It is objectively unlikely that so accomplished a president and so incomparably more forceful and capable a candidate will be turned out of office.
By Conrad Black, AM GREATNESS
For anyone with any perspective on American elections, it is clear that the polls do not entitle us to predict with any confidence the outcome of the current campaign. Many of the polls included in the average of polls on aggregator sites are really just the products of Democratic Party front organizations, such as Vox, Politico, Quinnipiac, Monmouth, and others whose chief function is to facilitate the Democratic media locker room cry that they’ve already won and the counting of the votes is practically superfluous. Open the beer kegs! The Trump tyranny is already over.
Trafalgar, the only poll that showed Trump winning four years ago, shows him winning again this year. And the next most accurate of polls that covered the 2016 campaign and are doing so again is Rasmussen, which has fluctuated and briefly joined the ranks of the Biden victory celebration squad two weeks ago but now has Trump’s approval rating back at 48 percent.
All polls that put the question receive the answer that people think the majority of their neighbors will vote for Trump, and all polls of Trump voters indicate that they decline to discuss politics candidly with strangers.
There are constant arcane debates between pollsters about the accuracy of the echelon of people whom they poll. Most polls are of “registered voters” and this cohort, generally, is unlikely to bear much resemblance to the functioning electorate. And many polls consist of multiple questions posed on the telephone at inconvenient hours and are responded to only by underactive or unusually politically zealous people.
There is ample evidence that Donald Trump, in both his elections, has brought out large numbers of people who have not been in the habit of voting since Reagan, and that he is pulling large numbers of working-class Democrats into his camp.
Of course, there are apparent slippages in all directions in traditional voting blocs. Suburban women who were comfortable with GOP Democratic look-alikes such as the Bushes, John McCain, and Mitt Romney have been tempted by recent Democrats. A good many wealthy voters—not just the Hollywood and Silicon Valley communities who fancy themselves the cutting edge of American thought and civilization—are reliable and often financially generous Democrats. Their money undoubtedly helps their party. The implicit suggestion that because they are competent actors or computer geeks, they are necessarily astute political scientists, is demonstrable nonsense and such pretensions are nauseating to large numbers of voters.
A greater source of funds for the Democrats is a large delegation of Wall Street denizens whose antipathy to Trump is somewhat counterintuitive. Some are offended by his garish behavior; some are critics going back to the days of Trump’s involvement in the junk-bond-financed casino business; some resent his frequent almost Sanders-like references to the tax breaks the Wall Street high flyers enjoy (which Trump did not attempt to repeal in his tax reform of 2018); some are heavily invested in China and are concerned about his policy toward that country. And some, in the highest traditions of the avarice of the ultra-wealthy, are simply envious of Trump’s money, his lifestyle of almost oriental opulence (replete with a plethora of startlingly attractive women), and above all of his astonishing achievement in translating wide but often negative celebrity into his election as the 43rd direct successor of General George Washington at the headship of the United States of America.
The whereabouts of the American voter just two weeks from the election is made more of a mystery by the overwhelming and unprecedented partisanship of the national political media. All independent surveys and the experience of every media reader, viewer, and listener confirms that over 90 percent of the national political media are not only opposed to Trump but go to the dangerously unprofessional lengths of suppressing negative information about his opponent, former Vice President Joe Biden.
Moreover, they deliberately propagate false or insignificant allegations about the president that can have no other object but to weaken him in the eyes of the voters at the approach of election day. Almost the entire media joined the great majority of the political establishment—Trump-hating Democrats and NeverTrump Republicans together—in saturating the news and attempting to brainwash the country into believing that Trump had colluded criminally and perhaps treasonably with the Russian government in producing the astounding results of the 2016 election.
Almost the same cast of influencers relentlessly attached unjustified credence to the spurious impeachment of the president over an unexceptionable telephone call that he made to the president of Ukraine. It will not be the least irony of the Trump era that if the facts can ever be unearthed, i.e. if special counsel John Durham can use his broad subpoena and investigative powers to produce enough facts to clarify what happened in the murky but almost certainly illegal confection of the Trump-Russia investigation before he is shot down by a succeeding administration, it will be clear that it was Trump’s opponents who were in league with disreputable Russian elements, and it is also now fairly clear that if anyone had criminal or impeachable relations with Ukraine it was the Biden family and not Trump.
If Trump were not mortally threatening almost the entire bipartisan post-Reagan political establishment—not only with the loss of position but in many cases with legitimate criminal prosecution—he would be facing a much less solid wall of determination to drive him from office. If he were not so gratuitously obnoxious at times, many more people would rally to the natural desire to support the country’s leader.
The undoubted disaster of his belligerent interruptions of Biden in their debate, when the moderator, Chris Wallace, though clearly no chum of the president, was in the act of forcing answers from Biden that he would have had a great difficulty giving, drove many to to decide to vote for the alternative no matter how implausible he is. Trump then reinforced that feeling in them by saying that he was debating both Biden and Wallace and that he was absolutely right to interrupt the interchanges between the other two. It is this compulsive bellicosity with more than a hint of self-adulation, as well as the psychotic fear he has generated in the bipartisan political class, that threatens the president’s reelection.
In the economy, immigration, the environment, nuclear nonproliferation, taxes, deregulation, recognition of the Chinese challenge, progress in the Middle East, shaping up the Western alliance, strengthening the judiciary and the national defense, and managing the COVID crisis, this president has had one of the most outstanding first presidential terms in the country’s history. It is his populist assault on the ruling class in Washington and the vagaries of his personality that will deny him the victory on the scale of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Richard M. Nixon seeking their second terms. Both men won 60 percent of the vote, and 46 of 48 states in 1936 and 49 of 50 in 1972, and except for the factors named Trump would do the same.
He will not, and much will ride on the last debate on Thursday and on public response to the media’s efforts to suppress the revelations of the Bidens’ skulduggery with Ukraine, Russia, and China. But it is objectively unlikely that so accomplished a president and so incomparably more forceful and capable a candidate will be turned out of office. The whole world has not followed an American election with such ardor since FDR ran for a third term in 1940 promising “All aid short of war” for the democracies against Hitler and Mussolini. At the least, Donald Trump, impresario and showman par excellence, is conducting the greatest spectacle in American history.
Conrad Black has been one of Canada’s most prominent financiers for 40 years, and was one of the leading newspaper publishers in the world as owner of the British telegraph newspapers, the Fairfax newspapers in Australia, the Jerusalem Post, Chicago Sun-Times and scores of smaller newspapers in the U.S., and most of the daily newspapers in Canada. He is the author of authoritative biographies of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Richard Nixon, one-volume histories of the United States and Canada, and most recently of Donald J. Trump: A President Like No Other. He is a member of the British House of Lords as Lord Black of Crossharbour.
@ Sebastien Zorn:
I remember Victor Moore in many old films as a comedian mainly. And Edward Arnold of course. I think you must be an aficionado -like myself- of old films full of glitter to boost up the sadness of the Depression years.
I’d forgotten all about Melba toast. Never having eaten in a restaurant except on one occasion many years ago, whilst on a visit to Ireland, Although I’ve seen it mentioned in novels, but don’t know what it looks like nor why it has that name. It it toast with peach slices on them…? Ugh. !
So Nellie is actually one up on poor old Boney, as Betsy Balcombe used to call him..
I actually knew that you were well aware of King Oliver, we had a fairly lengthy series of conversations about him and the genre a few years ago. But I just put it into for effect, so that I could use the “fist coming through the screen”as a match ending point.
@ Edgar G.:
I know Melba Toast at least from this pandemic relevant bit which was also the basis for North by Northwest and one of Ephraim Kishon? stories later.
PAY THE TWO DOLLARS
Victor Moore, Edward Arnold
Ziegfeld Follies (1945)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKT8QoboD1g
@ Edgar G.:
Well, actually I’ve heard of both of them but I kinda forget her for a moment. King Oliver I know well.
@ Sebastien Zorn:
You NEVER heard of Nellie Melba…. You’re kidding me. What about Jennie Lind… Even I’ve heard of e.g. William Primrose. Don’t dare tell me you’ve also never heard of King Oliver. If you do my hand will come right through your screen and grab you by the throat…
@ Sebastien Zorn:
Sebastien Zorn Said:
Motivation for what. He was interested in everything, besides being a genius at almost everything that mattered in those times, and in fact, often quite a bit ahead of his time.
When at home he was just like any average family man, at least so I’ve read in several biographies, each one a bit different from the other.
The only thing he seemed less than good at, was in naval matters.
@ Edgar G.:
So, what’s your theory about Napoleon’s motivation?
@ Edgar G.:
Yes, though, I had never heard of either Nellie or the peach melba before you mentioned them, of if I did, I forgot. Never seen it on the menu, anywhere.
@ Sebastien Zorn:
If you know about it in the 21st cent. well it shows lasting power, Like the Peach Melba after Nellie Melba (whose real name was Helen Mitchell). but came from Melbourne.
@ Sebastien Zorn:
That sounds fishy to me. Everybody when doing manual labour would take off a jacket for comfort and ease of working, if he had one. It wouldn’t be “in public” it would be in his field or workshop. Anthe other thing, it would be almost impossible to roll up your sleeves if wearing a jacket, they are too tightly fitting and the cloth is too heavy.
Just try it.
So you are right, when you ask why not take off the jacket, but the reason seems dead wrong to me.
Reminds me of what Jackie Mason said…He was talking about physique, and it went like this….”you know what they say to me when I take off my jacket…? …”What”…
“Put on your jacket”… It was the way he said it that was so funny. He slurred the “put”‘ and “on”…
By the way, except for his Guard, and I’m not sure about that, Napoleon would care nothing about how his soldiers looked. They often needed to live off the country, carrying turkeys and fowls hanging on theri belts, and pockets stuffed with bread , potatoes , slabs of meant etc. AANNDD…. They slept under trees, on the ground, etc IN THEIR UNIFORMS, in storms , rain and every weather condition.
@ Edgar G.:
Wow. I googled it and that’s true. I guess he was kinda’ like President Trump, in that regard. He was the, you know, can-do emperor? But,. they just named a dessert after him. Seems unfair somehow.
@ Edgar G.:
Something I read when I was a kid. Just googled it, and this is the first thing that came up: “Tracing precisely the historical origin of the sleeves buttons is very difficult.
There are various theories that try to answer this curiosity but the most popular are generally two: military and worldly.
Military theory
The theory that traces the introduction of buttons on the sleeves of the jacket back to the military environment is attributed in turn, according to different sources, to some great historical figures.
The most often credited are Queen Elizabeth I, Frederick II of Prussia, Napoleon and Admiral Nelson, who allegedly required their troops to wear jackets and uniforms with buttons on the sleeves.
In all cases the motivation behind the introduction of additional buttons would have been to prevent troops from using the sleeves to “clean themselves”, for example by wiping their nose, mouth, tears or wounds. , a habit that tended to spoil the appearance of uniforms and make troops not very presentable.
The presence of buttons would have made this practice more annoying, in some cases even painful (especially in the case of brass buttons), discouraging soldiers from using sleeves as a handkerchief and helping to enforce the decorum required of an official uniform.
Worldly theory
According to this theory, the buttons on the sleeve were used back in the days when garments were always open on the sleeves, making the button and the buttonhole a necessary means of opening and closing.
There was a time when all men wore jackets and it was something that they wore whatever they were doing. While reading a book, climbing a mountain or simply working on their own land: the jacket has been a true essential men’s wardrobe item for nearly two hundred years.
Now, imagine a gentleman in the late XIXth century while working in his garden wearing his blazer. A bit uncomfortable look, isn’t it?
Once again tailoring adapted fashion to everyday life. Thanks to the buttons (here we are!) every gentleman could just roll up the sleeves without removing the jacket and preventing it from getting dirty.
“Right, this makes sense, but why they couldn’t just take them off?”. In this case it’s all about etiquette. At that time, in fact, taking one’s jacket off in public was akin to stripping down to your underwear.” https://www.lanieri.com/blog/en/what-are-the-buttons-on-the-jacket-sleeve-for/#:~:text=According%20to%20this%20theory%2C%20the,wore%20whatever%20they%20were%20doing.
@ Sebastien Zorn:
He didn’t invent the “sleeve with buttons” the sleeve was already invented. It was just the addition of buttons.
I wouldn’t be surprised that you might even see something like, if you keyed in” jackets of the Elizabethan”, or Stuart eras clothing, on the internet. I’m too lazy to bother, just a thought.
P.S. I’ve seen -in an English museum behind glass- genuine Tudor era jackets decorated on the cuffs with pearl buttons.
@ Sebastien Zorn:
NOOO they’re not…whatever gave you that idea. They are for holding the arm properly attached to the body. Some say they’re so that starched white cuffs with noticeable cuff-links can be nicely adjusted for the best “spectator” viewing. Especially in liberal “Jewish” circles, where an accompanying outthrust of the stomach is also made. It’s actually meant to be the chest, but with those “fat-cats” their chests have moved south of the border…… (down Mexico way)..
Talking about a “feef” with Napoleon, did you know he was the push, the impetus behind the invention of canned beef, so that his armies on campaign could be supplied with fresh, not rancid, beef.
@ Edgar G.:
That’s my one beef with Napoleon who invented the sleeve with buttons so his soldiers couldn’t wipe their noses. Isn’t that what sleeves are for?
@ Sebastien Zorn:
And at least…he doesn’t wipe his nose with his sleeve…
@ Reader:
Ironically, these are exactly the kind of criticisms that Andrew Jackson faced from his contemporaries. From George Washington until Andrew Jackson, the view was that a presidential candidate should be reserved and dragged from seclusion by the acclaim of the people. Jackson was the first to go on the stump as a populist. Jackson was also a successful president. Not everybody is a snob, you know.
Presidency is not only about showmanship.
Or, at least, it shouldn’t be
Would it help if presidential candidates paid for free gladiatorial games like those candidates who competed for a seat in the Senate in Ancient Rome?
A lot more fun than those national conventions and drek-tossing debates, at least for those voters who much prefer bread and circuses to having to think about the actual issues (or to having to think at all).
And those who ran for the Senate had to finance the games with their own cash.
The country is starting to resemble that late Empire anyway (the one which fell for some unknown reasons – not enough showmanship, maybe?)