Feeds:
Inlägg
Kommentarer

Posts Tagged ‘Strategi’

VAL 2016 | Det kommer att bli svårare för David Cameron att få ett Ja i EU-folkomröstningen sedan Boris Johnson valt att stödja ett utträde.

The Spectator 27 February 2016

Många ifrågasätter om det var en så klok strategi från Cameron att så intensivt attackera den populära Londonborgmästaren efter hans besked om att han tänker stödja ”out”-kampanjen.

En av premiärministerns anhängare citerar t.ex. Michael Corleone: ”Never hate your enemies. It affects your judgment.”

James Forsyth, redaktör The Spectator, har beskrivit Camerons reaktion när det stod klart för honom att Johnson inte kommer att stödja premiärministerns kampanj för att Storbritannien skall stanna kvar i EU.

Many Tories had doubts about David Cameron’s EU renegotiation, but only Boris Johnson was promised a piece of legislation to assuage his particular concerns. It was quite a compliment. The so-called Sovereignty Bill was, in effect, the Get Boris Onside Act. It was designed to deal with the Mayor of London’s fears about the relationship between the British parliament and courts and the EU. It was also mooted that Boris would be offered a top cabinet job — perhaps Foreign Secretary. The Prime Minister was convinced that this combined offer would be enough to secure Boris for the ‘in’ campaign.

But a few days before the Brussels summit, when Oliver Letwin telephoned Boris to run through the Sovereignty Bill, he sensed trouble. As the conversation went on, Boris’s concerns seemed to multiply. Even if Cameron secured his deal, he said, EU law would still retain supremacy over UK law. And there was still no answer to the question, posed by Boris’s wife Marina Wheeler QC in The Spectator, about the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Then Johnson told Letwin he was going to put the call on speakerphone while he consulted his dinner guest Michael Gove. The Lord Chancellor was already known to be tending towards supporting ‘out’. When Letwin finally put down the phone, the Tory leader-ship had to face the fact that Boris might follow Gove in backing Brexit. Perhaps this episode explains why Cameron was so short with the Mayor when they met the next day to discuss the matter.

Four days later, Boris made it official. He would defy Cameron and advocate leaving the European Union. Today, the two best-known Tories in the land stand in direct opposition on the most important vote the UK has had since the second world war. Only one of them can win.

Cameron is infuriated by Boris’s decision and makes little attempt to disguise it. In the Commons he launched a thinly veiled and deeply personal attack on his fellow Old Etonian, implying that he was only backing ‘out’ to further his own career. After the exchange, one observer said Boris looked as if he had been mugged. A member of his camp said: ‘We weren’t expecting a warm reception, but we weren’t expecting that level of vitriol either.’

And it has only just begun. Cameroons claim Boris’s decision is an act of ‘naked self-interest’. A source close to the Tory leadership predicts that Boris’s decision to back ‘out’ will be a disaster: ‘He’s going to struggle in interviews as he doesn’t believe in getting out of Europe and he’ll face the kind of scrutiny he’s not faced before. He’s not good on detail.’

The personal attacks will only increase in ferocity as time goes on. ‘He was given all the time in the world to make up his mind,’ another source adds. ‘He’s made his bed, he’s now got to lie in it.’ When I asked if Boris could still serve in a Cameron cabinet, the acid reply was: ‘Boris will make a very good International Development Secretary.’

It might be satisfying to savage Boris in this fashion, but it is not entirely wise — as some cooler-headed Cameroons admit. No. 10 appears to have forgotten Michael Corleone’s dictum, ‘Never hate your enemies. It affects your judgment.’ But if it wasn’t war before, it is now. ‘Boris is going to have to come out gloves off,’ warns one minister who is backing ‘out’. The Mayor is acutely aware that he is fighting for his political Life.

Tidskriftsomslag: The Spectator, 27 februari 2016.

Read Full Post »

LONDON | Det skall mycket till för att en kandidat från Labour skall förlora ett borgmästarval i London.

The Spectator 2 January 2016

Det är lika svårt för en konservativ politiker i London som för en republikan i New York.

Trots detta har Boris Johnson varit den perfekta konservativa borgmästaren för en storstad som London. Även om Johnson inte varit någon kopia av den tidigare republikanska borgmästaren Michael Bloomberg har de hel del gemensamt.

Båda har varit sitt eget varumärke. Båda har lyckats sälja in sin egen person snarare än deras partitillhörighet. Båda har gått sin egen väg och snarare varit pragmatiska än ideologiska.

Så när London nu skall gå till val igen i maj skall det mycket till för att Tories skall lyckas upprepa Johnsons bragd.

Den här gången kommer det att stå mellan Sadiq Khan från Labour och Zac Goldsmith från Conservative Party.

Eftersom Labour idag har en rejält impopulär partiledare i Jeremy Corbyn samtidigt som Johnson har varit mycket populär har Khan valt en strategi som går ut på att distansera sig från sin partiledare samtidigt som han talar väl om allt som det bara går att tala väl om hos sin motståndare.

James Forsyth, politisk redaktör på The Spectator, har tittat på Khan och hans kampanjstrategi.

He ran Ed Miliband’s leadership campaign in 2010 and led Labour’s fierce — and surprisingly effective —campaign in London last year. Now, his sights are set on reclaiming City Hall for Labour and persuading even those on the right that he is the natural heir to Boris Johnson.

‘I want Spectator readers to give me a second look,’ he says, when we meet in the House of Commons. He is not, he’s keen to stress, a lieutenant in Jeremy Corbyn’s army. He’s keen to ladle praise on Boris Johnson — a ‘great salesman for our city’ who made him feel ‘proud to be a Londoner’ during the Olympics. He even likes rich people. ‘I welcome the fact that we have got 140-plus billionaires in London; that’s a good thing. I welcome the fact that there are more than 400,000 millionaires; that’s a good thing.’ If you shut your eyes, it could be Peter Mandelson speaking. It is not what you would expect from someone who has always been on the soft left of Labour.

If elected mayor, he says, he would not attempt to taunt David Cameron’s government as Ken Livingstone once taunted Margaret Thatcher’s. ‘I’m not going to be somebody who puts a big banner up outside City Hall criticising the Prime Minister, he says. ‘As a Labour councillor for 12 years in Tory Wandsworth I saw the benefits of having to work with the Tories to get a good deal for my constituents.’

But this is all part of Khan’s ambitious strategy: he doesn’t just want to win, he wants to win big. He is confident about his own ability to run a campaign; to him the issue isn’t whether he’ll win — but how.

‘If we wanted to, we could just target those Labour voters and increase the turnout. We could win London just by doing that.’ But, he says, ‘That’s not the sort of mayor I want to be… I want to be everyone’s mayor.’ In particular, he wants to be that vanishingly rare thing: a Labour friend of business. ‘Bearing in mind who our leader is,’ he says, ‘it’s important to reassure the right people that he doesn’t represent all Labour thinking.’ Khan is clearly aware that his biggest vulnerability is being branded Corbyn’s candidate. He is eager to say he is not in regular contact with his party leader; the last time he saw him was when they had their photos taken together to promote the Living Wage more than a month ago.

[…]

The Tories would dearly love to turn this contest into independent-minded Zac versus Jeremy Corbyn’s man. But by love-bombing Tories and business, Khan is determined to stop them doing that. So if the Tories are to stop Labour retaking City Hall, then the Goldsmith campaign will have to match Khan’s organisation, energy and enthusiasm.

Tidskriftsomslag: The Spectator, 2 januari 2016.

Read Full Post »

VAL 2016 | Om Hillary Clinton vinner valet beror det till stor del på att man lyckats knäcka koden för hur en modern politisk kampanjorganisation skall se ut.

The American Interest januari-februari 2016

Bill Clinton och Hillary Clinton har sakta men säkert över åren byggt upp vad professor Walter Russel Mead på The American Interest kallar “The First Postmodern Political Machine”.

The contrast between the apparent inevitability that surrounded Hillary Clinton’s procession toward the Democratic presidential nomination for so long and the air of scandal and suspicion that seems to trail behind her wherever she goes is striking. And it points to something important: Hillary Clinton isn’t a candidate borne aloft on a wave of popular enthusiasm. She is no JFK, no Ronald Reagan. She is no George Wallace or William Jennings Bryan. The marching bands processing before her have to be paid; she can’t fill vast halls with cheering throngs like Bernie Sanders or, heaven help us, Donald Trump. But she soldiers gamely on, determined to struggle through the exhausting and degrading routine of the eternal campaign.

[…]

But determination and grit aren’t the only forces behind her. To understand the Clinton candidacy and the odd mix of acceptance and resistance it conjures up in the party, one has to understand that she represents something that is at once very old and very new in American politics. She is a machine politician, but the machine behind her is a new kind of American political machine: a postmodern one.

[…]

There seem to be four pillars for this new kind of edifice.

First, there are the unintended consequences of the dysfunctional campaign finance “reforms” over the past thirty years that gutted traditional party organizations while empowering billionaires. Both the Democratic and Republican parties are, institutionally speaking, mere shadows of their former selves.

[…]

Second, there is the synergy created by the intersection of the Power Couple and the Twenty-second Amendment, which limited Presidents to two terms. Term-limited Presidents have a hard time convincing donors that further gifts will result in future benefits. This is a problem the Clintons do not have.

Hillary Clinton is the first person who can convince power brokers that she’s ready to make the transition from FLOTUS to POTUS.

[…]

What the Clintons have figured out is that a successful Power Couple can stay at the top of national life for decades—two terms for the first member, an interregnum of unspecified length followed, hopefully, but two terms for the second member, by which time the torch may have passed to a new generation.

[…]

Third, the Foundation vehicle allows the Clintons to attract enormous sums of money from foreign as well as domestic donors. Unlike ordinary politicians, the Clintons can take money from foreign individuals, states and firms without breaking US laws. They can even sidestep much if not all of the odium that comes from running an American campaign with foreign money. Raising money to fight breast cancer in Botswana is a much more creditable activity than taking political contributions from an African mining company with a dubious reputation. …] This is honest graft at work: one hires someone who is a reasonably qualified administrator for the program, but who is also plugged into the network of activists and operatives needed to keep the permanent campaign up and running. One can also spread the money around: the Clinton Foundation can make grants to other like minded non-profits, providing good jobs to loyal supporters.

Patronage in the service of doing good, that can effectively and legally use foreign donations in ways that build a powerful domestic political force: this might not be up there with the discovery of fire or the wheel as an invention that changes history, but it is not an insignificant contribution to the art of American governance.

[…]

Fourth, the Clintons have captured the power of networks. Like Facebook, the Clinton network is powerful because almost everyone is part of it. Since 1992, when the Clintons stormed out of Arkansas to take the White House, they have been at the center of world power and fame. Everybody who is anybody knows them or knows of them. They can introduce anybody to anybody; they can put together the most star-studded guest list for any purpose. The power of celebrity gives them the ability to publicize and glamorize almost anything; there are powerful reasons to be part of the network that includes virtually everyone in the media, in government, in finance, in business or academia that anyone wants to know or do business with.

[…]

Many find something deeply repellent in the ways that the new machine facilitates the integration of global and American politics and lobbying. Many will denounce the self-interested mingling of charity and political power-broking; others will gasp at the depth and degree of conflict of interest that a system like this inevitably entails. All these problems are real, and the Clintons, whatever their virtues, have never been at their best when it comes to disentangling the public good and their political interests.

[…]

Even the power of a great political machine cannot (yet?) deliver electoral victory on a national scale. Barack Obama (who seems increasingly interested in setting up a rival postmodern machine when his own presidency comes to an end) can tell us about that. In the old days, machine politicians had a hard time winning national campaigns; people out in the less corrupted (or, if you prefer, less sophisticated) flyover states aren’t always happy about big city politicians with big city connections.

Tidskriftsomslag: The American Interest, vol. XI, nummer 3, januari-februari 2016.

Read Full Post »

VÄGVAL | Sverigedemokraterna tappar i opinionsundersökningar men ligger tryggt kvar som Sveriges tredje största parti.

Fokus 11-17 mars 2016 (2)

I Novus senaste väljarbarometer för mars månad kan man dock se en viss uppgång om än högst marginell.

Enligt Torbjörn Nilsson i Fokus är man inom partiledningen inte ense om vad opinionsläget kommer att ställa för krav på partiet framöver.

Å ena sidan är något slags seger bärgad, realpolitiska framgångar nådda och partiet delvis normaliserat. Å andra sidan sjunker opinionsresultaten, medierna är inte lika intresserade längre och borta är den så kallade sjuklöver man kunde skylla allt på och ständigt kontrastera emot. Vad ska sverigedemokraterna vara bra för när både moderaterna och regeringen tagit över deras åsikter om migration?

Vad ska sverigedemokraterna vara bra för när både moderaterna och regeringen tagit över deras åsikter om migration?

[…]

De mer populistiskt lagda tycker med emfas att moderaterna inte ska få komma undan med sin omsvängning i migrationspolitiken. De säger sig vilja syna bluffen, ropa vi-var-först och vilja syna bluffen och visa att moderaterna saknar såväl radikalitet som handlingskraft för att utgöra ett alternativ till regeringen.

De mer tålmodigt lagda anser att moderaterna gärna får vinna en procentenhet eller tre av sverigedemokraterna eftersom det förväntas stärka den falang i moderaterna som drivit omsvängningen och som antas vara mest benägna att börja samarbeta med sverigedemokraterna.

Detta är var som i politiken brukar kallas ett behagligt problem

Och vi får anta att partiet kommer att lägga en eller annan krona på fokusgrupper för att utröna vad väljarna finner vara mest tilltalande – och därmed också det som gynnar Sverigedemokraterna mest.

Tidskriftsomslag: Fokus, 11-17 mars 2016.

Read Full Post »

VAL 2016 | Att ständigt vara på offensiven är Donald Trumps kampanjstrategi. Så här långt har det fungerat mer än väl.

Time Marsch 14 2016

Roger Stone, Trumps tidigare politiska rådgivare, kallar det för ”tribal warfare”. Genom att definiera vem som är ens motståndare definierar man också sig själv.

Detta får också till konsekvens att man blir mindre sårbar för motståndarnas försök att klistra sina egna etiketter på en blir mindre effektivt.

Alex Altman skriver så här i Time om Trumps stil:

On the campaign trail, he leans on stereotypes to explain the world, in ways both inflammatory and complimentary. Persians are “great negotiators.” Hispanics are “incredible workers.” Mexicans illegally crossing the Southern border are “criminals” and “rapists.” After the terrorist attacks in San Bernardino, he proposed a blanket ban on immigration by Muslims, not just those with radical Islamic ties.

Trump isn’t winning in spite of such statements; he’s winning because of them. […] Even Hillary Clinton is sharpening her smooth-edged coalition politics, telling voters they’re “right to be angry.”

But nobody does tribal warfare like Trump. “It’s us-against-them politics,” says Roger Stone, a Republican consultant and former Trump adviser. “You define yourself by who your enemies are.” Trump has been a master of this for much of his life. At various chapters in his business career, he has found the furrows in the cultural landscape and sown discord for personal gain. Now the same knack for divisive rhetoric could tear the Republican Party in two, leaving Trump as the commander of a new tribe, a coalition of the disaffected.

[…]

But there is no tribe Trump condemns more than the political elites, both Democratic and Republican. “The Republican Party, insofar as it is in favor of a lot of immigration and a lot of things that go on with globalization, are feeding the kinds of problems that are creating the anger,” says political scientist Charles Murray of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, who argues that the policies of the GOP establishment have hollowed out the party’s white working-class base. Generations of Republican leaders have exalted free trade and entitlement cuts, called for more high-skilled-labor visas and guest workers, sought deep tax reductions for the wealthy and pushed for tougher antiabortion policies and less federal meddling.

In each case, Trump has defied party dogma. He’s pitched protectionism and stronger social programs, a border wall and a wealth tax. He defends the merits of Planned Parenthood and eminent domain. From this vantage, Trump’s groundswell of support isn’t a spasm of a party in chaos. It looks more like a natural course correction. He hasn’t dragooned supporters into believing he’s a conservative; he’s leading a willing rebellion against modern conservatism itself.

[…]

“The reason their punches don’t land is they’re being thrown in a world that’s dying,” says former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who says Trump may ultimately prove to be “the most effective anti-left candidate of our times.” In Trump’s postideological movement, the litmus tests that have long ruled Republican politics are irrelevant. “It’s a revolution. What it means is you’re going to have a new conservatism,” predicts Gingrich. “He’s demolishing the old order.”

Läs mer: David Von Drehles ”Donald Trump’s Wild Ride”.

Tidskriftsomslag: Time, 14 mars 2016.

Read Full Post »

VAL 2016 | Donald Trump är mer populist i dess amerikanska betydelse än republikan. Så här långt har detta knappast missgynnat honom.

The Economist

The Economist har tittat på hur det brukar gå för populister i amerikanska presidentval.

Populist insurgencies are written into the source code of a polity that began as a revolt against a distant, high-handed elite. The electoral college devolves power from the centre. Primaries attract the 20% of eligible voters most fired up by politics. Candidates with money behind them—his own in the case of Mr Trump, someone else’s for Mr Cruz—can sneer at their party’s high command.

Hence populists and anti-establishment candidates make frequent appearances in American presidential races. But as the thrilling spectacle runs its course and voters reluctantly compromise with reality, they tend to fade. That usually happens early (Pat Buchanan, a Republican firebrand who promised a “pitchfork rebellion” in 1996, won the New Hampshire primary, but was out of the race by the end of March). On the rare occasion when insurgents win the nomination, they have collapsed at the general election: Barry Goldwater lost 44 of 50 states in 1964. Those who stand as independents (as Ross Perot did in 1992) have also failed—which would not bode well for a self-financing candidate like Michael Bloomberg.

[…]

Goldwater’s surge came late; Mr Trump has mesmerised crowds, and been rewarded in the polls since July. Some Republican grandees who detest Mr Cruz even more than they despise Mr Trump have fallen in behind the billionaire. Perhaps on the day people won’t turn up for either man; perhaps the two of them will throw enough vitriol to destroy each other; perhaps what is left of Mr Bush’s $100m war chest will leave the elite time to mount a counter-attack. As of now, both populists have a chance of taking the fight to the convention and even, barring a backroom establishment deal, of winning the nomination.

Tidskriftsomslag: The Economist, 30 januari – 5 februari 2016.

Read Full Post »

VAL 2016 | Donald Trump ser allt mer ut att kunna bli republikanernas presidentkandidat.

“He’s got the mo, he’s got the masses”, säger den politiska strategen Rick Hohlt. ”He’s attracting a new class of voters.”

Försöken att stoppa Trump har så här långt misslyckats. Inte minst för att han blivit smartare ju mer han har varit ute och kampanjat. “He knows when to push and when to back off.”

Men hans motståndare måste försöka göra något för att stoppa honom om man skall ha en rejäl chans att bli nominerad.

Enligt David Von Drehle på tidskriften Time har Ted Cruz plockat fram en gammal strategi som användes av Barry Goldwater redan 1964.

Men om denna strategi lyckas kan det mycket väl innebära att Cruz splittras och sänka möjligheterna för Cruz att bli president om han skulle lyckas bli nominerad.

The man is moving people, and politics does not get more basic than that. Trump is a bonfire in a field of damp kindling—an overcrowded field of governors and former governors and junior Senators still trying to strike a spark. His nearest rival, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, has traction in Iowa among the evangelical bloc and—in contrast to Trump—is a tried-and-true Suite 3505 by F. Clifton Whieconservative. But with little more than half the support Trump boasts in the RealClearPolitics average of national polls, Cruz has a long way to go to show that he can move masses.

Cruz staffers, tellingly, have been studying a 1967 tome titled Suite 3505 as a playbook for their campaign. This F. Clifton White memoir, long out of print, tells the story of the 1964
Barry Goldwater campaign. That was the last successful populist rebellion inside the Republican Party, propelling a rock-ribbed conservative past the Establishment insiders–just as Cruz hopes to do. But this triumph of intramural knife fighting proved a disaster at general-election time. Goldwater suffered one of the worst defeats in American political history. It’s no wonder that GOP leaders are every bit as wary of Cruz as they are of Trump.

In short, the GOP has awakened less than a month from the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary to find itself in bed between a bombshell and a kamikaze. It’s a sobering dawn for a political party that seemed, not long ago, just a tweak or two away from glory.

Bild: Omslaget till boken Suite 3505 av F. Clifton White.

Read Full Post »

VAL 2016 | Under intervjuer och valdebatter och när han är ute kampanjar nämner Donald Trump gärna hur rik han är.

Tempus - nr 43 - 23-30 oktober 2015

Vad som skulle vara politiskt självmord i Sverige kan vara en framgångsrik strategi i en amerikansk valrörelse.

Det finns två anledningar till detta.

I USA tycker inte gemene man att rikedom är något man behöver skämmas för. Tvärt om. Alla hoppas att de själva också skall bli rika som troll.

I Trumps fall hänger det också samman med att hans rikedom uppfattas som en garant för att han inte skall låta sig köpas av olika intressen.

I amerikansk politik kan de flesta politiker inte bli valda utan att tigga pengar från rika donatorer. Och dessa donatorer vill ofta ha något i utbyte mot sina pengar.

Trumps förmögenhet gör det möjligt för honom att säga vad han vill. Han kan strunta i vad det republikanska partiet tycker och tänker. Eller vad som uppfattas som politiskt korrekt bland opinionsbildare.

Mannen med håret har t.o.m. lyckats väva in sin förmögenhet i ett skämt – vilket i sig är ett smart sätt att undvika att skrytet avskräcker potentiella väljare.

I en artikel i Washington Post listar Roxanne Roberts t.o.m. Trumps hår bland hans förmögenheter. Svenska Tempus har översatt artikeln:

– Vad är skillnaden mellan en våt tvättbjörn och Donald J. Trumps hår? frågade Trump när han medverkade i en standup-show på Comedy Central 2011.

– En våt tvättbjörn har inte sju miljarder f— ing dollar på banken.

Ingen lista över Trump tillgångar är komplett utan att man nämner hans största stolthet och glädje: Håret. Inte vilket hår som helst, utan det gyllene, fönade håret som har varit föremål för tusentals skämt, en feberdröm om hårsprayad oövervinnerlighet. Och han hävdar envist at det är hans eget.

”Jag har inte tupé,” sade han till sina supportrar i augusti och drog upp en kvinna från publiken och lät henne känna på hans riktiga hår.

Håret är så inspirerande att Homer Simpson åkte på en ”Trumptastisk resa”.

– Om jag rör vid det,  kommer det att bota min skallighet? undrade en vördnadsfull Homer.

Tidskriftsomslag. Tempus, nummer 43, den 23-30 oktober 2015.

Read Full Post »

VAL 2016 | Det fascinerande med Donald Trump är att han inte låter som andra politiker med sina på förhand testade svar på frågor.

The Hollywood Reporter - August 2015 - Issue 28

Trumps frispråkighet är en del av hans kampanjstrategi. Han vågar t.o.m. vara kritisk när det gäller delar av Ronald Reagan politik. Vilket inte säger lite när det gäller republikanska presidentkandidater.

Jämför man Trump med övriga republikanska presidentkandidater (eller demokratiska för den delen) framstår de som riktiga sömnpiller.

Här är ett exempel från Janice Mins intervju med Trump för tidskriften The Hollywood Reporter tidigare i år.

You voted for Reagan, right?

I did. I was friendly with him.

Is he your model?

No, he’s not a model. I didn’t like NAFTA [NAFTA was signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1993, but Reagan first proposed a ”North American accord” in a 1979 speech, and a precursor to NAFTA was signed by the U.S. and Canada in 1988.], I didn’t like some of the economic policies. But he was a man that I respected and liked, and he liked me.

But he also could broach moderates, conservatives, Democrats.

He did. Well, he was a Democrat with a liberal bent as a younger man. And then he became a conservative Republican. He had a great way about him. A great sense of dignity. And he was a wonderful father for the country in a sense. He had a great feel for what the country represents.

[…]

If you’re in this for the long haul, do you have to be more diplomatic in the media?

A little bit. A little more selective, I would say, more than diplomatic. And I’m very capable of doing that.

You’re friends with the WWE’s Vince McMahon. Critics have said your campaign is like pro wrestling — it’s just theatrics.

One of the reasons I tell people about my level of intelligence — like, for instance, I had an uncle, Dr. John Trump, who was at MIT, like totally brilliant, became a professor at MIT — is when you’re a Republican conservative, you have to build up your credentials a little bit. But I can pivot any way. I can be a very elegant, highly refined person, I can be a very politically correct person where I would never ever say anything that’s even slightly over the edge, or I can be who I want to be. It’s very time-consuming to be politically correct. And I don’t have the time. It’s also very boring to be politically correct. Right? You wouldn’t be here if I was totally politically correct.

[…]

Obviously, the power of your celebrity and brand means something.

If I weren’t a successful person, it wouldn’t work as well. Voters have great confidence in me because I really have been successful. I have an income of over $400 million a year. I don’t need anybody’s money. I was offered $5 million last week by a lobbyist to put in the campaign. I said, ”No, I don’t need it.” He said, ”What do you mean, ‘I don’t need it?’ ” I said I don’t need it. This is a guy that I know well, a good lobbyist, a tough cookie. He’s not giving to me because he thinks I have the most beautiful hair he’s ever seen. He’s giving to me because when he has one of his companies in trouble or needs something, they want to call me and say, ”Hey, Don, how you doing? Remember me?” I don’t need that stuff. Whereas Jeb Bush, with $114 million that he raised [so far this year], and Hillary with the $60 million [CBS News reports she raised $47 million in the campaign’s first quarter] and everyone else with the money they raised, they’re going to be called upon, and they’re going to have to do those things like little puppets. So people do respect that about me. I don’t need it.

[…]

These campaigns get dirty and ugly. Would you ever use Karl Rove?

No. Is he a friend of yours?

No, but he’s been a godfather of elections for the GOP.

What happened is Karl Rove in the last cycle spent $436 million, and he didn’t win one race. And on election evening [when he challenged Fox News’ Obama victory prediction], he had a bad night. The result was wrong! I guess you’re using that name as an example. I’ve got a lot of people against me. And in a way, it emboldens me. I don’t like it, but it emboldens me. I mean, Fox has not been nice to me, in my opinion. Not just at the debate. You see some of these pundits get on, and they don’t know what they’re talking about. They’ve been predicting my doom for a year.

Tidskriftsomslag: The Hollywood Reporter, augusti 2015, (nummer 28).

Read Full Post »

ÅRET 2015 | Kristdemokraterna får antagligen stå för årets antiklimax när man sammanfattar politiken under 2015.

Sydsvenska Näringsliv nr 4 2015

Partiledningens ovilja att ställa misstroendevotum mot regeringen – efter att först ha tagit initiativet att dödförklara decemberöverenskommelsen mellan oppositionen och regeringen – fick partiet att framstå som, för att citera Macbeth, ”en stackars skådespelare, som struttar in och kråmar sig på scenen för en timma och se’n ej mer hörs av”.

Hade man vågat gå hela vägen hade man tagit på sig ledartröjan inom Alliansen, vunnit frustrerade borgerliga väljares sympatier och samtidigt minimerat bilden av Sverigedemokraterna som ”det enda oppositionspartiet”.

Om regeringen fallit hade partiet stått väl rustat i en eventuell extra valrörelse. Alternativt hade man tvingat Socialdemokraterna ta större hänsyn till Allianspartiernas politik. Detta hade tydligt visat på splittringen på vänsterkanten.

Oavsett vilket hade Stefan Löfven tvingats visa upp hur svag hans regering är. Vilket i sin tur gett speciellt Kristdemokraterna, men också övriga Allianspartier, en välbehövlig injektion av självförtroende.

Om övriga Allianspartier istället röstat mot eller lagt ner sina röster hade Kristdemokraterna framstått som ett parti som vågar stå på egna ben medan övriga Allianspartier framstått som räddhågsna.

Ebba Busch Thor verkar själv ha insett vilket potential det fanns i ett misstroendevotum mot regeringen. ”Jag tycker det är anmärkningsvärt att så många pratar om kaos. För det är det inte. Vi har en tydlig och ordnad politisk process i Sverige”, säger partiledaren när hon intervjuades i tidskriften Sydsvenskt Näringsliv.

Partiets inkonsekvens förvandlade en potentiell vin-vin-situation till ett politiskt antiklimax.

Som en konsekvens av detta ligger Kristdemokraternas siffror kvar under fyraprocentspärren, regeringen regerar vidare och Alliansen ser ut att vara än mer splittrad samtidigt som Sverigedemokraterna av alltfler upfattas som det tydligaste oppositionspartiet i svensk politik

Tidskriftsomslag: Sydsvenskt Näringsliv, nr 4: 2015.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »