President Barack Obama won better than predicted. He won because he seemed like a reasonable and pragmatic president, as the management of the Sandy emergency demonstrated a few hours before the vote. He won because he convinced the undecided, as the victory in the swing states demonstrated immediately after the vote. The Americans do not like to interrupt the work of a president after only one term — this is an established rule. Good job, then, Mr. President.
Challenger Mitt Romney lost worse than predicted. He lost because he did not really stir up his own base or convince the many undecided. He did not choose the path of the moderate Republican candidate all the way, nor did he choose the path of the hard and straight lunge for the questions about the economy by presenting truly and with conviction a liberalistic alternative to Democratic interventionism. He chose Paul Ryan — who also had an alternative budget — as his vice president, but then he hid him. Either he should not have been chosen or he should not have been hidden.
It is not a total defeat for the Republican Party; rather, half of America (half of those who vote) votes Republican, and above all, the GOP retains the majority in the House and so holds power over a large part of the country’s fiscal decisions in the coming years.
However, the Republicans, in order to return to victory in a country ever more multicultural and Latino, have to seriously rethink many of their more rigid positions with regard to immigration.
Per il partito repubblicano non è una sconfitta azzerante, anzi: metà America (quella che vota) vota repubblicano e soprattutto il Gop mantiene la maggioranza alla Camera e così ha in mano buona parte delle scelte dell'agenda fiscale del paese nei prossimi anni.
I repubblicani, però, per tornare a vincere in un paese sempre più multietnico e latino devono rivedere seriamente molte delle loro posizioni più dure in materia di immigrazione.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link
.
Whether George HW Bush or Donald J Trump, Americanimperialism is unabated—the pathetic excuses and the violentshock-and-awe tactics don’t matter; the results do.
The message is unmistakable: there are no absolute guarantees and state sovereignty is conditional when it clashes with the interests of powerful states.
If this electoral gridlock [in domestic policy] does occur, it may well result in Trump — like several other reelected presidents of recent decades — increasingly turning to foreign policy.
What happened to this performing arts center is paradigmatic of how Trump’s second presidency ... [is] another front in a war ... to impose an autocratic regime led by a 21st century feudal lord outside of international law.