Welcome to the first edition of what is intended to be a weekly series devoted to sampling European press coverage of the US elections.
First, some administrative details.
The excerpts provided are all in decent English. Where the original is not in English, the link takes you to a GoogleTranslate version of the relevant article, which is (somewhat euphemistically) in broken English, but it at least gives a rough idea. Those of you who have the requisite language skills can easily navigate from there to the original.
Between myself and some collaborators, we can cover accurate translation from French, Spanish, German and Russian. My language skills are sufficient to identify interesting articles in the other Latinate and Germanic languages, but I can’t translate them all that well, so if you can help out with any of those, please drop me a kosmail. Greek, Finno-Ugric and Slavic languages are a closed book to me, so if anyone can monitor those languages and send me relevant links and a couple of well-translated paragraphs via kosmail, that would be fantastic.
I would also like to point out that since we are now in general election mode, this is not the place to take potshots at those who will be playing for Team Blue against Team Red in November. While we may as individuals have some reservations about some of the Democratic Party’s candidates, the time to debate those is over. Here, we offer our support for every Democratic general election candidate up and down the ballot.
Now, on to the content.
It’s going to be rather monotonous this week, because the Europeans all agree that the general election is between Trump and Clinton and only the Russians aren’t effectively calling on Hillary to save the planet from destruction.
Typical of the reactions to Trump becoming the candidate is this from Dirk Hautkapp writing in the Hamburger Abendblatt (and a number of other papers from the same publisher):
Sure, all the relevant polling is against Trump. In many demographics - women, for instance, who Trump demeans in typical good old boy fashion - the billionaire is way down. Similarly Americans who don’t look at the rest of the world from a comfortable ivory tower.. Even in his own party, there is a small resistance movement which would prefer Hillary Clinton to put Trump to the sword rather than have him get elected.
But how significant are these snapshots in the face of a candidate who has so far repeatedly broken all the accepted norms? Donald Trump is to be regarded as a threat now. For Democracy in America. And for the whole world.
That urgency informs the calls for Bernie to drop out.
First off, an article from Germany’s Der Spiegel. There are going to be more extracts from this paper, because I’m super-impressed with the clarity of their analysis of the current situation.
Snappily entitled “Bernie, the pain in the ass” and headed with a picture of Bernie captioned “Donald Trump can be pleased. His best campaign surrogate is currently a Democrat”, it includes:
Clinton urgently needs the Sanders people, especially the many young activists on Facebook and other social media who could be of huge assistance, because this campaign is certain to be fought on the net as much as anywhere else.
But Sanders does not care. He seems to want to push the battle with Clinton to the limit. He has mobilized his followers to continue fighting against her. These Democrats prefer attacking the Democrat to attacking Trump, with the hashtag #DropOutHillary trending among Bernie-fans on Twitter.
…
Bernie Sanders is an impressive politician, but now he sucks. Once Hillary Clinton was defeated by Barack Obama in the 2008 primaries, she called on her followers on to support Obama whole-heartedly in the presidential election. That was a magnificent act. Sanders strategists are even now threatening Clinton with a floor fight at the party convention in Philadelphia in July. That would be no magnificent act, but unfair.
Will he really do it? Sanders has a choice: he can concede as a gracious and magnanimous loser - or he may go down in history as the man who helped to make Donald Trump President.
Britain’s Daily Telegraph is the house journal of the Conservative Establishment (which is not co-terminous with the Conservative leadership, who prefer the Murdoch-owned and paywalled Times). They too are scared to death of Trump. John McTernan writes:
There are those who support Sanders who see this as a unique chance - this, they argue, is an election the Democrats can't lose, so therefore they should be as radical as they can possibly be. This is a fantasy. All elections can be thrown away if you work hard enough at it. Disunity is the start.
The way to beat Trump is to focus all effort on that objective and consolidating the voting blocs that oppose him - millennials, African-Americans, single women (25 per cent of the electorate), Hispanics, university educated urban voters. And that work has to start now. With no delay.
There is a time in politics for standing and fighting and a time for withdrawing and consolidating. It's clear to most observers what this is - time for the Bern to Learn.
There is a great deal more in a similar vein from across western Europe: the only real division is over whether Sanders is being relatively harmlessly self-indulgent or an outright danger.
So let’s move on to some reactions to Trump being the Republican nominee, and what that means about the Republican Party.
First, here’s the Irish Times:
British Labour’s 1983 manifesto was dismissed by one of its own as “the longest suicide note in history”. That inglorious accolade should now pass by rights to the US Republican Party which has laboured so long and hard to produce a candidate for the presidency in Donald Trump who is not only terminally unelectable but may deal a death blow to both Republican control of Congress and the party’s long-term prospects. These coat-tails few candidates will be clinging to.
…
We may now see a rebranding exercise – and a new, softer, more friendly Trump. But this used car salesman will remain unmistakably a used car salesman – even in a new suit.
Back to Der Spiegel, for an article entitled “Trump and the Republicans: Mission accomplished — Party dead”:
To hope that those who have spent months campaigning furiously against Trump are going to be happy to jump on his bandwagon now is comparable to hoping one can square the circle. But it is rather typical of Trump’s insane campaign that he himself does not seem to understand, even in his hour of victory, how much his campaign has split the party.
There are, of course, some moves in his direction: ultimately, many want to be on the winning team. It is led by people like Rick Scott, Governor of Florida, who is now all over the TV. Trump, he says, is the best candidate that one can imagine. People like Scott have the advantage of having little future career left and have so far avoided Trump's insult barrages. In such cases, it’s a lot easier to take the side of the billionaire.
…
To what extent the party is to play any role at all here is completely unclear. Trump himself seems to be making only limited efforts to marshal people behind him. He knows that he is popular precisely because he rebelled against the establishment. The party is now a guest of Donald Trump, not the other way around - as he sees it. Accordingly, he wants to reshape the party convention as a one-man-show. "It's really important to bring a little show business into the party," he says. "Otherwise people will definitely fall asleep."
A lot of Republicans may be unhappy with the prospect of a Trump Presidency, but he has plenty of Russian fans. Well, maybe they’re not so much fans as just hoping for someone to beat Hillary Clinton.
Kommersant, a relatively liberal newspaper, has this:
“It might be possible to do business with Trump”
Trump will at least be an interesting president of the United States. He will, at the very least, rebuild U.S. foreign policy almost from scratch. And the United States has long been in need of such an upgrade; it may turn out badly, but it could be successful. But if it is Clinton, we know in advance all the negativity that we will get. With Trump, at least, there is a chance. And Americans think the same way. Upon his arrival in the White House Trump has a 50/50 chance to reset relations with Russia. If it is Clinton, then it’s 100% we can expect a continuation of the Cold War.
Moskovskii Komsomolets was founded as an organ of the Soviet Communist Party and is all in for Trump:
“For Russia, Clinton is Not an Option: Why Trump is Better” (author not identified)
It is almost 100% certain that in the presidential elections in the U.S. this fall, Democrat Hillary Clinton will defeat Republican Donald Trump. "MK" asked experts:
Sergei Mikheyev, political scientist, Director of the Center for Contemporary Politics:
Clinton is more ferocious, and we know that she hates us and has a consistent bias against Russia. In addition, if Clinton becomes the first woman president of the United States, she will try at all costs to prove that she is tougher than the men. Regarding Trump – he is extremely unpredictable, but with him at least, for Russia there are options. But with Clinton there are no options….
But that’s whistling in the dark, according to Oleg Denezhka, writing for the Federal News Agency:
“Clinton and Trump, or Radish and Horseradish”
The elections in the United States are approaching the finish line. In fact, the intrigue is already done.... But was there ever any hope? A bully would come along, Donald Trump, and the sun would shine, bringing warm relations between Russia and the United States! Ice would melt, and everyone would be happy. An international climate change policy! However, as for the weather - it is what it is. Hoping for Trump is like trying to bring rain with a tambourine and dancing....
Personally, I have never doubted that Hillary Clinton will win. Not for one second…. And when our politicians wonder who will win, and hold out some hope for Trump, it is just nonsense. It has nothing to do with forecasting. Americans always "choose" who should be elected, and when it does not come out right, then the "error" of the people is quickly corrected with the help of that which gave equal rights to Americans - "Mr. Colt."
The implication that someone’s going to shoot Trump if that’s what it takes is somewhat disturbing, but no-one thinks this is going to be a patty-cake election campaign.
Hautkapp again:
So it’s Trump v Clinton.. This means a businessman with no governmental experience is to compete with a politically savvy woman to become the boss in the Oval Office. A unique alignment of the stars. Made for the history books. But what is now threatened is pie-throwing which will make all previous election campaigns in the US look like children's birthdays. ... And so, over the next few weeks at least, attacks on the candidates’ personal integrity that will destroy America's standing in the world continue….
Although the instability and irresponsibility of almost all the lurid former reality TV presenter’s policy statements is well-documented, primary voters continued to flock to him. One can really only put the phenomenon down to millions of Americans apparently living in a parallel world where facts don’t count and neither do judgment or political propriety.
With a carpet dealer’s flair, Donald Trump has used populist and fairly ethnically offensive slogans (against Muslims and Latinos) and channeled the decades-old hatred of the crusty establishment two-party system in Washington. He offers himself as the radical who can clean the Augean stables. That the pitchfork could eventually end up in the rear end of millions of Americans apparently does not matter.
Hillary Clinton - especially as an icon of the establishment who is not well-liked and can often seem artificial and mechanical - needs to convince middle-class swing voters that Donald J. Trump would damage America and the world on every level.
The central question is whether the majority of voters will realize, that America has a duty to itself and the world not to hand the levers of power to a man revealed as having the emotional and intellectual maturity of a spoiled teenager. Trump wants to "make America great again". He is and remains a trivial little man.
Sweden’s Expressen represents the competition like a sports forecast.
Of the 10-round assessment, here are three:
ROUND 7) Popularity
The grim truth is that neither is especially popular. Both parties have nominated candidates with historically high unfavorables. But it is Donald Trump who is worst off. Trump has angered several important groups of voters with his attacks and suggestions. Up to two-thirds have a negative view of him in some polls. Approximately half say they are scared by the thought that Trump will be the country's president. For undecided voters who are not really attracted to someone, shed is probably the decision on election day.
Winner: Hillary Clinton
ROUND 8) the unexpected
When former British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan once was asked what he feared most, he replied: "Events, dear boy, events." It is what can trap Hillary Clinton too. The FBI is investigating , for example, her use of a private server when she was Minister of Foreign Affairs. A prosecution is unlikely, but should not be completely excluded. But Donald Trump is notoriously unpredictable and who knows what other skeletons there are in Trump's closet.
Winner: Draw
ROUND 9) Outsider factor
We've seen it on both the Republican and the Democratic side during the primaries: There is a thirst among Americans for new solutions, for anything but politics as usual. Donald Trump defeated his own party establishment, against all odds. Noone symbolizes the establishment more than Hillary Clinton. It makes her vulnerable in this very different election year.
Winner: Donald Trump
The final score is 6.5-3.5 in HRC’s favor, by the way.
Der Spiegel has a more nuanced take:
The duel between the two is likely to be one of the toughest and dirtiest political campaigns in the country's history.
1. Donald Trump is a dangerous opponent for Hillary Clinton
Trump was underestimated by many opponents in the Republican Party for a long time: that’s a mistake Hillary and her team will not be making . She knows Trump’s anti-globalization and migrant-hostile messages could well hit home with the Democratic base. Especially in the old, crisis-hit industrial states of the so-called Rust Belt like Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Ohio, he could siphon crucial votes from the Democratic camp in the election on November 8 - they are Clinton's Achilles' heel. Victory there is a must for her. That means Clinton must also reach those Democratic voters currently supporting Bernie Sanders.
2. migration and free trade could be top issues
Donald Trump uses only two topics to enthuse voters: he stirs up fear and resentment towards migrants and other countries with populist slogans. He also promises Americans he will make the country “great” again. For the loss of jobs in the US, he blames poorly negotiated trade agreements with Latin American countries or with China. Trump wants to renegotiate these agreements and even threatens China with a trade war. Until now, Clinton has done little to oppose this. .. Clinton could therefore try to warn of the dangers of Trump Policy: if the US were to levy punitive tariffs on foreign products, prices of a number of goods could increase dramatically for ordinary Americans.
3. "The Republican" no longer exists
After this pre-election campaign to speak of "Republicans" is actually nearly impossible. This year shows the fatal side of the primary system: Trump and his rivals have been so hostile towards each other that a common front against Hillary Clinton hardly seems possible. … On the other hand, the struggle for the party's future has already begun. Paul Ryan, the Speaker, is trying to pull the Republicans to the center with a kind of parallel campaign. And all know that if a fresh start is to be possible after a Trump defeat, it will be essential to get rid of those who allied themselves closely with Trump.
4. Clinton will represent Trump as a security risk
Many observers believe that Clinton's campaign has a head start in the head-to-head with Trump because all those Americans who want to stop the billionaire becoming president see her as a savior. But that will not be easy. If only to distract from her own weaknesses, she will have to attack Trump head on. Possible approaches: His attitude to women, his isolationist policy, his unpredictability. The Clinton people are probably also digging into the business history of the property mogul to find potential targets. Her problem: Trump has already warned his supporters that he will be inundated with negative attacks. If everyone is already expecting the attacks, it would diminish their effectiveness.
Since it’s taken as read in Europe that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee, there hasn’t been much else said about Hillary herself this week, but there’s an interesting piece I can finish with (largely) about her advertising from France’s Le Monde.
It’s entitled “Hillary Clinton — feminist in chief”, which gives a basic flavor, with this bit being my favorite:
If there is one area in which Hillary Clinton wants to show she has been consistent, it is in the defense of women's rights. And her opponents in this campaign have largely facilitated the task by saturating the debate with retrograde comments and reactionary positions, whether cutting off funding for Planned Parenthood or tighter restrictions on abortion.
The Hillary Clinton campaign videos on the subject are particularly trenchant. One of them, "Sick of it" is a short excerpt from a debate between candidates in October. Asked about the "Big Government" lambasted by Republicans, the candidate pilloried the "Republicans who are all too keen on ‘big government’ when it comes to telling women what they should do with their bodies. "
But it goes on to say:
Measuring the actual effect of "ads" on the political views of those who view them is not easy. Upshot (the data journalism of the New York Times ) recently collaborated with the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) to do a study. One of their first experiments precisely addresses two clips produced by the super PAC which supports Hillary Clinton.
In the first, "Real Donald Trump quotes about women", a succession of more and more inflammatory quotes by Donald Trump against women is read out. In the second, "Real Life", actresses and directors express their support for the candidate as “real life heroine”.
The results of this experiment are very mixed, as the anti-Trump clip produced a real negative effect against the Republican candidate, but the video touting Hillary Clinton playing the "woman card" has a marginal effect on viewer opinion. The researchers who participated in this study are careful not to draw any conclusion, except that "if there is a person for whom this is an issue in this campaign, it is mainly Mr. Trump and not Mrs. Clinton. "
… which is at least interesting. (And the link to the study goes to the NYT and is in English.)
And that’s as much as I’m prepared to put together this week. Hope you enjoyed it.