Donald Trump's victory over Hillary Clinton: stunning but not surprising

What has happened in the US today is not what was probable but what was possible. Donald Trump had promised a Brexit like outcome and that has come true.

What's stunning is Trump's win rather than Clinton's defeat. But I am not surprised. What has mattered finally is the frustration of the grassroots of the society like middle class and working class with a system that simply didn't work for them.

His win has followed a familiar pattern where anti-establishment forces have prevailed over status quo-ist, and politically correct conformists. We saw that in the Brexit referendum. We saw that in the rise of Narendra Modi and of Arvind Kejriwal; and also of Rodrigo Duterte as the President of the Philippines.

This is more of Trump's victory than that of the Republican Party, because another reason for the historic result is the yawning gap between political parties and the people.

Trump and Clinton stuck to the script. He blasted the elitist Washington coterie and promised moon to middle class, factory workers, delivery boys and gas station employees. She attacked Trump, focused on women, immigrants and educated elite. Finally his script worked.

The way Trump controversially but steadily worked his way through the primaries to the White House is remarkable. He began as nothing. And as he progressed, no one seemed to like his ways. But he was progressing. That was a reality, which a vast majority of people, and the media, either were blind to, or thought would peter out finally. But that was not to be.

What we now need to see is how far Trump will be able to bring the fractured Republican Party and its supporters together. Because without that unity, he won't be able carry through many of his grandiose plans. Actually he will need to reach out across the aisle as well. There is a limit to how much confrontation can achieve.

The first indications of what the Trump presidency will be came in his acceptance speech. He is doing what inevitably he has to -- sounding Presidential, conciliatory and inclusive.

But still we really don't know what his plans are. He has broken many rules already. So we can expect quite a few out of the box policy plans from him. Exciting days ahead.

Donald Trump's acceptance speech

Hillary Clinton's concession speech

Barack Obama's speech on Trump victory

What Trump should have told Chris Wallace when he was asked if he would accept election result

In the third and last US Presidential debate today early morning, Indian time, I thought Donald Trump performed much better than the previous two debates.

He was calmer, he didn't interrupt Hillary Clinton or the moderator (Chris Wallace) as often he did on the previous two occasions; and he seemed to be more focused and prepared. He seemed to be putting Hillary on the defensive on quite a few occasions.

The Republican presidential hopeful's trump card has always been that Hillary has experience, but it's a bad experience. Another is that Hillary only talks, never does or gets anything done.

Trump has no experience, and, therefore, has no baggage. People who are backing Trump are the ones who are willing to take the gamble to entrust the leadership of the US to someone who is not an original politician; and the hope is that he will fare differently, taking America out of the current problems.

But all the ground Trump seemed to be gaining finally, he lost with one answer: his refusal to say that he will accept the verdict of the election.

It was a very dangerous statement. I am sure Trump and even the audience didn't immediately get the full implications of that. What he said sounded more like what we are used to hearing in nations where democracy hasn't really taken root or in nations ruled authoritarian rulers.

Trump's pronouncement (like a few earlier too) didn't fit into the image of America the world has. In fact, his non-commitment has turned out to be the only real highlight of the debate. The rest of the debate was all on predictable lines.

For the record, here is the transcript of the relevant portions, which I am sure will go down in history.

Chris Wallace: ".... Your running mate Governor Pence pledged on Sunday that he and you, his words, will absolutely accept the result of this election. Today your daughter Ivanka said the same thing. I want to ask you here on the stage tonight, do you make the same commitment that you will absolutely, sir, that you will absolutely accept the result of the selection?"

Trump:  "I will look at it at the time. I'm not looking anything now I will look at it at the time. What I've seen, what I've seen it so bad. First of all the media is so dishonest  ..... "

Wallace: "But, sir."

Trump: " .... We will find out on November eighth but I think they’re going to see through it. ... "

Wallace: "But sir, there is a tradition in this country, in fact one of the prides of this country, is the peaceful transition of power and that no matter how hard fought a campaign is, that at the end of the campaign, that the loser concedes to the winner, not saying that you are necessarily going to be the you loser or the winner, but that the loser concedes to the winner and that the country comes together in part for the good of the country, are you saying that you are not prepared now to commit to that principle?"

Trump: "What I'm saying now is I will tell you at the time. I will keep you in suspense, okay?"

Of course, Trump isn't categorically saying that he won't accept the verdict.

However, he could have said something on these lines:

I am sure I won't have to make a concessions speech because I won't be the loser. It's Hillary who will have to. But since you asked the question, even though it's been a rigged election, I will make the same commitment that I will absolutely accept the result of the election. That's a great American tradition that I will honour.

If Trump had said this, he would have gained a few undecided voters, who knows may be even a few Democrat supporters sitting on the fence. He wouldn't have lost anything. And Wallace wouldn't have had to ask the more pointed supplementary question.

But then, that wouldn't have been Trump -- the aggressive, unpredictable, wildcard politician, who has progressed this far.

Hillary Clinton gains from Donald Trump's errors

The expectations ahead of the second US Presidential Debate that took place today was akin to one ahead of soap operas. Much of the blame must be taken by the Republican nominee Donald Trump.

It all began with the 2005 video tape that surfaced on Friday, in which Trump bragged about how his celebrity status allowed him to grope and make other sexual advances to women. That this 11 year-old tape should come to light only a few days before the debate and less than a month ahead of the poll, is more than mere coincidence. Also, it's not the first time presidential candidates have had to face ghosts from the past at the most wrong time. It's politics that a democracy gives room for.

Understandably, there was huge uproar. Trump was forced to apologize. Anyone else would have sought this unseemly distraction to end there. But not Trump. At the end of the apology, he made it plain clear that the topic would be discussed in the coming days, and signed off sounding a bit ominous, see you at Sunday's debate.

Trump then turned his focus on Bill Clinton. He got four women who have accused Bill Clinton of transgressions, on stage before the press, a couple of hours before the debate. And according to Washington Post and NBC News, there was a plan to get the four women to confront Bill just as they were to walk in for the debate. But the whole plan was nixed.

As expected, Trump raised the topic during the debate. but Hillary, who was well prepared, refused to take the bait, and steered clear of this non-topic, and focused on current topics of importance to the public.

Trump had come to the debate so much on the defensive and in negative territory, it was pretty easy game for Hillary. She knew Trump was already messing things up further; and she had to only ensure that she didn't make any mistakes. There was no need for her to push Trump deeper into the mess.

It was a dead pan performance by Hillary. She didn't score any major points; and there were no knockout punches. But thanks to Trump's conduct, Hillary seemed to be the winner today, without making winning strokes.

As I write this, it's the day after in the US; and news is breaking that House Speaker Paul Ryan has declared that he will not support Trump. But he hasn't withdrawn his endorsement. Things are so bad, that running mate Mike Pence has had to declare that he hasn't still quit the race.

Polls are showing that Hillary is gaining now. It will be too difficult for Trump to close the gap or even overtake, unless there is a miracle.

Interesting US presidential poll season ahead

So it's Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders who are hogging limelight after the Iowa caucuses yesterday.

On the Republican side, while I can understand the sentiments that are bringing in the numbers for Donald Trump, his radical thoughts are unnerving. Between the two, Cruz is preferable.

On the Democratic side, my choice is Hillary, mainly because of her overall career record and experience. Bernie Sanders isn't appealing. He is talking of a policy line that is far too Leftist that one can imagine would work in the US. Barack Obama's policies themselves weren't going down well.

This US presidential poll is promising to be very exciting.

Hillary Clinton concedes, backs Barack Obama

Finally it has happened; what Hillary Clinton never wanted to happen. The fighter has accepted defeat and thrown her weight behind the winner. It must have been quite a hard task for her. That's evident from the time she took to make the concession speech. Now, all eyes are on Obama: will he pick her as his running mate? (Report: BBC)

• Text of Hillary Clinton's concession speech (NYT)
• Video of Hillary Clinton's concession speech (BBC)

Why not Hillary as running mate?

Mr Barack Obama, the President of the United States, and Ms Hillary Clinton, the Vice-President... -- imagine that scenario on January 20, 2009 -- that will be an amazing combination.... But more about that a bit later in this post.

First, I don't think any time in the recent past a US presidential primary has generated so much interest. Whoever becomes the President s/he will create a record as the first Black, woman or the oldest President.

The Democratic primary now very much resembles the final stages of a cricket match (the sport that arouses as much passion and interest in India as baseball and basketball does in the US).

Who is good for India?
It's generally felt that Republican policies are favourable to India. Last time it was John Kerry who spoke out against outsourcing jobs to India. Even this time, both Hillary and Obama have tried to win over middle class Americans by raking up outsourcing. I am not quite concerned, because, in such issues, my gut feeling is irrespective of Republican or Democratic views, it'll be what the American businessmen want that will prevail rather than what the ordinary American would want.

Personally, among the candidates, I'd rank my choice thus: Hillary, Obama and McCain. I have read a lot about the Clintons -- Bill and Hillary -- more than about Obama; and may be because of that I am favouring her. But Obama is as much impressive -- I've completely fallen for his oratorical style; a great communicator he is. His speeches are definitely worth listening to.

Hillary's attractiveness is the amazing experience she has behind her; and the family exudes an exceptionally remarkable charm. It's pretty certain that Obama has made it, but Hillary has surely let it be known that she is, nevertheless, a tough fighter the Americans can rely on. I haven't been able to relate to McCain at all, though I guess he too has a great record mainly for fighting in Vietnam.

Hillary: from First Lady to Vice-President?
Now all the focus will be on who will be Obama's running mate. I think it should be Hillary. The double-engined Democratic bandwagon will have more than adequate muscle to see through the race. But for that first Obama and Hillary will close ranks as fast as possible.

Unlike the Republican campaign, Democratic race has seen debates on the lines of Black and White; Man and Woman. There is a lot of scratching of the head happening to determine why Hillary, in spite of being a woman and with loads of experience, didn't come through clean. Or, did those very attributes go against her?

Similar questions are being asked about Obama as well. In spite of being Black and inexperienced how did he steal a march over Hillary? Some are talking of the how the number of delegates is hardly an indicator of one's actual popularity. Of course, it'sn't that the American electoral system is anywhere near perfect.

My take is this: Obama is ahead simply because he has been been able to connect to the masses much better. His communication skills have undoubtedly helped him; enormously. Ronald Reagan is another politician who worked his communication skills to great advantage -- arguably it played a big role in the beginning the end of the Communist empire by engaging Mikhail Gorbachev of the Soviet Union. And, Obama is miles ahead of McCain as far as connecting to people is concerned, if video clippings of their campaigns are any indication.

Imagine this in January 20, 2009 -- Mr Barack Obama, the President of the United States, and Ms Hillary Clinton, the Vice-President... that will be an amazing combination.

She shouldn't worry that she wouldn't be in the limelight, that she would have just a back-up role. Coming to think of it, actually it wouldn't be a role totally unfamiliar to her, for that's what she had been doing for eight long years when hubby Bill was in the White House. So it's perfectly possible for Obama and Hillary to have a perfect understanding regarding the roles they have to play. During this term, Vice-President Dick Cheney has played a no insignificant role in the post-9/11 engagement of his country with the rest of the world, mainly in Iraq.

Of course, this wouldn't be the same as she being in the White House itself. But so what? There was a time when things had hotted up so much in Bill's Oval Office, it didn't really matter if she was in the White House or not. She carried on her own administration of the United States as its First Lady. She is quite used to this sort backseat driving, with help of the actual driver or not, I guess.

But if Hillary is indeed chosen as Obama's running mate and goes on to become the vice-president, a possible problem will be Bill. Remember how he had almost wrecked Hillary's campaign recently? So what will Bill's role be? I am sure both Obama and Hillary will factor that in their plans.

Imagine, another driver, behind the back-seat driver, driving both Hillary and Obama! Bill is quite capable of that!

Photo captions and credits:

• Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., speaks to the media in Brandon, South Dakota Friday, May 23, 2008 as she apologizes for an earlier statement to the Argus Leader's editorial board in Sioux Falls, S.D. citing the June 1968 assassination of Robert F. Kennedy in defending her decision to keep running for the Democratic presidential nomination despite increasingly long odds.(AP Photo/Elise Amendola) Source
• U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) speaks at a rally in Sunrise, Florida, May 23, 2008. Reuters/Joe Skipper (United States) US presidential election campaign 2008 USA. Source

Ban possession of guns in US

No end to violence on American colleges -- yesterday's incident at the North Illinois University in which five students were gunned down in a classroom was the fouth in a month.

Since American universities have lots of foreign students on their campuses, security of students is not just an American issue, it is also a global one. The North Illinois University, for example, has 862 international students from 88 countries. NIU has an Indian link -- it has a tieup with Karnataka's Manipal University.

So what has Barack Obama, a senator from Illinois, got to say on this?

"Today we offer them our thoughts and prayers, but we also have to offer them our determination to do whatever it takes to eradicate this violence from our streets, from our schools, from our neighborhoods and our cities," Obama said. "That is our duty as Americans," he tells a news conference.

But he nullifies all the determination with this:

"I think there is an individual right to bear arms, but it's subject to commonsense regulation."

Why doesn't America completely ban ownership of guns, except by people who need it as part of their work?Why should people carry guns for their protection when there is a well-armed security force? Of all people, why should students be legally allowed to possess guns?

None of the candidates -- Hillary, Obama or McCain -- has a clear cut policy on gun control.

America is supposedly leading a war against terroism. Aren't students living in a state of terror on US campuses, not knowing who will spray bullets on whom? When innocent lives are lost, aren't the classical terrorist and the student with a gun in the same league?

Election year may not be a good time to hammer out bipartisan agreements. But an effort on the part of the two parties and their leading candidates to hammer one out against possessing firearms will signal to the Americans and to the world at large that the American establishment doesn't have two standards when it comes to gun culture.

Hillary Clinton's Super Tuesday Speech

Clinton is ahead of Obama, but not well enough to clinch the Democratic nomination. A good speech here, but she doesn't seem to connect with the audience as effectively as Obama.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama: Slugfest to Lovefest

The Super Tuesday is just a few days away -- on Feb 5, when most of America will vote for the party nominees. (Youtube channel: You Choose '08.) As the crucial primaries get closer, here below are two video clippings from the Democractic debates. These two show the contrasting moods of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Hillary, Obama clash at South Carolina Democratic Debate

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama spar during the South Carolina debate on Jan 21.

Clinton, Obama cordial at debate

Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton shared a debate stage alone for the first time on Thursday, Jan 31, striking a cordial tone. They even fielded questions on who will be the vice-presidential candidate. Does this reflect the overwhelming confidence that the Republicans will be routed for sure, and that Hillary and Obama are reconciled to one of them being the President?

Barack Obama's YES WE CAN victory speech in South Carolina

This is a great speech, worth listening to. Obviously Obama and his supporters are all fired up. Because he has got a huge morale boost ahead of the February 5 Super Tuesday, when most probably the lineup for Nov 8 should be clear.

In South Carolina, it must be remembered, the African-American voters make up make up almost half the electorate, and majority of them support him rather than Hillary.

Reports say S Carolina voting was polarised along colour, gender and age. It's funny that in the world’s greatest nation people can’t look beyond these physical attributes. Probably it’s because there'sn't anything else to choose, with both Obama and Hillary speaking pretty much the same thing.

Obama is, I guess, aware of this, and tries his best to dispel it, when he says in his speech, “So understand this, South Carolina. The choice in this election is not between regions or religions or genders. It's not about rich versus poor, young versus old. And it is not about black versus white. This election is about the past versus the future. It's about whether we settle for the same divisions and distractions and drama that passes for politics today or whether we reach for a politics of common sense and innovation, a politics of shared sacrifice and shared prosperity."

Any way, the contest is in no way over.

NYT backs Hillary Clinton, John McCain

This is not something the media in India do -- openly backing a candidate in an election. The first two editorials in today's New York Times are about who the newspaper's editorial board thinks should be the Democratic and Republican candidates for the Nov 8 US Presidential election.

"As Democrats look ahead to the primaries in the biggest states on Feb. 5, The Times’s editorial board strongly recommends that they select Hillary Clinton as their nominee for the 2008 presidential election," the newspaper says. "The next president needs to start immediately on challenges that will require concrete solutions, resolve, and the ability to make government work. Mrs. Clinton is more qualified, right now, to be president."

• Primary Choices: Hillary Clinton

The second edit on the Republican Party, the NYT says, "We have strong disagreements with all the Republicans running for president. The leading candidates have no plan for getting American troops out of Iraq. They are too wedded to discredited economic theories and unwilling even now to break with the legacy of President Bush."

Backing McCain it says, "Still, there is a choice to be made, and it is an easy one. Senator John McCain of Arizona is the only Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe."

• Primary Choices: John McCain

Opinionated media & blogs

This is quite a normal feature in the US. But in India, though the media might editorially endorse or criticise the stand taken by political parties on specific issues, they (particularly big media houses) rarely openly declare its backing for a particular candidate, that too in a parliamentary or assembly election.

I guess the highly opinionated feature of mass media in the US is an indication of the highly evolved state of its society that makes elaborate use of multimedia to access, process and disseminate information. The society is not only highly literate but also has the benefit of sophisticated technology.

There is an argument that blogs have flourished in the US mainly because of the "bias of the mainstream media". Probably. But in no way can blogs claim a "holier than thou" tag, since there is nothing to show that the blogs themselves aren't biased and they themselves don't have any agenda?

I feel the best indication of a well-evolved society is the diversity of opinions. To that extent blogs are only complementing in their own way the multiplicity of opinions in the society.

Hillary, McCain make it a contest

Just a few hours back, I was ready to hear not just Hillary Clinton conceding New Hampshire, but even pulling out of the race in favour of Barack Obama. Over the past few days, she was looking so downcast, the feeling of resignation written all over her face. O, what an upset! It's good there is a contest out there, there's some excitement remaining. Even on the Republican side, thanks to John McCain. But where is Giuliani, who was supposed to be leading in the national polls? O, right, in NH, pollsters couldn't get even Hillary right, could they?

Obama, Huckabee off a great start

The excitement is on. The year-long process to elect a successor to George Bush has begun. Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee are off to a colourful start. (Read report) The race is a year long. So, there is no guarantee that one of these two will be the next President.

America has one of the most complicated process of electing its President -- arguably the most powerful person on earth. Whether one likes it or not, America, its politicians, policies, and society have a great influence on rest of the world. As the saying goes: If America sneezes, the rest of the world catches cold. It's a different matter if America realises this, and does something about it.

The election process

• BBC has excellent details elaborating the complicated electoral process. Click here to know everything about it.

Here are some extracts:

Most states hold state-wide votes, called primaries, to determine their preferred candidates from the two main parties. Others use a slightly different procedure involving public meetings, called caucuses.

This is the process by which supporters of the Democratic or Republican parties, in each US state, say which candidate they would like to see representing their party in the November presidential election.

Each state gets to send a certain number of delegates to the parties' national conventions in August or September 2008. Bigger states have more delegates. During these national conventions each party's nominee is formally chosen.

The primaries and caucuses determine which candidate the delegates will vote for. Suppose, Obama has has got more votes than Hillary in Iowa. It means, more delegates, who have pledged support to Obama -- than who have pledged support to Hillary -- will be sent from that state, Iowa, to the Democratic party's national convention.

The candidate with the most delegates wins the nomination. Usually this becomes clear early on in the primary season. This year the winning candidates are expected to be known in February.

The Democrats will hold their convention in Colorado in late August. The Republicans will hold theirs in Minneapolis in early September. The presidential candidates will take part in TV debates on 26 September, and 7 and 15 October.

Voting takes place on November 8. Americans do not, technically, participate in a direct election of the president. It's the delegates / electors who actually select the president.

In almost every state, the winner of the popular vote -- on Nov 8 -- gets all the electoral college votes in that state, even if his or her majority is wafer thin. So it can happen that a candidate ends up with more electoral college votes than the rival candidate, and yet a smaller share, nationally, of the popular vote.

Sania and Hillary

It’sn’t often I get to see TV at prime time. At that time, I am in office, putting together the paper I work for. Today was a compensatory off I availed of for having worked on Republic Day. And, I got to see two programmes I enjoyed. One, Walk the Talk with Sania Mirza. And, two, Hillary Clinton’s address and the subsequent Q&A at the India Today Conclave.

It is so nice to see someone so young as Sania perform so well, on and off the court. There is also probably another reason why I like her. Sania looks so much like a friend of mine (also from Hyderabad) who is now in the US. When Shekhar Gupta asked Sania what was her ambition: she very realistically said that she would like to come within top 20 or 25 in the next two to three years. I hope she does.

I am in awe of the Clinton family. A remarkable couple – each a celebrity in his/her own right. I was closely following the flood of articles in the US media at the time of Monica case. Some were on how much the scandal affected the family, how the two drifted apart, how they came back together and the many reasons for that…

When Bill and Hillary were courting, she was a fledgling lawyer, and she was among the few “brightest lawyers of America” handpicked to assist in the impeachment proceedings of Richard Nixon following the Watergate scandal… That was… when… in 1972. She and others were actually locked up, cut off from outside world for a few days (because of the secrecy surrounding the case) and so Bill, apparently had a real tough time, forget meeting her, even getting to talk to her…

Their life history is very interesting… they had real tough times… personal and political (the constant Republican hounding) and they always survived… including the Monica thing… which Clinton firmly believes (even after all his confessions) was a Republican set-up.

Will Hillary become the first woman President of the US? It is easy for Rabri Devis and Phoolan Devis to be elected to high offices in India. In the US it is tough even for a Hillary. A woman US President is a mental block, which the Americans will have to first remove, before even assessing Hillary’s credentials.

But given this lady’s capabilities, I wouldn’t be surprised if she creates history in 2008.