voting for the least worst
I fear that might have had a place in getting Trump elected. Given neither he nor his family had served in government before, I think some Americans fed up with the corruption of government/governance, lobbying and lobbyists and Wall Street in general in America, voted for him as that "least worst".
As one of my relations said, it was exactly that kind of choice - they ticked a box - a choice they were not proud of, but nonetheless they ticked out of a sense of duty. I suspect that was a duty to breakdown the establishment. As another relative said to me - "the Republicans hate him; the press hate him; and George Soros hates him... had he been anyone else he'd have been the candidate of my dreams".
thought it might have been Online Working Groups, but quickly discounted Optical Waveguides or Olympic Winter Games. :)
Adam Curtis made a similar point in an interview recently. He compared the EU referendum and Trump to giant “f*ck off” buttons presented to disgruntled voters. The thing the buttons ostensibly were for wouldn’t really do people any good, but the very act of pressing them would send that message, and that’s what was attractive.
As I said (before the election), it looked uncannily like Americans were taking Mae West’s quip about “when choosing between two evils, I pick the one I haven’t tried before” as a guide.
That definitely would have motivated a lot of people although I don't think it is good enough for why most people voted for say brexit (sovereignty, immigration, f*ck off, media, local issues (housing!), racism (anti Muslim especially for some reason).
One thing I've heard a lot recently from campaigners is how UKIP, made an effort to go around local pubs to get people to register to vote. Anecdotally it seems they made a real effort in parts of England to enrol long term non voters who were sufficiently angry as to make an effort.
On the other hand, I wholly disagree with Simon's contention (and that of Phil Quin, who I'm much more accustomed to disagreeing with) that it's unfortunate that Little himself is not Labour's candidate in Mount Albert.
That would have been a very awkward path to take. An "I don't care where so long as I'm mayor" decision. Labour flying in a leader with no connection with Auckland in the hope he might get a seat to call his own.
And the perception of Ardern being shoved aside by the party would have been damaging. Ardern has a real claim on being considered the local candidate here in Mt Albert, not least because successive boundary changes mean her natural support base actually now lies in Mount Albert. You could say that she didn't leave Auckland Central, Auckland Central left her.
Auckland Central seems to have yuppyfied in recent years. I'd also agree that Andrew Little running in Mt Albert would have looked more than a tad contrived, given he's very much a Welly guy.
Those that didn't vote Democrat did it because a) they thought Clinton had it in the bag, or b) they couldn't bring themselves to vote for Clinton. Clinton presented no vision to inspire them to vote FOR her, counting on people to vote against a proven liar and fraud. Look how well that turned out.
Especially in the swing states of PA, WI, OH & MI, where it seems a large number of Rust Belt Democrats stayed home.
I’d be delighted to see Deborah Russell standing for Labour in New Lynn.
They made the right decision considering the week that preceded it, Deborah has been a strident spokesperson against New Zealand’s woeful foreign trusts set up, her expertise in this area is of immense value.