Posts Tagged ‘Presidentkandidater’

VAL 2016 | När en populistisk presidentkandidat på högerkanten får beröm i New York kan man vara säker på att (eller hon) gör något rätt.

New York - Donald Trump

Inte för att artikeln av liberalen Frank Rich är okritisk. Tvärt om. Men i det stora hela får Trump beröm för att han vågar ifrågasätta den politiska kulturen i allmänhet och republikanernas i synnerhet.

En innovation som gjort Trumpskampanj så framgångsrik är att Trump valt att hålla kampanjstrategerna på armslängds avstånd. Trump brukar säga att han får all information som han behöver från dagens nyheter. Han behöver inga rådgivare.

Och inte har han behövt att köpa någon tv-reklam heller. Han får tillräckligt med gratisreklam ändå.

Om Trumps kampanjstab är smarta ser man till att sprida innehållet till både höger och vänster. Om inte annat för att artikeln är än mer kritisk mot de övriga republikanska presidentkandidaterna (och mot Hillary Clinton).

In the short time since Trump declared his candidacy, he has performed a public service by exposing, however crudely and at times inadvertently, the posturings of both the Republicans and the Democrats and the foolishness and obsolescence of much of the political culture they share. He is, as many say, making a mockery of the entire political process with his bull-in-a-china-shop antics. But the mockery in this case may be overdue, highly warranted, and ultimately a spur to reform rather than the crime against civic order that has scandalized those who see him, in the words of the former George W. Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson, as “dangerous to democracy.”

Trump may be injecting American democracy with steroids. No one, after all, is arguing that the debates among the GOP presidential contenders would be drawing remotely their Game of Thrones-scale audiences if the marquee stars were Jeb Bush and Scott Walker.


What’s exhilarating, even joyous, about Trump has nothing to do with his alternately rancid and nonsensical positions on policy. It’s that he’s exposing the phoniness of our politicians and the corruption of our political process by defying the protocols of the whole game. He skips small-scale meet-and-greets in primary-state living rooms and diners. He turned down an invitation to appear at the influential freshman senator Joni Ernst’s hog roast in Iowa. He routinely denigrates sacred GOP cows like Karl Rove and the Club for Growth. He has blown off the most powerful newspapers in the crucial early states of Iowa (the Des Moines Register) and New Hampshire (the Union-Leader) and paid no political price for it. Yet he is overall far more accessible to the press than most candidates — most conspicuously Clinton — which in turn saves him from having to buy television ad time.


He also makes a sport of humiliating high-end campaign gurus. When Sam Clovis, a powerful Evangelical conservative activist in Iowa, jumped from the cratering Perry to Trump in August, it seemed weird. Despite saying things like “I’m strongly into the Bible,” Trump barely pretends to practice any religion. The Des Moines Register soon published excerpts from emails written just five weeks earlier (supplied by Perry allies) in which Clovis had questioned Trump’s “moral center” and lack of “foundation in Christ” and praised Perry for calling Trump “a cancer on conservatism.” But, like Guy Grand in The Magic Christian, Trump figured correctly that money spoke louder than Christ to Clovis. He was no less shrewd in bringing the focus-group entrepreneur Frank Luntz to heel. After Luntz convened a negative post-debate panel on Fox News that, in Luntz’s view, signaled “the destruction” of Trump’s campaign, Trump showered him with ridicule. Luntz soon did a Priebus-style about-face and convened a new panel that amounted to a Trump lovefest. One participant praised Trump for not mouthing “that crap” that’s been “pushed to us for the past 40 years.” It’s unclear if Luntz was aware of the irony of his having been a major (and highly compensated) pusher of “that crap,” starting with his role in contriving the poll-shaped pablum of Newt Gingrich’s bogus “Contract With America.”

A perfect paradigm of how lame old-school, top-heavy campaigns can be was crystallized by a single story on the front page of the Times the day after Labor Day. Its headline said it all: “Clinton Aides Set New Focus for Campaign — A More Personal Tone of Humor and Heart.” By announcing this “new focus” to the Times, which included “new efforts to bring spontaneity” to a candidacy that “sometimes seems wooden,” these strategists were at once boasting of their own (supposed) political smarts and denigrating their candidate, who implicitly was presented as incapable of being human without their direction and scripts. Hilariously enough, the article straight-facedly cited as expert opinion the former Romney strategist Eric Fehrnstrom — whose stewardship of the most wooden candidate in modern memory has apparently vanished into a memory hole — to hammer home the moral that “what matters is you appear genuine.”

We also learned from this piece that Clinton would soon offer “a more contrite tone” when discussing her email woes, because a focus group “revealed that voters wanted to hear directly from Mrs. Clinton” about it. The aides, who gave the Times “extensive interviews,” clearly thought that this story was a plus for their candidate, and maybe the candidate did, too, since she didn’t fire them on the spot. They all seemed unaware of the downside of portraying Clinton as someone who delegated her “heart” to political operatives and her calibration of contrition to a focus group. By offering a stark contrast to such artifice, the spontaneous, unscripted Trump is challenging the validity and value of the high-priced campaign strategists, consultants, and pollsters who dominate our politics, shape journalistic coverage, and persuade even substantial candidates to outsource their souls to focus groups and image doctors. That brand of politics has had a winning run ever since the young television producer Roger Ailes used his media wiles to create a “new Nixon” in 1968. But in the wake of Trump’s “unprofessional” candidacy, many of the late-20th-century accoutrements of presidential campaigns, often tone-deaf and counter­productive in a new era where social media breeds insurgencies like Obama’s, Trump’s and Sanders’s, could be swept away — particularly if Clinton’s campaign collapses.

Tidskriftsomslag: New York, 21 september – 4 oktober 2015.

Read Full Post »

BOK David Axelrod, tidigare politisk rådgivare, har intervjuats av NPR:s Fresh Air med anledning av hans bok Believer: My Forty Years in Politcs.

Believer-My forty Years in Politics by David Axelrod

Förutom frågor om Axelrods tid som Barack Obamas kommunikationsstrateg och rådgivare ställde reportern Dave Davies naturligtvis också en obligatorisk fråga om vem han tror blir demokraternas respektive republikanernas presidentkandidat.

Davies: All right. I’ll give you a chance to predict who will be the party nominees, who will win the election.

Axelrod: I appreciate that opportunity. Look, I think anyone would suggest that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee of the Democratic Party. I think she’s the strongest open-seat contender for a party nomination that I’ve see it in my lifetime. And, you know, I look at these polls, and Democrats are – despite all the stuff you hear, Democrats are very solidly behind her.

On the Republican side, I think that’s a very open question. Jeb Bush is a talented guy, and I think if he got through the process and didn’t compromise on his positions on things like immigration reform and education reform, he would be a formidable candidate for president. But the history of the Republican party for the last several cycles is that they’ve nominated center-right Republicans, but they’ve forced them to make Faustian bargains with the right wing in order to be the nominee, thus rendering them unelectable. And the question is whether Bush can get through the primary process with his positions and to the general election. If he doesn’t, Scott Walker’s the flavor of the month now – the governor of Wisconsin.

På NPR:s hemsida kan man antingen lyssna på radiointervjun eller läsa hela avskriften från intervjun.

Bild: David Axelrod, Believer: My Forty Years in Politcs, Penguin Press (2015)

Read Full Post »

Pew Research Center sammanfattar presidentvalet i fem punkter:

1. Journalisterna spelade en mindre betydelsefull roll 2012 för hur väljarna uppfattade Barack Obama och Mitt Romney.

2. Båda presidentkandidaterna var framgångsrika när det gällde att forma en negativ bild av motståndaren.

3. Det var mindre bevakning av opinionsundersökningar, frågor om strategi och vem som ser ut att vinna valet än det var inför valet 2008. Men det var också mindre bevakning av sakfrågorna 2012 jämfört med 2008.

4. Team Obama var överlägsna när det gällde att använda sociala medier i valrörelsen. Men dialogen om kandidaterna på de sociala medierna var till övervägande delen också negativ.

5. Trots att det spenderades mer pengar än någonsin i valrörelsen lockade detta inte en större publik till de politiska nyheterna.

Information: ”Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan, nonadvocacy fact tank that conducts public opinion polling, demographic studies, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. It does not take positions on policy issues.”

Read Full Post »

MITT ROMNEY gjorde det starkaste intrycket under gårdagens debatt mellan de republikanska presidentkandaterna.

Han var lugn och statsmannamässig även när han kritiserades. Han gav sig aldrig in i någon pajkastning med övriga kandidater.

Hans problem var möjligtvis att han saknade glöd. Kommer tittarna att minnas hans insats?

Den utrikespolitiskt intressantaste debatten var mellan Rick Santorum och Ron Paul om Iran och vad USA skall göra för att hindra att landet skaffar kärnvapen.

Det var också Rick Santorum som var den stora överraskningen på det utrikespolitiska området. Men hans problem var att han kom igång sent.

När det gällde frågor kring skuldtaket, ekonomin och jobbskapande åtgärder var kandidaternas svar väldigt lika varandra. Väljarna kommer inte utifrån deras svar på dessa frågor kunna avgöra vem som passar bäst i Vita huset.

När det gäller spännande ordväxlingar så var den giftigaste mellan Michele Bachmann och Tim Pawlenty angående vem som har bäst erfarenheter av ledarskap.

En debatt som aldrig uppmärksammas i den svenska rapporteringen från USA är den ideologiska frågan om var ansvaret för den federala staten upphör och var delstaternas tar vid.

Och med tanke på att kandidaterna var så lika varandra när det gällde ekonomin kan svaren här kanske avgöra hur tittarna ställer sig till kandidaterna generellt.

Men det mest troliga är dock att väljarna avvaktar innan man bestämmer sig.

Det är ännu långt kvar till och kandidaterna har mycket kampanjande kvar innan väljarna börjar intressera sig för valet 2012.

Dessutom kommer utgallringen av kandidaterna att förändra det republikanska startfältet. Fler kandidater kommer att ge sig in i leken och andra kommer att falla ifrån.

Övrigt: Deltagare var Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Tim Pawlenty, Jon Huntsman och Newt Gingrich.

Se hela debatten från Fox NewsYouTube. Se några intressanta glimtar på The Daily Beast och The Huffington Post.

Read Full Post »

MICHELE BACHMANN är Tea Party rörelsens främste företrädare bland de republikanska presidentkandidaterna.

Lois Romano på Newsweek skriver:

She has just finished electrifying a crowd in Ft. Dodge, Iowa, with a folksy assault on a bloated federal government that she and her Tea Party compatriots routinely vow to dismantle. “Obamacare” will be repealed in a Bachmann administration […]

The willingness of its most committed members to risk national default for the sake of achieving its political goals has no doubt contributed to the dramatic rise in the number of Americans who view the movement unfavorably. In a New York Times/CBS News poll published on Aug. 5, 40 percent of respondents described their opinion of the Tea Party as “not favorable”—up from 18 percent in April 2010.


Asked if her positions are extreme, Bachmann replies that the Tea Party’s ideals are simply the most rational solutions to a broken and profligate government, and that the only option is to stand tough. “I do not twist in the wind,” she says proudly.


If there’s one threat on the horizon, it’s Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s expected entrance into the race. He, too, offers evangelical fervor coupled with a stand against big government. But he has something she lacks: an executive record as the longest-serving governor in a state that is thriving in hard times. It doesn’t seem to faze her.

Övrigt: Ovanstående tidskriftsomslag (15 augusti 2011) är den amerikanska utgåvan av tidskriften. Fotografen är Chris Buck. Fler bilder med anledning av bl.a. fotograferingen av omslaget finns på hemsidan för Newsweek/The Daily Beast.

Read Full Post »

INGEN ÄR RIKTIGT nöjd med budgetöverenskommelsen i USA. Och nu börjar striden om hur man skall kunna utnyttja detta politiskt i valkampanjen.

Tydligt är att ytterflankerna i amerikansk politik är de mest upprörda – liberalerna inom demokratiska partiet och Tea Party aktivisterna bland republikanerna.

Även president Barack Obama uttryckte reservationer:

Now, is this the deal I would have preferred? No. I believe that we could have made the tough choices required […] But this compromise does make a serious down payment on the deficit reduction we need, and gives each party a strong incentive to get a balanced plan done before the end of the year.

Most importantly, it will allow us to avoid default and end the crisis that Washington imposed on the rest of America. It ensures also that we will not face this same kind of crisis again in six months, or eight months, or 12 months. And it will begin to lift the cloud of debt and the cloud of uncertainty that hangs over our economy.

Två av de republikanska presidentkandidater som båda vill framstå som ”the adult in the room” – Mitt Romney och Jon Huntsman – har markerat motsatta ståndpunkter till uppgörelsen.

Romney, som har hållit en låg profil under hela förhandlingsrundan, har nu gått ut och markerat hårt mot både Obama och uppgörelsen.

As president, my plan would have produced a budget that was cut, capped and balanced – not one that opens the door to higher taxes and puts defense cuts on the table. President Obama’s leadership failure has pushed the economy to the brink at the eleventh hour and 59th minute. While I appreciate the extraordinarily difficult situation President Obama’s lack of leadership has placed Republican Members of Congress in, I personally cannot support this deal.

Jon Huntsman var betydligt positivare i tonen:

While this framework is not my preferred outcome, it is a positive step toward cutting our nation’s crippling debt.

Han passade även på att ge en känga åt Romney.

While some of my opponents ducked the debate entirely, others would have allowed the nation to slide into default and President Obama refused to offer any plan, I have been proud to stand with congressional Republicans working for these needed and historic cuts. A debt crisis like this is a time for leadership, not a time for waiting to see which way the political winds blow.

Läs mer: Fler kommentarer från de republikanska kandidaterna. President Obamas hela kommentar på YouTube.

Read Full Post »