MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Trump's presidency short lived? Two experts who anticipated his victory make the prediction
Donald Trump caught the world by surprise when he emerged victorious at the United States elections, but his stay at the White House could be short-lived, according to university professor who has correctly predicted presidential poll outcomes for the last 30 years. A similar prediction has been made by journalist and filmmaker Michael Moore who also forecasted Trump's victory with weeks' anticipation. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rules“Allan Lichtman, a political historian at the American University, told CNBC's “Squawk Box”
Nov 18th, 2016 - 10:28 am - Link - Report abuse -4Oh diddums! Another Hillary sore loser.
The gut feeling is the combined feet of rumps ”uneducated” supporters up your arsehole, you arsehole
Pathetic non-entity..
I am rather puzzled by the American voting system. American voters overwhelmingly back Trump, or so we are told, BUT he got about 2 million LESS votes than HC !
Nov 18th, 2016 - 10:38 am - Link - Report abuse +2Hardly an accolade from the great American public.
Pseudo pundit:
Nov 18th, 2016 - 02:52 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Harry Reid has previously threatened a rule change - he may now be the recipient of one.
Trump's supreme court appointments are the gift that will keep on giving irrespective of whether his occupancy of the white house is 8 years or something less.
Trump won a substantial portion of the “electoral” votes. I haven't read that Trump was “overwhelmingly” backed by the American public. It might be “professional” journalism, U.S. style, that is causing your confusion. They spew fantasy and lies and think that is normal professional adult behavior.
Nov 18th, 2016 - 02:54 pm - Link - Report abuse +6The U.S. “electoral college” system is based on its bicameral legislative system. In the beginning, states with smaller populations were concerned their wishes would be overlooked by the older more populated states if voting was just based on population alone.
If the huge populations of California and New York were always able to decide how things were going to be in WY, MT, AZ, AK, SD, ND, NE, KS, OK, UT, ID, MS, AL, AR, KY, TN, IA, etc., then an “overwhelming” number of these less populated states would be inclined to not associate themselves anymore with these few more populated states.
Each state in the Union has equal weight in some parts of the system. These lesser populated states are not going to want to have a secondary status to the more largely populated states. And they should not.
Their has to be a check on an area of huge population. This check is the bicameral legislature and electoral college system.
The people of these smaller states are perfectly capable through their own life experiences of coming to their own political conclusions and they tend to view the leftist politics of California and New York as, not “progressive”, but “twisted”. They are appalled by that kind of thinking and feel they shouldn't have it forced on them. Leftists believe their way should be forced on all peoples of the world. That is a pretty scary notion too.
So, in this election, there were enough people in these lesser populated states that felt more leftism wasn't good for them or the United States, and that lesser amount of people were able to tell California and New York to “buzz off”, this time.
The majority rules in a democracy, but it is regulated.
Bravo Bushpilot - Excellent explanation of the electoral college system.
Nov 18th, 2016 - 03:13 pm - Link - Report abuse +3To those sore losers who keep banging-on about Hillary allegedly winning the popular vote (and last I heard the the jury is still out on this issue) - the British “first past the vote” system is far more likely to lead to the same conclusion. Do they also bitch and whine about that?
Lichtman and Moore aren't “experts” on anything -- they're leftist political hacks, hoping their party finds a way to get rid of Trump before he starts reversing most of what Obama has done (which will destroy the country if it isn't undone).
Nov 18th, 2016 - 04:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@shackleton -- there are estimates that somewhere around two million non-citizens (illegally in the country) voted, and overwhelmingly for Clinton. If this is the case, her supposed lead of a few hundred thousand popular votes is more like a one and a half million deficit.
The key word is COULD,along with a narrow focus as to the law and who makes the so called laws. This is laughable for any who know thier history.
Nov 18th, 2016 - 04:55 pm - Link - Report abuse -1@ bushpilot
Nov 18th, 2016 - 06:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Superb, even the Clintonites should be able to grasp that.
Bisley
Nov 18th, 2016 - 08:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Can non-citizens vote...?
@ ChrisR
Nov 19th, 2016 - 12:08 am - Link - Report abuse +4You were opposed to the electoral college before the election. Changed your mind have you?
@ bushpilot
Why is it okay for the people living in smaller states to force their preferences on those in larger states, then? Right-wingers also believe their way should be forced on everyone, and it's just as scary.
Not that Trump is truly right wing; the devil only knows what he will do to the country.
@ shackleton
Yes, I have said before that there are similarities, and I would also like to see the first past the post system reformed.
@ DT
Nov 19th, 2016 - 11:24 am - Link - Report abuse -2It got Obumma in, so it only seems fair for it to apply to Trump.
Clinton spent TWICE the money for each vote of Trump's, had ALL the media against him, fiddles by the electronic polling machine in four states (why not all or none) and the FBI giving her a bye of the breach of Federal Laws AND she still LOST.
I think the voters who voted 'Trump' will encourage others who previously thought their vote wouldn't matter to vote next time.
TRUMP FOR A SECOND TERM!
:o)
@ ChrisR
Nov 19th, 2016 - 11:45 am - Link - Report abuse +4As it would have been only fair for it to apply to Clinton had results been reversed?
But you are wrong anyway, Obama won the popular vote both times, unlike Trump.
Whether the media was against Trump or not, it gave him all the free publicity he could have asked for, and the head of the FBI helped him out by breaking election laws to announce an investigation into Clinton that ultimately found nothing.
Also, you seem very trusting. It would be wiser to wait and see what Trump actually does with his first term before cheering for him to have a second one.
@ DemonTree
Nov 19th, 2016 - 12:18 pm - Link - Report abuse -4ABTC!
(Anybody Better Than Clinton) You must know the bat-shit mad Clintonites are already working for her election, 'she won't be too old being the favourite claim!
The way she is going she won't be above ground either.
@ ChrisR
Nov 19th, 2016 - 01:30 pm - Link - Report abuse +2So you wouldn't have supported the electoral college result if it meant Clinton winning?
Anglos will be Anglos, as our resident troll would say.
No, the Americans can do what they want but the Clintonites want it whatever the working people think.
Nov 19th, 2016 - 06:49 pm - Link - Report abuse -4What does that even mean? You think Clinton voters aren't working people? Ridiculous. Simple demographics will tell you that the vast majority of people who voted for her were ordinary working people.
Nov 19th, 2016 - 07:25 pm - Link - Report abuse +4And naturally people want their favoured candidate to win, what is remarkable about that?
@ChrisR
Nov 20th, 2016 - 02:19 am - Link - Report abuse +2“ABTC”? You do, hopefully, acknowledge HRC completely trounced Trump in the popular vote, do you not?
@Bisley
“There are estimates somewhere two million non-citizens voted”. Uhhh, no there are not. There was no evidence of material voter fraud, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about
The Clintons will be more than concerned about their future and staying out of jail, unless Obumma signs a 'keep out of jail pardon' for them.
Nov 20th, 2016 - 11:28 am - Link - Report abuse -3He has been such a disappointment I fully expect him to 'give her one'. :o)
As for Clintonites being working people: ha, ha, ha.
Did you see all the 'kids' protesting? I can just imagine how much Soros paid them, check the US newspaper 'comments' if you don't believe me.
The Clintons are finished and the big money backers will have to get e new patsy for the next election. Goldman-Sachs are talking down the Pound again I see, Carney must be salivating like a Pavlov pooch.
Since Clinton has already been cleared of doing anything illegal, why would they have to worry about staying out of jail? You think Trump is going to abuse the justice system to persecute his former opponent? I doubt he'll bother, he's got what he wanted already.
Nov 20th, 2016 - 12:53 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Who do you think 'Clintonites' are then? It may have escaped your notice, but most people have to work for a living, no matter whether they lean to the left or right.
And why would Soros have to pay people to protest? Trump has inspired quite as much hate and anger as Clinton ever did, and has insulted plenty of people to boot. I would gladly join a protest if I were American; why pay people for something when they will do it for free?
@ DT
Nov 20th, 2016 - 05:14 pm - Link - Report abuse -3Ever heard of the Clinton Foundation?
Soros paid “actors” a set rate in U$D to 'be ready' after the result to go in buses from 200 points around the country to 'protest' the result if Trump won. This was in TheHill, a democratic internet 'paper' based in Washington.
The simple answer is very simple! WTF would be ablew to arrange 200 protest points within 2 hours of the result without:
Finance
Organisation
Planning in advance
Again, in The Hill.
@ ChrisR
Nov 20th, 2016 - 06:27 pm - Link - Report abuse +3You'll have to give me the link. I searched on thehill.com but couldn't find anything like what you said.
But, of course some group organised the protests. All protests are organised by someone; people don't just spontaneously turn up at a certain place and time. And you were predicting Trump's win yourself before the election, so why are you surprised that someone else would plan for that result?
No doubt many of the protesters are members of advocacy groups like Moveon.org, who are able to organise demonstrations quickly, and given Soros's stated goals I would not be surprised if he donated money to them. That's not the same as paying protesters though, and as I said, why should he need to?
There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Americans who hate and fear Trump; you really think there aren't a few thousand among them who are willing to go and join a protest?
Don't kid yourself. Over 62m Americans voted for Clinton. Those people are not paid actors, they're not Washington elites, they're not benefit scroungers. Most of them are ordinary working people whose views are just as valid as those of the Trump supporters.
I saw Moore's interview on MJ. I agree with him. Trump will not be able to stop himself.
Nov 21st, 2016 - 01:24 am - Link - Report abuse -2@ DT
Nov 21st, 2016 - 11:47 am - Link - Report abuse -3I only ever used TheHill during the months running up to the election.
Sorry, if you cannot find the article I cannot help you.
DT
Nov 21st, 2016 - 09:43 pm - Link - Report abuse -2The excuse of “Sorry, if you cannot find the article I cannot help you.” Doesn't wash, as it is clearly that parties' burden to prove, “he who asserts must prove”
http://learn.lexiconic.net/fallacies/index.htm
In fact, what he has done is: “Fallacious shifting of the burden of proof occurs if someone makes a claim that needs justification, then demands that the opponent justify the opposite of the claim. The opponent has no such burden until evidence is presented for the claim.”
http://learn.lexiconic.net/fallacies/index.htm
@ ChrisR
Nov 21st, 2016 - 10:15 pm - Link - Report abuse +1I expect you read it somewhere else and just forgot. There are plenty of highly dubious looking websites touting that claim.
@ Terence Hill
I know, but it's probably a waste of time anyway.The internet is full of misinformation of all kinds, and many people prefer to believe in conspiracy theories rather than the more mundane truth.
Is it true that cliton foundation contributions are down 37%?
Nov 21st, 2016 - 10:46 pm - Link - Report abuse -3@ DT and TH
Nov 21st, 2016 - 11:04 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Fake news was a huge issue in the U.S. election, so much so that even Facebook at looking at how they can prevent it happening in the future. The top 20 fake news stories outperformed real news by the end of the campaign.
One of the main characteristics of the far-right supporters is their paranoia and unsupported conspiracy theories.
@ ElaineB
Nov 21st, 2016 - 11:58 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Yes, I saw those stories about Facebook too. It's a problem of the internet age, there's just so much information available it becomes impossible to keep track and know what is the truth.
It's true about far-right supporters, and also the far-left. They really have a surprising amount in common, I think it's called horseshoe theory.
lol.
Nov 22nd, 2016 - 05:04 am - Link - Report abuse -4The mainstream media consists almost exclusively of half truths devoid of context.
To assert otherwise requires a certain surrender of sanity.
All “news” is propaganda produced to further a particular position.
The principal dynamic behind a specific advocacy will at its root cause be a commercial interest.
I'm impressed with the feigned naivety and convenient Pollyannaish surprise expressed by the left.
You'd think that the Onion was only conceived yesterday.
lol.
Doesn't anyone remember the preposterous Viet Nam reporting by the majors?
The “press” serves to legitimize and justify the excesses of government - and for no other purpose than to perhaps entertain and distract from reality.
@DT
Nov 22nd, 2016 - 02:45 pm - Link - Report abuse +1People will alway search the internet for something that supports their prejudices whether it is fact or fiction. I guess they never heard of critical thinking.
If you want a balanced view of life in Argentina then you might like the bubble.com. They take a critical look at politics, are not afraid to challenge the government, sum up situations pretty well and absolutely have affection for the country. They cast a critical eye over events there and don't regard it as treasonable.
Ole bag lectures on bias.
Nov 22nd, 2016 - 05:25 pm - Link - Report abuse -4Roflmao.
@ ElaineB
Nov 23rd, 2016 - 12:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0He's right that no news source is or can be completely unbiased. But of course it's very far from true that all news is propaganda, or that fake news stories designed to appear plausible are equivalent to the Onion.
It should be obvious to anyone that some sources are far more reliable than others, but like you say, critical thinking is sadly uncommon.
I'll have to take a look at your site, I think I have read stuff on there a few times before, actually, while looking up things I saw on here.
@DT
Nov 23rd, 2016 - 08:54 am - Link - Report abuse -1I think it is prepared to cast a critical but affectionate eye over Argentina.
Understanding the source of news helps to keep perspective.
Monkey, you are truly and incurably ignorant as to how sausage is actually made and what goes into it.
Nov 23rd, 2016 - 10:48 am - Link - Report abuse -2To suggest that opinion shaping is benign and devoid of intent demonstrates your lack of knowledge and experience.
And I'm not speaking of just at the national or global editorial board level nor of government but at the real seats of power where the recipes are crafted and the ingredients combined.
To someone crippled with your lack of comprehension it's almost as it you are watching a marionette show and are so consumed with the melodrama that you willing suspend belief and you can no longer see the strings supporting and directing the actions of the puppets.
The clock is ticking.
Nov 23rd, 2016 - 03:42 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Trump's presidency will live till his supporters/ followers get disillusioned upon observing - repeatedly:
: that almost all of his promises are “undeliverable” and that
: amongst many, he is just one of the racketeers.
Sure.
Nov 23rd, 2016 - 05:18 pm - Link - Report abuse -1@ chronic
Nov 23rd, 2016 - 05:52 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Do try and respond to what I have actually said, rather than some figment of your imagination. No one has said that 'opinion shaping is benign and devoid of intent'.
Recognising that all news sources are biased to a greater or lesser extent (some much more than others); that most of them serve a commercial purpose; and all are owned or run by someone with an axe to grind is one thing. Deciding that this means they are all equally untrustworthy, and therefore you can believe whatever kind of idiocy most appeals to you, is what distinguishes a credulous fool.
Most reasonably intelligent people are able to take into account what the source of their news is and use their judgement when interpreting it.
But it appears that you are in fact a conspiracy theorist. Do you also believe that Obama was born in Kenya? That the CIA blew up the WTC? Who do you think masterminded the assassination of Kennedy? I'm sure we'd all love to know.
Monkey, you are totally distracted by the counterpoint of these ridiculous misdirections.
Nov 24th, 2016 - 12:13 am - Link - Report abuse -4The manipulation is often so subtle that were you indeed directed exactly to it that someone of your limited abilities would be unable to recognize it and estimate the extent of its effectiveness.
I suspect that The Donald's interest in being POTUS will last until he is gently informed that, no, Mr President, you cannot turn the White House into a casino.
Nov 24th, 2016 - 10:23 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Casino.
Nov 24th, 2016 - 11:58 pm - Link - Report abuse -3lol.
It's recently been a cash mill for the banks vis a vie qe.
Cliton/Kennedy used it as a whorehouse.
Casino doesn't sound that bad by comparison.
'Whorehouse' is a bit of a stretch I think. Bodily fluids rather than cash were exchanged if my recollections are accurate. But I take your point and suggest that, based on past behaviour, that storied tradition is about to get a new chapter. Chemical 'enhancements' may be necessary...
Nov 25th, 2016 - 03:19 am - Link - Report abuse +2...in which context a casino isn't a bad idea at all. You could call it 'White House Land'.Golden Arches out front, Melania available to sign pictures from her raunchier days, and think of the merchandising possibilities. Samples of The Donald's actual hair! Trump cufflinks! White House Land condoms! In 200 years you might be able to pay off the national debt!!
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!