Playing Chess with a Pigeon

So I was wrong about the result but I was right about US polls being absolutely rubbish.  Also the reasons why I didn't think Trump would win are also the reasons why he'll be a terrible president. 

So for a couple of weeks there I was getting nervous about the US Presidential election. But as things unfold (especially today’s developments) I’m getting more and more relaxed.

For a while there, the unthinkable (that Donald Trump could win the election or at least make it a close contest) was becoming a bit more thinkable. Firstly, how did it happen? When he started his run in the primaries (Gosh, don’t Americans love to vote), no one thought he was a serious chance and he shouldn’t have been…until you looked at the other candidates. Believe it or not, Donald Trump wasn’t the maddest in the field. His nearest rival, for example, Ted Cruz, is openly disliked even by his GOP colleagues. Being relieved as news came in that Trump was leading Cruz really is the very definition of cognitive dissonance. Of the seventeen nominees, only Marco Rubio and John Kasich seemed to exist in the same world as you and me.  My theory is that so many people think that the idea of Trump becoming president should be so self-evidently loopy to everyone, that it is enough to ensure he won’t. In other words, people not taking him seriously worked in his favour. But the presidential election is a two horse race (actually four horses if you count the other two candidates – Jill Stein who is from the US Greens and Gary Johnson who is a libertarian).

So does Donald Trump have a chance? When the Brits stunned the rest of the world by voting for the Brexit, the rest of the world looked over nervously towards the United States, wondering if WTF election results were in vogue, then might the next one deliver a Trump presidency? Well anything is possible but I think in this case, it is improbable. Reasons? I have a few. 

Firstly, the Republican Party is not united behind him. The far right (or to use its new, hip name the Alt-right) is behind him but the moderates are at best grinning and bearing him. The same could be said of the Democrats and Hillary Clinton (some true believers are still smarting over Bernie Sanders not being nominated) but Bernie Sanders publicly endorsed Clinton at the Democrat Party Conference. There are a number of current and former Republican members of congress who are not supporting him.  I cannot recall any election where a month out from election day, senior party officials are having to reiterate their support - or in some cases withdrawing it - for their nominated leader.  This is happening now following the release of footage from 2005 where Trump speaks lightheartedly about sexually assaulting women.  The moderates (who aren't actually that moderate but that's another story) are like rats off a sinking ship.   

The GOP (which is an acronym for Grand Old Party, if you’re wondering) being split coming into an election isn’t just because Donald Trump is a completely dubious choice for candidate. I’m not the only person to notice that worldwide the conservative side of politics is going through something of a split, between the moderates, the far right and the even further than right. Partly the split is caused by the last hurrah of ultra-reactionaries – the far right – who really aren’t coping with change and can’t see anything wrong with the past era when white men being in charge was a given. That said, do not underestimate the religious zeal which characterises what they see as a fight against all that is socially progressive which will lead to, in their eyes, certain destruction.  Ultra-reactionary zealots they may be but...

Voters are restive, even if they are misguided as to what they are feeling restive about. A hint: immigration is the hook on which they like to hang their anxieties and frustrations but rising inequality of wealth, influence, access to opportunities and a sense of powerlessness in fighting this inequality is really at the heart of their frustration. They have a sense that decisions are being made about them, above them without consultation – or care - by an increasingly affluent and out-of-touch political class. It is also why some people cling to a misremembered past, when things seemed easier and more certain. And some of them are just plain racist/stupid/nasty.  Hence the popularity of the plainspoken outsider with specious political messages that promise them a return to the certainty of the past.

Secondly, Donald Trump is completely new to the argy-bargy that is politics – he has never run for or held a public office - while his opponent, Hillary Clinton, has had few rehearsals for a presidential campaign (with Bill Clinton’s two presidential campaigns and in the 2008 primaries) plus a long career in public service, including stints as a Senator and as Secretary of State. Trump is not a politician and while this is part of his appeal, a US Presidential campaign is no place to learn on the job. Even though we the voters are cynical about politicians, like any job it has a skill set. He is up against a professional and experienced campaign machine. Trump has quickly found himself out of his depth.

Which brings me to the presidential debates, which will see him debate policy against a policy swot like Hillary Clinton. Based on the first debate, the remaining two have the potential to be some of the greatest car crash TV we will ever see. Think a chimpanzee flinging shit and you’ll get the idea. 

The one chance Trump might have had would have been to not only tap into the disenchantment voters have with establishment politicians (and Hillary Clinton is a very establishment politician and has never been popular) but to use the element of surprise to his advantage, actually stop flinging shit and start moving to the centre with some actual conversations with voters about policies. A more experienced politician might have adopted this strategy.  At first it seemed as if most of the madness had been Trump playing to the core of the Republican Party in order to secure the nomination. There has been some back tracking and attempts to talk policy but he can’t seem to help himself from his default setting which is to say whatever outrageous statement he thinks will get him attention. This may get ratings for reality TV but while in Trump’s mind (now there would be a place both disturbing and strangely empty) ratings and votes may be one in the same, there is a lot more to election campaigns and eventually governing. 

Lastly there are the polls. On the whole the national polls mainly have Hillary Clinton ahead, at first by a lot, then only by a couple of percentage points and now her lead is increasing again. There are two reasons for this: generally polls narrow during any election campaign, especially as it gets to the pointy end. The other reason is more specific to this campaign. Trump had some gains after (what will hopefully be) Hillary Clinton’s campaign nadir, when she took ill and was diagnosed with pneumonia. But even at that point, she has always been leading in the polls - by how much is the point of contention.

But there are caveats: Always apply the old adage of “a week is a long time in politics” to any political prognosticating. Also, being a political junkie (which is an increasingly disheartening hobby I might add), I’ve noticed that, compared to Australian polls, which are very reliable, the UK and US polls are mind-boggling. There are so many, they all contradict each other and in the time I’ve been checking them out, their results bare little relation to each other or the eventual outcome. During the 2012 presidential election, some polls had Mitt Romney ahead and the commentary was that he was a chance. In the end Barack Obama won easily (and had the all important Electoral College numbers – and then some – several weeks out from polling day). At best the polls give plenty of grist for the commentariat mill.  The best bet for US politics is Fivethirtyeight run by statistician Nate Silver. According to his model, which aggregates several polls and takes other factors into consideration such as economic conditions and state by state rundowns, during Hillary Clinton’s health scare, Trump had a 40% chance of winning and this was his best result. After the first debate, it slipped to below 30%.  And it is continuing to fall.  

So nothing to worry about then, except there is, unfortunately. Being a presidential nominee brings with it a certain credibility and he’ll carry this legitimacy with him until the November elections. If he can be dignified in defeat (that’s a big if) he could carry that legitimacy beyond November. In that time, who knows how much disruption and damage he can do. His presence and rhetoric gives mainstream exposure and credence to ideas that are usually reserved for the nutty outlands of political debate. There have already been riots and other violence at his rallies. 

If he does manage to pull off a shock victory or if somehow Hillary Clinton completely stuffs it up (although I just can’t imagine the series of mistakes she would have to make to make Trump seem like a better option.  More ill-health perhaps but after the video that has emerged of Trump behaving like a total sleazebag, I think she could take the rest of the campaign off, to be honest) I suspect he will be like the proverbial dog who chases a truck but once he catches the truck, doesn’t know what to do with it.

And personally, I can't see how the American electorate, which voted twice for the class act that is Barack Obama, could turn around and vote for a boor like Trump.  

And if he does win the election? Buy gold.