, outright lies repeated by the press unchallenged. Those of us disgusted by the DC establishment will continue to support non-career politicians as reformers.

Russ Littler
Russ Littler
3 years ago

Biden won’t take office.

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  Russ Littler

Yes, he will. But he may not be in office long. Nancy Pelosi’s last political act may be moving Joe out and Harris in.

Ian Terry
Ian Terry
3 years ago

Annette. Biden will struggle at his inaugaration the weight of the stab vests he will be wearing will drag him down. He will permanently be watching his back.

rosie mackenzie
rosie mackenzie
3 years ago

This article is shot through with left wing bias and prejudice, projecting on to strangers the author’s own nasty fantasies. They are all the same. They never even attempt to understand their own subject.

Sidney Falco
Sidney Falco
3 years ago

Trump is basically a 1980s Democrat, back when the Democrat party supported American workers, strong borders and patriotism.

Fraser Bailey
Fraser Bailey
3 years ago
Reply to  Sidney Falco

Yes, and I have often said that had he stood as a Democrat the media would have supported him, not vilified him. For years the like of Oprah encouraged him to stand for office, assuming he would do so as a Democrat. I suspect he might have stood as a Democrat in 2016 had Hillary not been such a shoo-in.

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
3 years ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

Yes, Oprah is the Democratic party!
Are you insane?
He stood as Republican not as a Democrat.

Brian Dorsley
Brian Dorsley
3 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

He used to be a Democrat.

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
3 years ago
Reply to  Brian Dorsley

Yes, but he did not run for the Democratic Party

Matt Hindman
Matt Hindman
3 years ago

Conservative principles yes!
Neoconservative “principles” no!

Why is this so hard for journalists and pundits to understand? I remember when Trump was elected. Right after there were a ton of supposed “conservatives” that left the Republican party. They would go on and on about how they were switching to the Democrat party because of their “principles.” The giveaway was in how quickly they abandoned the rest of their supposed principles. Bush era neocons like David Frum, Bill Kristol, and many more would blabber on and on about things like decorum and the supposed alt-right. When asked about what their current pollical views were things get interesting. “We hate individual liberties, particularly guns, Christians, middle America, etc. and we now love unrestricted immigration, LGBT issues, abortion, etc.” If you can switch all your supposed principles that easily you never had them in the first place! They do not believe in Classical Liberalism, they believe in Neoliberalism. The only real principles neocons have are a globalist economy, corporate tax cuts and monopolies, foreign interventions, and knowing better than the peasants.

Martin Butler
Martin Butler
3 years ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

Love the way in the US ‘individual liberties’ mean guns. Got nothing to do with classical liberalism. JS Mill would have big problems with the absurd gun laws in the US, and he was the definition of classical liberalism. LGBT is far more in tune with classical liberalism- Mill’s harm principle- you can do what you want along as you don’t harm others. Don’t think anyone believes in unrestricted immigration. Joe Biden certainly doesn’t. The idea that Trump was for the little guy is absurd – he cut taxes for the big corporations. There are 17 million us citizens without health insurance- US is turning into failed state.

Joseph McCord
Joseph McCord
3 years ago
Reply to  Martin Butler

We have, however, a Constitution. You can dispute, what you think that the exact meanings of the Second Amendment, ought to be – but the Supreme Court’s ruling on its meanings is a deeply established one. Within that – there is a lot of latitude, although not absolute license, for the different states to regulate firearms, in different ways. If you want to change any of that – it would have to have to do, with advocating changes in the ways that particular states work within the boundaries of the Second Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, to regulate firearms in their own particular ways – or it would have to amount to proposing a new Constitutional Amendment. Constitutional Amendments can overturn Supreme Court precedents – as well as overturning or modifying, aspects of the existing Constitution, itself. But none of that has anything at all to do, with the President.

There most certainly are advocates of unrestricted immigration. Proposing abolishing all border and immigration law enforcement – as some present members of Congress, have done – is advocating unrestricted immigration. Advocating treating people who are here illegally, almost as if they were citizens – as quite a lot of people, want to be the case – most certainly is, advocating unrestricted immigration.

J StJohn
J StJohn
3 years ago
Reply to  Martin Butler

Maybe though, you can’t defend classical liberalism when the bully you face has ALL the guns, and concomitantly, ZERO respect for you?

stephen f.
stephen f.
3 years ago
Reply to  Martin Butler

“Love the way in the US ‘individual liberties means guns’. A ridiculous statement-you have to know that there is more to it than that…and as far as “…don’t harm others”, the verdict is out on any damage the “trans” component in LGBT is causing through pressure, and medical interventions on impressionable young people.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
3 years ago
Reply to  Martin Butler

When you’re done examining fictional America, start on looking at the real thing.

JS Mill would have big problems with the absurd gun laws in the US, and he was the definition of classical liberalism
Not really. A classical liberal understands that rights mean something, and so long as your exercise of a right does not infringe on the rights of others, there is nothing else to say.

Don’t think anyone believes in unrestricted immigration. Joe Biden certainly doesn’t.
There is a caravan making its way up from Honduras that says you are wrong.

The idea that Trump was for the little guy is absurd – he cut taxes for the big corporations.
First, corporations don’t pay taxes; they collect them. Second, taxes were cut for a lot of people.

There are 17 million us citizens without health insurance
So, O-care did not create utopia? And health insurance is not the same as health care.

Pete Kreff
Pete Kreff
3 years ago
Reply to  Martin Butler

LGBT is far more in tune with classical liberalism- Mill’s harm principle- you can do what you want along as you don’t harm others.

I don’t think most gun owners harm people. Can they “do what they like”, then?

Gail Young
Gail Young
3 years ago
Reply to  Martin Butler

JS Mill was a proponent of Classical Utilitarianism- actions are ethical, and ‘good’ if they promote “the greatest happiness for the greatest number” i.e contribute to the benefit of the MAJORITY. Woke/ Identity Politics championing of minority interests to the point of marginalising, or worse censoring, majority interests would not sit comfortably within JS Mill’s philosophy.

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
3 years ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

I don’t want to be pedantic but David Frum changed his mind on many topics (after Iraq War). He opposed more wars, more migration and wanted more welfare state (including Republican co-operation with Obamacare). The same Obamacare that was going to be replaced by TrumpCare (better, cheaper and more choice) on Day 1. We have a few more days so may be Trump can surprise us all…..

Let me quote from Flight 93 Election:

Some”a few”are no doubt sincere in their belief that the man is simply unfit for high office. David Frum, who has always been an immigration skeptic and is a convert to the less-war position, is sincere when he says that, even though he agrees with much of Trump’s agenda, he cannot stomach Trump.

Matt Hindman
Matt Hindman
3 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

Slight problem, I used to read David Frum’s colums in the Atlantic. I know what he advocates.

Saul D
Saul D
3 years ago

Trump is unlikely to run again simply due to age.

However, the big problem for the GOP is that with this election victory the Democrats have pretty much all the levers of power, and they have real possibility of embedding themselves in permanent control.

The last four years, and 92% of DC voting Democrat, have shown they have loyalists controlling the inter-agencies and apparatus of the State. Academe and education are fully Democrat – critics have been purged or cancelled. Big Tech is now fully supportive of censorship of even elected representatives. MSM waves its anti-Trump bias with glee.

To this, the Democrats could move to remove the electoral college, pack the Supreme Court, and convert 11m illegal immigrants into citizens. Then the demographics of a GOP biased towards an ageing part of the population would do the rest and make it extremely tough for a non-Democrat to become president in the next three or four cycles.

Add a “domestic terror” law and the introduction of a European style ‘Hate Law’ to further remove counter-views, plus some level of gun control, then add increased environmental and energy regulation, medicaid4all and the US ends up looking like a West Atlantic version of the EU. A good thing for some…

Dave H
Dave H
3 years ago
Reply to  Saul D

“they have real possibility of embedding themselves in permanent control.”

Like Trumps supporters just tried to do?

I can’t believe people are still rolling out this crap. We just saw a bunch of Trump supporters literally try to violently overthrow a democratic election and install their guy, and we have people speculating about how much worse the other side are going to be.

Wake up.

Joseph McCord
Joseph McCord
3 years ago
Reply to  Dave H

Wasn’t it something much more along the lines, of a Mostly Peaceful Protest? What, in your opinion – constituted the “violence”?

(Sure – one police officer, was killed – and, that is most certainly a very serious matter. However – far more police officers have been killed, and many many assaulted in potentially lethal ways, and actually injured – in some cases, very severely – in all of the Great Liberatory Mostly Peaceful Protests that have taken place, over the course of the last year. So as horrifying as the murder, is – it really should be put into context. So far as we know – no other assaults took place, at the Mostly Peaceful Protest held on property owned by all of the people of this country, two weeks ago. Where’s, the so-called “violence”? Why are so many people taking so much umbrage – after not batting an eye at all of the violence – destruction of property – etc. – that has taken place continuously, over the course of the last eight months – violence, assaults – sometimes, murders – even more, attempted murders – looting, destruction of property, and complete destruction of many buildings – that they have in fact, largely egged-on – or, defended as “righteous” “protest”?

As for, “overthrowing a democratic election” – it wasn’t, really, so much a real, democratic election – as more, like a mass letter-writing campaign. Nobody really actually knows, who wrote all of the letters – and nobody ever will. Some of them, apparently, were signed by people already long dead – and for all we know, quite a lot of individuals may have written more than one letter, each. The Almost Entirely Peaceful Protestors {one, single, known assault – aside} at the nation’s Capitol, quite obviously did not have the slightest possibility of “overturning an election” – they just inconvenienced and delayed a few legislators, for a short while. I think that people need to get a grip.)

George Lake
George Lake
3 years ago
Reply to  Joseph McCord

What about Ms Babbitt shot at point blank range by that panicky policeman. Will he ever stand trial?

Chris Mochan
Chris Mochan
3 years ago
Reply to  Dave H

How do you suppose that array of pantomime clowns and bizarro fruitcakes were going to embed themselves in permanent control? Even if they did manage to seize actual control of the capitol, how would that translate into seizing power? The building isn’t some kind of command module for the country.

Imagining this act of stupidity as a genuine coup d’etat is ludicrous. And we’d do well to examine the response carefully rather than get swept up in the outrage.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
3 years ago
Reply to  Dave H

We just saw a bunch of Trump supporters literally try to violently overthrow a democratic election
could you be a bit more dramatic, please?

Jerry Jay Carroll
Jerry Jay Carroll
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

Give him time to come down or sober up, whichever problem it was.

Anjela Kewell
Anjela Kewell
3 years ago
Reply to  Dave H

Firstly, it was not Trump supporters. That has now been proven due to the videos coming out from various journalists and two private citizens.
Secondly, there was no violence or overthrowing of anything. The protesters/activists were let in and shown the way to the House. The police took down the barriers, the supporters were taking selfies. A DC policeman shot a Republican veteran without provocation. That is also on a grisly video.

Until people stop watching CNN and the rest and do a bit of digging, rumours will abound in all directions.

There were hundreds of extremely peaceful Trump rallies. The only violence was the Democrat funded violence in the Cities. Why would Trump supporters suddenly move from peaceful to violent when their very essence is peaceful living.

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
3 years ago
Reply to  Saul D

To this, the Democrats could move to remove the electoral college,

How are they going to do that?

Joseph McCord
Joseph McCord
3 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

Ask Michael Moore. He apparently wants Joe Biden to do it by executive order, or something…

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
3 years ago
Reply to  Saul D

However, the big problem for the GOP is that with this election victory the Democrats have pretty much all the levers of power, and they have real possibility of embedding themselves in permanent control.
That’s what I heard after Obama’s election, too. But 1,000 lost seats across the country, including both houses of Congress, and the Dems’ vision of a 40-year reign was shoved into the memory hole.

That Dems are likely to pursue some of the things you outline is true, and it’s also why they sustained big losses the last time around. The country is far more than SJWs and limousine liberals.

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

That’s what I heard after Obama’s election, too. But 1,000 lost seats across the country, including both houses of Congress,

But how does that fit with your comment that the Left controls everything?!

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
3 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

I didn’t say the left controls everything. The italics are a quote from someone else’s post.

Anjela Kewell
Anjela Kewell
3 years ago
Reply to  Saul D

Spot on

Anjela Kewell
Anjela Kewell
3 years ago

Perhaps Republicans know the truth and do their research. Trump doesn’t lie. When he said at 10pm on November 3rd who was winning by an historical landslide, then that is correct. Suddenly the vote count was shut down in six big states that were landsliding the most.

76.4m votes went to Trump. The only previous president with such large voting numbers was Lincoln. He got shot by the Democrat Party stooge because they didn’t want the slavery bill to pass.

How the media can go on pretending that Trump exaggerated or fairly lost the election is beyond comprehension. The rallies of of 40 and 50 thousand peaceful people in every single state. Compare that to Biden of 16 people at most and then he boasted the Democrats don’t need the votes because they have the most sophisticated fraud machines in place. The media is a disgrace for not questionning this.

It has been accepted for years that Democrats steal elections and Republicans are too intimidated to push back. This President did push back and look what happened. Totally de platformed, smeared and threatened. His staff were threatened and the Democrat over kill for inauguration protection just in case violent Trumpsters storm the capital. The only violence in the last four years has been organised by the Democrat Party. They have a long history of intimidation and violence. The ‘storming’ of the capitol has now conclusively proven to be pre arranged by Democrats and CNN. The private videos doing the rounds has shown police collusion and well known BLM/democrat activists leading the push.

This article may try to lead us into thinking that Republican voters will not go away because they believe a lie. For your information, Republican voters will not go away because they are sick of having their votes stolen and demeaned. They found a leader who spoke for them and supported their country. The GOP will never be the same because the new following are patriotic Trumpsters and they will not vote for the intimidated, weak and corrupt Republicans of old. This party is a new, invigorated and smart party. The danger of course being, that the Democrats in bed with the globalist cartel will now spend the next four years destabilising America and creating a war in the homeland.

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
3 years ago
Reply to  Anjela Kewell

Trump doesn’t lie.

Yes, and the earth is flat.

Anjela Kewell
Anjela Kewell
3 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

Trump doesn’t lie. The earth is round. Biden works for CCP, the laptop from hell, the violence in every Democrat City funded by Democrat money. The wars started in the middle east, destabilising Ukraine. The facts speak for themselves.

Now the Democrats are threatening Republicans with having their bank accounts closed and being put on a black list for jobs. The empty promises of healing the country and then trying to impeach a much loved President. Two impeachment attempts. Neither stuck. These people have truly lost their minds

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
3 years ago
Reply to  Anjela Kewell

Trump doesn’t lie.

LOL

Anjela Kewell
Anjela Kewell
3 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

Tell me the lies and give me the links were he lied.

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
3 years ago
Reply to  Anjela Kewell

My personal favorite lie: Trump was once named Michigan’s Man of the Year
Trump has never lived in Michigan. Why would he have been named Michigan’s Man of the Year years before his presidency?
He wouldn’t have been. He wasn’t. And yet this lie he appeared to have invented in the final week of his 2016 campaign became a staple of his 2020 campaign, repeated at Michigan rally after rally.
It’s so illustrative because it makes so little sense.

Sidney Eschenbach
Sidney Eschenbach
3 years ago
Reply to  Anjela Kewell

Easy. Just Google “top 25 trump lies”. CNN fact checker. You won’t read, and if you do, you won’t believe them, because to do so would mean suffering mental dissonance that you can’t handle. How do I know this? Because after four years and 30,000 named lies, misrepresentations and exaggerations, you’re able to write what you did… above. Good luck.

Rob Alka
Rob Alka
3 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

Gee, that’s profound. I never thought of it that way

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
3 years ago
Reply to  Rob Alka

You learn new things everyday.

Dorothy Slater
Dorothy Slater
3 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

So glad you finally acknowledge what we stupid Americans have known for years = the world is indeed flat.

JR Stoker
JR Stoker
3 years ago
Reply to  Anjela Kewell

You may want to check your information on Lincoln. (Unless you got it from Donald, in which case it must be true.) There were not 76.4m Americans in Lincoln’s time (about 32m in fact), so unless they all voted four or five times, to allow for those who voted Democrat, your assertion seems unlikely.

Also please consider about 83m Americans voted for Biden, I really don’t think old Joe is up to organising that number of fraudulent votes. Trump lost. If he hadn’t been so graceless about it, he might have won next time. Such is the nature of democracy

George Lake
George Lake
3 years ago
Reply to  JR Stoker

I think you will find that AK meant Lincoln won 55% of the popular vote in the 1864 Election.

Basil Chamberlain
Basil Chamberlain
3 years ago
Reply to  George Lake

55% wouldn’t be a record either; since 1864, Grant, Teddy Roosevelt, Harding, Hoover, FDR (in 1932 and 1936), Eisenhower (in 1952 and 1956), LBJ, Nixon (in 1972) and Reagan (in 1984) were all elected with more than 55% of the popular vote. Trump, by contrast, lost the popular vote twice.

Ironically, in 1860 Lincoln had prevailed with a mere 39.8% of the vote. He faced three opponents and won a plurality, but would actually have won the election even if all his opponents’ votes had been combined for one candidate, due to the vagaries of the electoral college system.

George Lake
George Lake
3 years ago

Thanks for that but I wasn’t trying to imply that Lincoln held the record, far from it as you correctly say.

Now some months ago you made some well informed remarks about Sakhalin, so may I assume you are a descendant of the renowned Japanologist, Basil Hall Chamberlain 1850-1935? Otherwise it would be an extraordinary coincidence would it not?
Incidentally Mark Corby fell to the Censors Fasces, hence the resuscitation of George Lake. Censorship is now be carried out manually rather than by algorithm apparently!

Basil Chamberlain
Basil Chamberlain
3 years ago
Reply to  George Lake

You may assume, indeed, that the celebrated Professor Chamberlain is the inspiration for my pseudonym!

Sorry to hear about your tangling with the censorious ones, but I’m glad “George Lake” is back. Knowing you to be a gentleman of relatively advanced years, I was a little worried when you stopped posting.

George Lake
George Lake
3 years ago

Thanks for your concern, and you are correct, I’m in the “Prolonging Useless Lives” Cohort (PUL).

However, somewhat reluctantly I have had the jab and must, off course, soldier on.
I am astonished by how many in the PUL Cohort have forgotten the adage “moderation in all things”, but so be it.

I see the Chamberlains also did sterling work in our old Indian Empire as well as providing an Admiral of the Fleet. You have made a good choice of nome de guerre, if I may say so.

Alison Houston
Alison Houston
3 years ago

Oh good, the first of UnHerd’s articles examining the declassification of the Russiagate scandal and looking at how totally corrupt the three letter intelligence agencies and the Democrat Party are.

I knew you wouldn’t let me down and present me with an article to read by someone so wet behind the ears, despite appearing to be a political pollster and therefore a paid up member of the establishment narrative pushers, that he believes the American system of democracy is uncorrupted and incorruptible.

Thank goodness there is an alternative to the rest of the establishment media to turn to, for the truth. Good old UnHerd, good old Eric Kaufmann, who needs Doubting Thomas? Complete, blind faith in voting systems designed by the Devil in order to make devilry possible is what is required in a democracy, and 2 political parties both so alike you can’t get a cigarette paper between them.

Peter Scott
Peter Scott
3 years ago

Surely this is all out of date; like someone arguing the prospects for new invigorated democracy in the Spring of 1918 in Russia or 1933 Germany.

A rolling coup to make the USA effectually a one-party state and abolish its freedoms began long ago with the march of the ‘liberal’ left (which is actually totalitarian-nihilist in its deepest motivation, its strategies and outcomes) through all institutions. I date this from the end of the 1950s. It was thorough and triumphant, because a spiritually very decayed population was lazy and cowardly and did not bother to oppose it. (President Reagan reminded his countrymen that the battle for freedom had to be fought afresh in each generation; but reminded them entirely in vain. No-one since 1960 has fought the Culture War or the Political War. The majority of Americans, who don’t agree with the Loony Left agenda, have been like the ‘good Germans’ of 1871-1945; their goodness being synonymous with their inertia.)

The hysteria which accompanied Donald Trump’s election campaign 2015-16 and his presidency, so extreme that it gained the name of a quasi-illness, ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’, was the fury of the Deep State, the mainstream media, and other members of the Ruling Caste at having their project interrupted by an outsider; but Mr Trump’s presidency was only a blip on their screen because he himself was not single-minded, focused, prepared and competent enough to push back against them efficiently.

The USA Is now a fully-fledged fascist state. All liberties of the citizen are effectually in escrow. Freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, ownership of property – it’s all now entirely under the hammer of what the authorities will allow which in practical terms is no dissent at all.

Plans for a sober, efficient Trumpist to be president in the future will have to be on hold until such a cataclysm has occurred either to the world or the United States, that it has become a case of ‘back to the drawing-board’ as in Germany 1945.

Joseph McCord
Joseph McCord
3 years ago
Reply to  Peter Scott

The “left” of the present day, is a kind of Cult – entrenched in the institutions, including those of government (the State Department, especially stands out as obvious – and the so-called “intelligence” agencies, and the FBI).

The most astonishing (and, literally, astonishing) thing about these past four years – is the intensities of the hostile hysteria, and even outright fantasy that it has (“systemically”, one might say) gone to. All, focused, first and foremost, on one person – the one whom the people of this country chose, to occupy its office of the Presidency. But, ultimately – also focused on the people, themselves. I would almost, want to call it a kind of “psychotic break from reality”.

This might very well, be considered cause for great and very serious alarm. My hope, on the other hand – is that ultimately, all of this really amounts to having taken certain ridiculous themes, to their ultimate and most ridiculous extremes – at, it’s my hope – somewhere near the end of their natural life spans, or shelf-life, in the first place. Maybe the intensity of it all, is a measure of the desperation behind it? As this ideology, proves itself increasingly hollow – and as the politics fueled by it, hopefully, becomes increasingly unviable.

IF outright fraud in ballot counting, DID occur on a significant enough scale to have swung the results of the election – that’s only one further proof that the politics fueled by the ideology in question is no longer viable – in a democratic context – in and of, itself.

—————————

I also wanted to note – that different factions have different reasons, for supporting the “liberal”, or that is to say, the Dimocratic Party, Establishment. For many people, ensconced in the government – it has more to do with its foreign policy, than with its racial politics – or with the Joys of Identity (which is to say of course, with the fetishization of “rebellion”).

(And in regard, to that “rebellion” – obviously, it’s even more enjoyable to those devoted to it, when it achieves, often “totalitarian” at least in its mindset, institutional power – itself. It still feels like “rebellion”, to them. {Perhaps – sheerly because of its opposition to common sense – and to realism?}

Through the operations, I have to assume – of some specific kind of mass-psychosis.)

————————–

(What we need to do – in order to hopefully eventually restore some balance and some sense, to society – is to take it apart – to take this ideology, and the mass-psychosis associated with it, or that it embodies, apart – piece by piece, and instance by instance – on a psychological level.

I assure you – that it’s entirely hollow.)

—————————

We, also – can “just stop taking it”. We can stand up, to all the woketard rhetoric – and call it what it is.

Joseph McCord
Joseph McCord
3 years ago
Reply to  Peter Scott

(my little peom – for anybody who cares to read it -)

Identitard Politics: A Requiem

(or – The Demise of an Era of Bullshit)

(with sincere apologies, to Langston Hughes {“Harlem”})

What happens to a politics, absurd?

Does it cry its woketard tears up forever
without a reason under the sun?
Or fester like a totalitarian bore –
And yet keep having fun?
Does it stink like rotten meat?
Or keep selling itself well (and lucratively), by crusting and sugaring itself over –
like a confectionary sweet?

Maybe it just keeps bragging
that it’s Tom Joad.

Or does it implode?

Martin Butler
Martin Butler
3 years ago
Reply to  Peter Scott

US more like a failed state that a facist state thanks to Trump. The idea of a sober efficient Trump is a contradiction in terms. Trump’s appeal was his narcissism and his authoritarianism.

Joseph McCord
Joseph McCord
3 years ago
Reply to  Martin Butler

We haven’t all given up, yet.

Joseph McCord
Joseph McCord
3 years ago
Reply to  Martin Butler

You’re also entirely wrong, about Trump’s appeal. Purported narcissism and purported authoritarianism are not the reasons, why 63 million people voted for him 2016 – and 74 million people voted for him, in 2020. Americans are not, that stupid. Not, even – among white people; among 1/3 of Latinos; among people who don’t live in major cities – or among people who live in the Inferior States and Regions of the country. Keep trying.

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
3 years ago
Reply to  Joseph McCord

Americans are not, that stupid.

Oh yes they are.

Brian Dorsley
Brian Dorsley
3 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

Why is that, do you think?

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
3 years ago
Reply to  Brian Dorsley

IQ distribution – bell curve.
About half of population (combination of IQ, education, job experience, life experience) are – let’s say – not intelligent.
Is nothing new BTW – read Mencken.

Joseph McCord
Joseph McCord
3 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

Not all of us are. At least we didn’t put Hillary in office.

Joseph McCord
Joseph McCord
3 years ago
Reply to  Martin Butler

It has to be borne in mind – that almost-all of the less-wealthy states, voted for Trump in 2016 – and almost-all of the most-wealthy states, voted for Killary Hinton.

Which group is more likely, to be more narcissistic?

———————-

(“The narcissistic, ungenerous and immoral poor, are a disgrace” – is that a proposition, that’s likely to make much sense?)

———————–

Really – the fundamental matter has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the competence of our outgoing President – he has been a highly, highly competent President – It’s entirely, a matter of the Beatificness of the Dimocrats, and their supporters.

(They’re, entirely convinced of it – not everyone else, quite as much, is – and that’s pretty much, the whole of the story…)

Chris Mochan
Chris Mochan
3 years ago
Reply to  Martin Butler

In what sense is it a failed state?

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
3 years ago
Reply to  Martin Butler

US more like a failed state that a facist state thanks to Trump.
How is it either? This fantasy of Trump-as-authoritarian is classic projection in an environment where the left has shown itself quite willing and occasionally able to silence dissent, to the point of hounding people into hiding or getting them fired. This is the same left that runs big tech and has seized the flow of information, which is exactly what authoritarians do.

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

This is the same left that runs big tech

And yet for 5 years Trump run his mouth on twitter – non stop!

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
3 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

Yes, he did; because he brought in a huge audience. After the election, however, big tech did what the Dems legally cannot. When Angela Merkel is saying that dehumanizing people is a bad idea, maybe she has some historical knowledge of how this approach did not end well.

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

Yes, he did; because he brought in a huge audience

Surely they would like to keep the audience?

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
3 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

Doesn’t seem like. They are happy to do the bidding of the Dems in exchange for favorable regulation that perpetuates their monopoly and creates barriers to entry for others. I recall how Microsoft used to be sued the world over for this sort of thing, but apparently when one’s team can make use of this power, it’s not an issue any longer.

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

Start a platform and the audience will go with you…waiting…?

Mark H
Mark H
3 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

The whole thing with social media is that without people the platform is nothing – their social interconnectiveness makes platform affiliation very sticky. Regulators made a massive mistake in allowing Facebook to buy Whatsapp, Instagram, and Snapchat. If it wasn’t for that, platform migration would be much more viable as one would at least have to option to move to another generation’s preferred platform.

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
3 years ago
Reply to  Mark H

Regulators always makes mistakes. Create your own app (like Parler)

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
3 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

And then watch as companies like Apple and Amazon actively work to bar you from entry into the marketplace. What is it about opposing ideas that scares the left so much?

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

There is a difference between ideas and becoming a platform that incites violence in case of Parler.
Court case against Amazon so we will know the details

Joseph McCord
Joseph McCord
3 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

Platforms don’t incite violence.

“Social media” companies are regulated, under legislation designed specifically, just for them. It hypothesizes, that they are something more like “public forums”, than like “publishers” (and that, therefore – for one thing at least – they cannot be sued, for things that are published on their platforms). If they are going to have an editorial line, and are going to censor what users want to post on them in a partisan, biased manner (and, they do) – then, they should definitely be treated as publishers.

Mark H
Mark H
3 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

Like I said, creating an “own app” does not mean anything because the audience is already attached to one of the existing platforms. Similar to software where most people use Windows even though MacOS has always been the more stable platform.

Mark H
Mark H
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

Alex, it took a long time for the world to wake up to Microsoft’s predatory business practices. I think the same thing will happen with social media monopolists.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
3 years ago
Reply to  Mark H

What happens until then?

Mark H
Mark H
3 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

Yes, until the loss of profit from letting him continue to mouth off outweighed the profit from punters visiting their platforms to watch him mouthing off.

Joseph McCord
Joseph McCord
3 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

Like – it was going to do what, otherwise?

Peter Scott
Peter Scott
3 years ago
Reply to  Martin Butler

No. The Trump appeal was politically specific.

People voted for him because they were desperate to see a halt to mass immigration, to see jobs returning to middle and working class citizens from where they had been sent abroad, and a pushback against runaway bullying highly punitive Political Correctness.

Trump failed, partly because the forces of the Establishment – both main political parties in Congress, the Deep State (Dept of Justice, FBI, CIA) , the mainstream media, Academe – all fought him tooth and nail; and mostly because, although remarkably courageous in enduring a torrent of abuse and misinformation, he is himself a silly billy.

He could have built the Wall and done a score of other useful things by going in for a number of very simple manoeuvres that were in his personal control as Commander in Chief.

He didn’t, because he entered office entirely unprepared, is a panderer with the attention span of a gnat, was divided in intention (at least half his concern was the aggrandisement of his daughter Ivanka and her wretch of a husband Jared Kushner), and from Day One flopped backwards into the arms of the Swamp he was supposed to oppose.

A much better man – easily envisageable! – could have run with his policies and effected much of them.

J StJohn
J StJohn
3 years ago
Reply to  Peter Scott

Representative democracy is a ‘rolling coup’. That’s literally the definition. It’s a crap system, but to paraphrase Churchill, less crap than all the other systems that have ever been tried.

Joseph McCord
Joseph McCord
3 years ago
Reply to  J StJohn

However – it is quite unusual, in a basically-two-party democracy – for the supporters of one of the major parties, and adherents of one of the major factions of political opinion – to develop the aspiration to wipe the other major political party permanently, and entirely, for the most part off the map – and to entirely silence, and exclude, adherents of the other major broad spectrum of political opinions – “by any means necessary” (legal, or illegal – ethical, or unethical). That sort of thing – that sort of “dynamic”, those sorts of ambitions – really do stand out – and make this very particular phase of political and social history, truly unusual.

It won’t, last – but it’s more than just a little bit appalling.

Peter Scott
Peter Scott
3 years ago
Reply to  J StJohn

I don’t object to Representative democracy as a rolling coup.
But it is NOT, it cannot be, REPRESENTATIVE if a polity arrives (in the USA’s case, has developed) which is a one-party state (effectually) and in which all manner of views and dissent are suppressed; as is now the case.

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
3 years ago
Reply to  Peter Scott

The USA Is now a fully-fledged fascist state.

You need to take your medicine.

but Mr Trump’s presidency was only a blip on their screen because he himself was not single-minded, focused, prepared and competent enough to push back against them efficiently.

Understatement of the century!

P.S. Shouldn’t it be communist state?

Brian Dorsley
Brian Dorsley
3 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

With all due respect, Jeremy, if it’s not that way already, it is rapidly becoming so. It’s a prime example of ‘slowly boiling frog’.

Communism and Fascism go hand in hand and differ very little in their methods. We all need to step out of the ‘us versus them’ mentality that’s being impressed upon us by news propaganda.

joe
joe
3 years ago

interesting stats Eric, however u appear to be part of the problem. nobody with half a brain hears the ‘most secure elections ever’ & ‘nothing to see here’ lines which are trotted out by the establishment & believes them, admittedly some are merely trying to reassure the public, but the vast swathes of affidavits and 1st hand accounts of all manner of fraudulent behaviour in america cannot be dismissed in this way. in the uk there are also many instances of vote harvesting in ethnic communities, advantage being taken of the elderly also postal voting is ripe for abuse . . . voter I.D. checks are vital for security of the systems on both sides of the pond

kerrysills55
kerrysills55
3 years ago

Just a note that the only two people of note, so far in the “storming” and the “ransacking” of the building in question were a BLM known agitator and an ANTIFA agitator. Try getting facts from other sources than CNN. Let’s not forget Mr.Horns, an out of work actor with questionable tattoos that only eats organic food.
For actual “storming” “ransacking” cast your memory back a few months. Sloppy journalism yet again.
I started out here in Canada with the curled lip and ewww when Trump was first elected, but began asking “why?” following the clips and headlines used to get the complete story just out of interest. Try it sometime as a writer, or even try devils advocate to stretch your mind.

Sidney Eschenbach
Sidney Eschenbach
3 years ago
Reply to  kerrysills55

Kerry, you wrote: “…the only two people arrested and charged and released after the “storming” and the “ransacking” of the building in question were a BLM known agitator and an ANTIFA agitator.” That’s a lie. YOU should maybe visit CNN from time to time, or do a fact check on the idiot wing-nut posters where this info came from. Look it up. Post truth.
Sullivan, the person I assume you’re referring to, has organized and participated for a variety of different causes, BLM to Proud Boys, both without any sort of official endorsement. If you read his story you’ll see that he’s neither fish nor fowl, but simply an opportunistic young man seeking notoriety. Well, he’s now succeeded.

kerrysills55
kerrysills55
3 years ago

Hi Sydney
Thanks for the direction and response.

Joseph McCord
Joseph McCord
3 years ago

CNN is a straight-up propaganda channel. You know – the same one that told us, that protests don’t have to be peaceful – and another of whose anchors reported live, on the scene, from a “protest” that he described as “mostly peaceful” – while an entire large building was engulfed in flames, and burning to the ground, directly behind him. I’m afraid that CNN, is not a very credible source.

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
3 years ago

Trump lost the popular vote in 2016 – simply things just went his way in the electoral college.
Trump lost the mid-term in 2018
Trump lost in 2020
The reality is that the Republican party is a minority party – only the electoral college is keeping it competitive. It is only a matter of time until North Carolina and Georgia become (like Virginia) solid Democratic states.
The problem with Republican party is that it can not win with Trump but can not win without Trump.
White middle class voters (suburbs) are far more reliable voters than Trump voters (the working white class ) – and they voted against Trump. And without them the Republican Party can not win elections.

Joseph McCord
Joseph McCord
3 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

There’s no “popular vote”, for the Presidency. Read the Constitution – and read, U.S. electoral history.

Trump did not lose the mid-term elections, in 2018. Rather – Democrats simply gained some seats, in the House.

Nobody will ever really know who won the election held, last November – because of mail-in balloting.

If you want to abolish the Electoral College – start working, on a Constitutional Amendment.

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
3 years ago
Reply to  Joseph McCord

Nobody will ever really know who won the election held, last November – because of mail-in balloting.

No we know – your point is just conspiracy theory.

Trump did not lose the mid-term elections, in 2018. Rather – Democrats simply gained some seats, in the House.

Yes, he did. The same way Obama did and Bill Clinton did.

There’s no “popular vote”, for the Presidency. Read the Constitution – and read, U.S. electoral history.

Yes that is why i wrote (read it again it is not hard to understand): “simply things just went his way in the electoral college.”

Joseph McCord
Joseph McCord
3 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

It is a known fact, that ballot fraud does sometimes occur. Again – read some history books.

It is a known fact, that some ballot, and ballot counting fraud did occur, in this election, specifically. That is not, a “conspiracy theory”. It is not a provable fact, that enough fraud occurred to actually change the results of the election. But there are reasonable, enough, grounds for suspicion.

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
3 years ago
Reply to  Joseph McCord

None of your claims have been proven in court – twitter is not legal proof. Please provide the case details of mail voter fraud in 2020 election!
Following your “logic” since rape occurs… are you a rapist?

Joseph McCord
Joseph McCord
3 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

Do your own research.

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
3 years ago
Reply to  Joseph McCord

That is a cop out. Provide us case details that prove voter fraud in 2020 election. You make the claims, you provide the evidence.

Joseph McCord
Joseph McCord
3 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

This isn’t a formal debate. I don’t owe you anything. Do your own research.

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
3 years ago
Reply to  Joseph McCord

I can not prove something that doesn’t exist!
You are lying – freedom of speech and all that.

Rob Alka
Rob Alka
3 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

You can’t prove that something doesn’t exist if you refuse to examine or even recognise the existence of evidence that it probably DOES exist.

No one want to examine at the very least the opportunity for voter fraud which sticks out like a sore thumb.

Consider this: 1) Postal votes have the voter identity sheet removed from the vote sheet. 2) There is no way of rematching those two sheets. 3) Only after detachment are postal vote sheets counted. 4) All the fraudulent party has to do is create a few a few thousand more postal voting sheets at the moment of counting them. 5) There is no way of proving that these late-entry assumed-identity-detached voting sheets are in fact without a voter identity sheet. 6) That is why the Democrat upsurge was usually at the tail end of the postal ballot counting stage (ie when the writing on the wall became apparent) which in itself is a statistical aberration that defies the law of probability. (7) It is also why the total number of vote sheets counted exceeded the known number of eligible voters or came so close to that known number that it strongly suggested a statistically miraculous voter turnout.

And the counter argument? That without exception judges dismissed the evidence. Didn’t discuss or speculate about the evidence, just dismissed it.

Does anyone remember the wrongful conviction of Sally Clark, the mother in the cot death case, who was years later released when the court of appeal were obliged to examine the data which revealed a massive statistical faux pa in the estimated probability that convicted her. Shortly after being released from prison as wrongly convicted she committed suicide.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
3 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

It is only a matter of time until North Carolina and Georgia become (like Virginia) solid Democratic states.
Putting them on the road to becoming IL and CA, which don’t appear to be goals worthy of aspiration. NC has a solid Repub legislature and every court seat on the ballot went Repub, so that part of your dream may be a ways off just yet. Maybe Mencken had it right, and that people should get the democracy they think they want good and hard.

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

Republicans got 10 out of 12 Congressional seats with 50% of the vote. Democrats got 2 out of 12 seats with 48% of the vote. You don’t have to be a math genius to see the picture.
Mencken was right – 2016 election proved that:

On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.

I find it funny how people complain about CA (and NY), IL …and yet those states are where things happen (US economy).

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
3 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

You realize govt exists at the state level, right? The General Assembly in NC is solid Repub; the one GA is majority Repub, too.

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

The governor is not – he is democrat. The Republican party is doomed. But it is like bankruptcy – gradually and then sudden.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
3 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

That’s what James Carville said in 08. How’d that work out? The party has some soul-searching to do, beginning with whether it wants to engage in the heavy lifting of governance federally or be a permanent minority whose members enjoy the perks without any of the responsibility.

Mark H
Mark H
3 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

Just as doomed as the British Labour party.

Which is to say, it can change tack and come back to the populace with a project that addresses their needs, unless some other party gets organized in the meantime.

Guy Haynes
Guy Haynes
3 years ago

Your findings demonstrate what many of us have been saying for years. Trump is the symptom, not the cause.

They might have gotten rid of Trump, whether by fair means or foul, but that will not get rid of the reasons he was elected, and it will not get rid of the anger towards the political class who have enriched themselves whilst making huge swathes of the population’s lives more difficult and completely failing to act in their best interests.

The current tactic of censoring anyone who disagrees with the political class may work in the short term, but in the long term it is doomed to failure. Failing to properly investigate the election (which may or may not have been fraudulent, we don’t know) may have worked in the short term, but in the long term it will only increase the anger. And the next person who comes along promising the same things as Trump may be a much nastier proposition altogether – though he may tweet more respectfully of course.

Going back to the Clinton/Bush/Obama years might work in the short term, but in the long term it’s doomed to failure. I fear America’s problems are only just beginning.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
3 years ago

About one third of Dems don’t think Biden won cleanly, either, so you can dispense with framing this as a wild conspiracy theory. Maybe Joe did which makes the overkill melodrama in DC look all the more ridiculous.

Sidney Eschenbach
Sidney Eschenbach
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

Actually, 80% of D’s trust the electoral system, while for R’s the number is 20%. It’s a wild conspiracy theory, full stop. Or, of course, you could do what no lawyer in the US has been able to do… present what are known as ‘facts’ to any judge and in the jurisdiction of your choosing.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
3 years ago

One-third of Dems in a poll said they believe the election was tainted. You’re welcome to lecture them that they are all cranks but when the winning side isn’t sure about the process, that’s a problem.

Or, of course, you could do what no lawyer in the US has been able to do… present what are known as ‘facts’ to any judge and in the jurisdiction of your choosing.
Actually, no lawyer has been ALLOWED to do that. Every case has been dismissed over procedural matters or technicality. Not a single one has been adjudicated over the evidence presented. What is the left so scared of?

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

Every case has been dismissed over procedural matters or technicality. Not a single one has been adjudicated over the evidence presented. What is the left so scared of?

Give me just 1 case number (Supreme Court/Texas) ?

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
3 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

You’re making my point. That case was not heard over standing, not due to issues with the evidence to be presented.

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

If the case was dismissed as you say because of technicality the case exist – Give the case number! The judget that dismissed it? The court (state, federal), the state? Details!
What is your news source?

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
3 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

Are you serious? The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case did not go ignored. There are numerous sources readily available. The Court chose ‘standing’ as its rationale for not hearing the argument. The Court did not say the argument itself was bad.

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

Give me a case number –
Don’t give me the BS about “numerous sources”…I am asking you for specific case number (texas doesn’t count because it has no standing) and specific news sources.

Joseph McCord
Joseph McCord
3 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

Something that I’ve noticed is that you’re very lazy. We have all seen news reports regarding this case. Look it up for yourself.

A casual conversation is not, itself, a court of law. You’re not a smart lawyer. We all know that the case was brought forward, and what the Supreme Court’s response to it was. The case was dismissed simply on the grounds that one state does not have the right to file suit against another state, over the way that the other state conducts its elections.

Here’s a definition of “standing”: “The right of a party to bring a legal action, based on the relationship between that party and the matter to which the action relates”.

Sidney Eschenbach
Sidney Eschenbach
3 years ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

Alex, you again amaze with your lies.
Just do some research regarding the reasons the trump elections cases failed, and you’ll discover the truth: most were dismissed as being “without merit”. What that means is that the judges read the cases presented and asked the plaintiffs questions about their evidence. These were judges young and old, Democrats and Republicans, all around the country, many actually appointed by Trump… and they found the cases, AFTER REVIEWING THE CLAIMS PRESENTED, had no merit. Not a question of standing. Without Merit.
So you can either take that for what it appears to be, the American judiciary doing their daily work… or spin a wild fantasy that they are all on the payroll of George Soros or the Chinese Communists or Hillary Clinton… pick your favourite boogieman… and roll that into another page of your stop the steal 2020 fantasy. Your choice.

For example:
“”This Court has allowed plaintiff the chance to make his case and he has lost on the merits,” US District Judge Brett Ludwig wrote in an opinion on Saturday, dismissing a Trump campaign lawsuit that accused Wisconsin election officials of violating state law and asking the court to effectively void Biden’s 20,000-vote lead and let the Republican-controlled state legislature decide what to do.” And that’s pretty much the same for the vast majority of the rest. LOST ON THE MERITS… not questions of ‘standing’ or other procedural issues.

Joseph McCord
Joseph McCord
3 years ago

He’s talking about the case that the State of Texas attempted to bring before the Supreme Court, about the ways in which elections were held, in some other states. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case – on the grounds that states do have a legal foundation on the basis of which to sue other states, over any matters of that sort.

7882 fremic
7882 fremic
3 years ago

You need the question, ‘if it were Trump or Rubio, Cruz, Cotton who would you vote for’? Because you post the ‘Trump or someone better’ question as if some unicorn will appear who will be fantastic in Trump’s place, but none will. It will likely be a Republican Biden sort of character, ‘yawn’ and that will not work. MAGA 2024 Mr Trump!

J StJohn
J StJohn
3 years ago
Reply to  7882 fremic

It can’t be Trump. I’m sure the republicans will give sufficient support for impeachment to avoid the embarrassment of a Trump renaissance

Starry Gordon
Starry Gordon
3 years ago
Reply to  J StJohn

The social forces which produced Trump have been around for a long time and will be around for a long time to come. The next Trumpoids — who are doubtless already studying Trump’s career and fate — are making their plans. We’ll be seeing them soon.

Joseph McCord
Joseph McCord
3 years ago

I just ran some numbers…

Overall – nearly 16% more votes in the Presidential election were counted in 2020, than in 2016. In Arizona, and in Georgia – those numbers are 30%, and 21%.

Maybe, people in those states just cared that much more – this time around?

J StJohn
J StJohn
3 years ago
Reply to  Joseph McCord

I think so. But also, the postal voting rollout significantly upped the numbers? Is the kind of voter that A: normally cant be arsed to vote. and B : likes to make premature decisions before all the facts are known, more or less likely to vote BIDEN

David Stuckey
David Stuckey
3 years ago
Reply to  J StJohn

And yet the total turnout in the whole USA was only ~66%. Says a lot about either:1) the difficulty in registering to vote, or 2) Americans are not bothered about elections because they have too many other things to worry about. Maybe they should make voting compulsory like 21 other countries in the World? Just asking.

Nigel Clarke
Nigel Clarke
3 years ago

“…For the pro-Trump rioters who ransacked the Capitol this month…”

I read this far, then realised this must be another “journalist” whose cognitive dissonance is off the scale.

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
3 years ago
Reply to  Nigel Clarke

What is wrong with people named Nigel?

Nigel Clarke
Nigel Clarke
3 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

I don’t know, but I suspect you will have a good go at telling us all…?

Patrick Heren
Patrick Heren
3 years ago

Interesting but the two polls are statistically small samples. They were also taken in the immediate aftermath of the election and in the middle of controversy. I suspect many Republicans used the polls to blow a raspberry at what they probably regarded as a tool of the liberal media.
What might help bring America together is if the mainstream media stopped being so biased. I have been watching CNN over the last few weeks and there is no attempt at even handedness, and a generalised contempt for Trump supporters. Of course Fox and the other side are worse, and I don’t see them reforming. But it might help if there was acknowledgement of some of Trump’s achievements, both economic and diplomatic. The Abraham Accords, for instance, are a major advance in Arab-Israeli relations, yet they are ignored by most of the American (and British) media.

Jonathan Edwards
Jonathan Edwards
3 years ago

You trust the US Legal system? Hmmm. When I married my Southern Belle wife from North Carolina, the first thing she asked about my job (barristering) was “How much does it cost to bribe your Judges?”. Answer – you can’t in the UK. Here are things I learnt about the US system
– you can bribe some US judges
– you can predict Court rulings by looking at whether the President who appointed
them was R or D
– the Courts use tricks to deny justice eg (recently) no locus standi
– the excuse used by Courts is that you can use the Constitution/Congress instead.
(But they don’t teach Civics any more, so you can’t use the Constitution)
– elected Prosecutors may have a serious integrity problem eg McCloskeys in
St.Louis. So unlike the home life of our own dear CPS
– The DoJ/FBI seems to be one-sided. Now confirmed that Russia Russia was a
deliberate distraction from Hillary’s email offences.
Trust US justice? Really?

Sidney Eschenbach
Sidney Eschenbach
3 years ago

While no judicial system is flawless, your description of the US system is unrecognizable to me. Bribe judges? Use the Constitution/Congress instead? Anyone “MAY HAVE’ integrity issues. Russia a “deliberate distraction” from Clinton emails? Where do you get this stuff?

Joseph McCord
Joseph McCord
3 years ago

I just have to guess – that you’re rather obviously, a pathological liar.

First of all – there is no such thing, as a “Southern Belle”. That’s a very obsolete term, that applied at one time only to the upper-crust of the upper-crust of society. I very much doubt that you’re married to one of those. And, if you were – it is very unlikely that you would describe your wife, in that way (it’s, at the very least – a little “essentializing” – “objectifying” – isn’t it?). Essentially, it’s a nearly-exclusively Antebellum era term – although, it’s one that Yankees (people from the Northeastern states) seem to be fixated on.

Secondly – the Southern states are no more corrupt, than any other states in the United States. And, as the commentator below says – no, you cannot bribe US judges. Anybody who attempted to do so would find themselves whisked away to the slammer, for a long time – in a heartbeat. There are laws against that sort of thing, here. Several of your other comments, are entirely incoherent. Sure – some prosecutors may be, corrupt. The supposed “Russia scandal”, was a hoax. You got those bits, right.

————————

FYI: See, the Wikipedia entry.

Angela Frith
Angela Frith
3 years ago

The constitutional purpose of an armed citizenry is national defence, not armed revolution. The very real possibility that a violent and heavily armed minority could break the most advanced democracy in the world into a banana republic is horrifying to the rest of the civilised world.

JR Stoker
JR Stoker
3 years ago
Reply to  Angela Frith

And hugely unlikely

Joseph McCord
Joseph McCord
3 years ago
Reply to  JR Stoker

Entirely impossible – beyond, entirely impossible. Anybody who thinks otherwise doesn’t know anything, whatsoever, about guns – wars – militaries – or, for that matter, even just simply military hardware.

Joseph McCord
Joseph McCord
3 years ago

The vote margins were pretty narrow – in some states that, we’re led to believe, literally went for Biden (even though they went for Trump four years ago).

Five states that went for Trump, four years ago – officially speaking, at least, went for Biden this time around. And – why is that? There might be any number of reasons – but is it because they Committed Sin, four years ago – and have since, Seen the Light? They were Fascists and White Supremacists, four years ago – and are now, On the Side of the Angels (and the Dimocratic Party)?

Nearly 22 million more votes were counted, in this Presidential election – than in the last one. Who knows, how many of those were actually cast? Mail-in voting has never been used before on any significant scale. The reason for that, is just obvious – undoubtedly, it’s the most insecure method of counting votes that anyone could ever possibly imagine. It’s especially, insecure – if no measures are taken, to prevent cheating – or if those measures that are supposed to be taken, are circumvented – and this apparently clearly did happen, in many places. In places, where the names attached to mail-in ballots actually were recorded – we know for a fact that many people known to be deceased – some of whom, lived as long ago as the 19th century – were recorded, as having cast ballots. There were many, many other known “irregularities”. The Dimocrats are now in a hurry to make massive-scale mail-in voting, permanent – under the guise of supposedly, something else.

Bill Maher, on the eve of the election – urged Dimocrat supporters to “vote early, vote often” – and, what did he mean, by that?

It isn’t provable, that the scale of outright fraud, and let’s-just-say-“irregularities”, was enough to have swung the election – but that’s the only thing that’s factually disputed – by those who care to look at facts at all, that is (nevermind, all of the many propagandists). People can hardly be criticized, for having doubts – especially after four years of constant outright denial on the part of Dimocrats and their supporters (and – not, in regard to any questions at all, as to whether the counting of ballots was legitimate) of the legitimacy of the last election – and of the Presidency that resulted from it. (Perhaps, even – if you follow so very much of the rhetoric – starting with Hillary Clinton’s repeated “deplorables” comments – of the legitimacy – although, not in terms of the legality of their citizenship – of a great deal of America’s citizenry.)

Quite a lot of books I think will be written about all of this, over the coming year or two. In the aftermath, we’ll be able to get a more thorough analysis. At this point, we have no option but to accept that Dimocrat Joe Biden is being sworn in, as President. The official vote counts were certified, by state legislatures – and, the votes that count then actually cast, by the Electoral College – and, the Electoral College’s vote then certified, by the U.S. Congress – in accordance with the procedures that happen, in every election. Reasonably enough motivated under the circumstances legal challenges were put forward – but did not carry the day. So, Joe Biden is going to be our President. But we will never really actually know whether he carried the election, by legitimate means (because of mail-in balloting – and, a few other “irregularities”). We’ll just each, have to make our own best guesses.

Chris Wheatley
Chris Wheatley
3 years ago

Anyone who doubts the damage that the Left can do should look at a very small unit called Wales. Wales, like Scotland and Northern England, depends on a share-out of taxes from the UK taxpayer. Wales has spent a lot of money in various, strange ways (always for a good, woke cause) and has insufficient left to pay for Covid 19 vaccinations (compared to England and Scotland).

In the First Ministers Question Time, broadcast two days ago, Mark Drakeford famously said, “You must understand that this vaccination is not a sprint, we have to plan for a campaign of several months”.

Doug Pingel
Doug Pingel
3 years ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

Whats with this “Northern England”?

Where did you get the insufficient money info
from.
We Taffs (Also Towys and Uskies, etc need to

know)

George Lake
George Lake
3 years ago
Reply to  Chris Wheatley

Surely you meant Northern Ireland not Northern England?
Also “share-out”, you must mean dole out?

Gary Greenbaum
Gary Greenbaum
3 years ago

Conviction in a Senate trial will not stop Trump from running again. Alcee Hastings was impeached and removed as a judge but ran successfully for Congress.

Pete Kreff
Pete Kreff
3 years ago

A candidate who is more presidential, respectful and gets things done, while adopting Trump’s views on controlling immigration, nationalism and being willing to challenge the mainstream media, political correctness and elites: [55%]

I have thought this was the obvious way forward for the Republican Party for a while now. Find some who articulates the Trump voters’ concerns but who isn