Leading article

Why the Republican elite couldn’t stop Donald Trump

The political climate that brought about his rise is in fact a worldwide phenomenon

19 March 2016

9:00 AM

19 March 2016

9:00 AM

If the Republican party were a company, it would now file for bankruptcy. Donald Trump, arguably the most grotesque candidate ever to have run for the Oval Office, seems certain to be the party’s presidential nominee. The former favourite, Marco Rubio, lost in his home state of Florida on Tuesday and has now bowed out of the race. After seven years of deeply unimpressive government from a divisive and ineffectual Democratic president, American conservatism has been unable to offer voters a convincing alternative.

A candidate as flawed as Hillary Clinton should be easy to beat. But the best the Republicans seem able to do is send a dodgy businessman-cum-reality TV star whose political ideas stretch no further than the diatribe of a shock jock and whose first instinct when faced with any kind of challenge is to insult his opponent. Anyone trying to compare Donald Trump to Ronald Reagan should watch recordings of Reagan’s TV debates with George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter in 1980. Unfailingly, Reagan gave intelligent answers where Trump would have lashed out at the nearest convenient figure.

The Republicans now face an impossible choice: accept that the party has effectively been destroyed by a madcap tycoon, or seek to stop him becoming its nominee by using skulduggery at its convention in July. Party conventions can, in theory, become contests rather than coronations. This happened in 1976, when the never-elected President Gerald Ford fought off a strong challenge from Reagan. And there’s a case for holding another vote: Trump hasn’t won a majority of votes in any of the states he has won.

There is talk of drafting in previous losers such as Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan to save the party from Trump. But this sounds like fantasy. Both have said they’re not interested; neither would be likely to beat Clinton. Either one might offer the Republicans a mildly less embarrassing form of defeat, but so would any American picked at random from a telephone directory.

The prospect of Trump vs Clinton rightly makes the world shudder. America is an ingenious nation of 300 million which leads the world in science, academia, entertainment, technology and more. But it is unable to find two decent candidates to run for the highest office in the land.

Trump’s nomination was not inevitable, but the failures of the Republican elite made it so. First they tried to usher in a dynastic succession by backing another member of the Bush family. Then, when Jeb Bush proved a disaster, they turned to the 44-year-old pretender Marco Rubio. He has blundered his way to oblivion — making embarrassing jokes about the size of Trump’s hands, for instance — but he stayed in the race for so long that Ted Cruz, the only man who has shown himself able to beat Trump, is now almost certainly too far behind to win.

The party hierarchy never wanted Cruz anyway. Senator Lindsey Graham said choosing between Trump or Cruz was a choice between being ‘shot or poisoned’. They can still try to insist that those who voted for Trump do not represent the will of the party — but this would mean effectively divorcing a third of the party’s supporters. Block Trump and he will surely run as an independent — taking many of his admirers (and quite a few Democrats) with him. He’d still lose, but so would the Republican party. Of the latest 28 national polls, 24 suggest America has already decided to hold its nose and vote Clinton, by a hefty margin.

But the political climate that has brought about the rise of Trump is not a uniquely American phenomenon. Across the world, people’s priorities are changing — and most political establishments are failing to change with them. A fear of populists has blinded prime ministers and presidents to the concerns of voters who support populist parties. Last weekend, Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats lost votes to a far-right party whose co-leader Frauke Petry has adopted language far worse than that of Donald Trump. Petry suggests migrants crossing the border illegally should be shot. The National Front in France, the Danish Peoples’ Party and others are also rising: centrist parties are losing crucial votes to the extremes.

It isn’t that many voters want migrants shot, or that they wish other unappealing policies to be adopted; it is more that they wish to protest against a remote elite. And those who consider Britain immune to this malady should ask why Scotland has become an SNP one-party state, or why Jeremy Corbyn is leading the Labour party. The Tories were saved because David Cameron wisely called in Sir Lynton Crosby to counter his elitist tendencies with a down-to-earth message. But after he left, the Tories once again started to lose coherence and focus.

The lesson for Republicans — as well as all centrist parties — is that good communicators with clear ideas can win elections, but party-machine candidates running on little more than their own biography flounder. Trump has ended up running away with the Republican nomination not because he is a credible candidate but because he is the one who seems to recognise that the people are the boss. How sad for America that his rivals were unable to do the same.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10

Show comments
  • Rik

    Same old narrative,i am disappointed in you Speccie,too many of us out here are sick of PC politicians who only listen to twatterstorms or crybullies,just because we have real concerns about the radical changes in our society being IMPOSED on us with no democratic mandate does not make us extemists or any other “ism” or “phobe”.The people have too many sources of information now,attempted coverups like mass rape in Sweden,or mass assaults in Cologne don’t stick any more.The truth is out there and politicians like Trump are no longer afraid to tell it like it is.We the people will no longer be silenced.

    • Leslie Graham

      Can’t stand Trump personally but if he is serous about cleaning out all the muslim rapists and terrorists then he would get my vote for that alone. Everywhere they go they cause trouble and fear.
      They have already taken over Europe and begun to impose Sharia law. In Europe there are now forced marriages and the mutilating of children’s genitals and forcing women to wear sacks over their heads. That’s when they are not in crowds of thousands gang raping white women in broad daylight as in Cologne and Sweden.
      . We don’t want to see that happen in the USA too.

    • James Chilton

      The point you make about the multiple sources of information which people have access to now, is important. People using mass communication systems are holding the governing elites to account as never before.

      Trump is a cultural phenomenon. He is also a technological innovation in the political conflict of our age.

    • purpleacky

      Sounds like some No Agenda thinking, In The Morning!

    • steddyneddy

      “We the people will no longer be silenced”
      Yes we will. Trump’s just the same as the other lying politicians who raise our hopes only to let us down when they gain power. You must have a very short memory. It’s too late anyhow, barring an armed uprising, which isn’t likely, they’ve already destroyed us.

      • maic

        Hang on a minute! Shouldn’t you wait until Trump actually gets power and then acts just the same as the other lying politicians you refer to. How do you know “he’s just the same” until he actually takes office?
        On the other hand he could turn the country around if he is elected. Even some commentators not friendly to Trump admit that there is widespread citizen disenchantment with the established politicians of both Parties.
        In any case it’s up to the American voter. It’s their country, their election and their vote. Many of them see Donald Trump as leading the country on a better path and as a person genuinely in touch with their values, fears and concerns.
        t remains to be seen if the established Republican vested and selfish interests will succeed in derailing Trump’s campaign. What with them, some biased media coverage and the abuse and disruption from some leftie organizations I guess Trump and his supporters will need to persevere in their efforts.
        Now I don’t have a vote on this but I say all power to them and to the genuine democratic process. Who owns the country? Surely its citizens as a whole – not the vested interest or illegal immigrant groups who carry an air of loud entitlement.

  • photon

    There is an American solution which I do not advocate but which I fear is not altogether unlikely:
    elect Trump then shoot him – either because he does what he threatens, or because he doesn’t.

  • Sysdevman

    Politicians have become obsessed with winning at all cost and developing watertight arguments. Worldwide, they have refined their political arguments to the extent that they are completely self serving and do not reflect the will of the electorate.

    As with all obsessives, they are tending towards neurosis. The various electorates around the world appear to be making psychotic choices because they are faced with political objectives that are not based on reality???

    Instead of behaving like Z celebrities, failed actors and naff rock stars, LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE! SERVE THE PEOPLE!

    • JOhn Mackie

      you have totally nailed the cause of the problem

  • willybach

    The Spectator writes harsh words for the Obama administration: After seven years of deeply unimpressive government from a divisive and ineffectual Democratic president…Are you making a comparison with the record of the previous Bush administration, whose legacy Obama inherited? Are you factoring in the almost total logjam on any proposal from the President by Republicans in a Congress almost pathologically opposed to Obama? I suspect that history will judge him rather differently to your own assessment.

    • Cyril Sneer

      Ah that’s it, blame Bush and blame the Republicans for the worst and most divisive President of modern times.

      It can’t be Barracks’ fault, despite him being in charge for 8 years – oh not it’s the republicans and the previous Republican President who left power almost a decade ago.

      Standard democrat delusion.

      ” I suspect that history will judge him rather differently to your own assessment.”

      No history will not, he is widely regarded as a total divisive failure and that won’t change.

      And if Clinton wins it will be more of the same neo-liberal lies, corruptness and thuggery because you goons are just so damn blind.

      • UKSteve

        Spectacular rubbish one again – just as well you use a pseudonym.

        Obama is one of the most successful presidents in history, but you have to know things to appreciate that.

        • goodsoldier

          Obama and Hillary own the Arab Spring, LIbya, Iran and Ukraine, and much more. You are blind to Obama’s flaws. We have to have pseudonyms lest you send over your Leftist brownshirts or destroy us in some way. McCarthyism was nothing compared to what your sorts do now to people. You don’t see it. .

          • UKSteve

            I don’t need a complete stranger-mor0n to tell me what I’m “blind to”>

            you have pseudonyms to hide behind jelly-brained garbage that you keep pumping into the internet.

            Back to your Batman comics, cheeseburgers and “men” magazines.

      • WTF

        With Clinton, she’ll be a disaster but lets no fool ourselves over her being dragged extreme left by Saunders as she had no choice but to flip flop on her rhetoric to try and defeat Bernie. If she gets in, it will be more of the same Obama cronyism as she’ll abandon her apparent support for the very poor as they don’t fill her pockets fast enough compared to wall street.

    • Ingmar Blessing

      After seven years Obama should have gotten somewhere. But all he did was to make things worse outside (leaving Iraq prematurely was worse than entering it in the first place) and divide the country inside with his rather ignorant Obamacare.

      The latter was just an insult to the American way, to the American political consensus and 50% of the population. Just look at Roosevelts plan for a second bill of rights. It was a package like a supercharged Sweden and hasn’t become a law with a reason. As a compromise with the republicans at the end stood the GI Bill. A bill that said: serve your 3 years, proof that you’re worth the investment and you will get what you need (health care + college scholarship). That was a classic American compromise between liberals and conservatives. And it works well.

      If Obama had a common compromise in mind he would have gone for something like a GI Bill 2, which e.g. could have included
      – a two year military career and at the end you only get health care (and which can be extended to 3 years for the additional college scholarship)
      – both the two and three year serving in the national guards and in the civic sector (firemen, disaster control, medical care etc)
      – serving 8-12 years as a side/weekend job in the above sectors that get you out the same

      This way the consensus would have been held up, where the republicans get what they want (proof that you’re worth the investment) and also the democrats (health care for everyone who’s not a complete fool).

      Overall, the best social-worker in the US is still the military recruiter, who goes to poor high schools and shows the kids their opportunities while not forgetting to get them into careers that are far away from the front line and also come with skills that are useful in the civilian life. The path into the US middle-class goes right through the boot camp. I lived a few years next to a US barracks in Germany. Most of the lower ranks were Latinos or blacks from the ghettos. That is where I have this from.

      The liberals there kind of forgot that and try to replace the countries success mechanisms with things that don’t fit to neither the mentality nor the system.

    • WTF

      Its the usual lazy and lame excuse to blame your failures on your predecessor as some kids do better than their parents and some do worse, its generally down to them.

      Every time I debate failings over Obamas policies with the left, I always get ‘its because of Bush’ just like you. When I point out that Bush has left the White House nearly 8 years ago they then blame republicans. Then when I point out that he had a majority in the house to pass Obamacare but its still a failure they blame their own side. They don’t generally disagree with the bleeding obvious but try and make excuses.

      The blame game continues its usual course just like all progressive liberals who fail to implement policies, its ALWAYS someone elses fault but never their own. The victim is the criminal or the ‘guilty’ party the victim, they NEVER man up to their failures.

      Isn’t it time your lot grew some ?

  • SunnyD

    “arguably the most grotesque candidate”? is this article some kind of joke? Trump is the only candidate speaking the minds of a great number of the disenfranchised and will probably be responsible for a higher voter turnout – the sooner someone like him can galvanise the people of GB the better. Obama was lauded as the one to bring credibility back to the USA, close Guantanamo etc and he has been nothing more than a lame duck – a poster boy for the PC bien pensant. I can’t wait to see Trump take the oval Office and kick some serious a$$

  • WFC

    I find it quite hilarious that journalists in the modern media find themselves incapable of even mentioning Trump (or his supporters) without reaching for the child’s book of playground insults: used, it seems, as a protective talisman to ward off evil spirits.

    The fact is that the two anti-establishment candidates have been taking 70% of the votes – with record turnouts – in the republican primaries. A leadership which loses 70% of its supporters is a terrible leadership.

    • SunnyD

      100 upticks if I could

  • E.I.Cronin

    Crikey! What a hatchet job!

    I just cannot understand, I am completely amazed that a serious publication like the Spectator has not ONCE (I could be wrong) examined the policy positions outlined on Trump’s site. What is wrong?? Is this Celebrity Weekly? Fraser offers some brilliant analysis on UK education and finance, so why not the potential Republican nominee’s policies? The 2 major policies they could have researched and opened up for detailed analysis are US-China Trade Reform and Immigration Reform.

    Since Trump’s ascendancy I’ve had a single conversation with a yank on the US-China Trade Reform policy. Instead we’ve been fed Freddy Gray’s sometimes amusing and occasionally incisive reflections on Trump’s persona but nothing on policy. Am an intellectual lightweight myself but would really value the Spectator’s full journalistic talent brought to bear on these urgent issues. If I may be so bold as an impoverished non-subscriber.

    Yours, Puzzled in the Antipodes.

    • WFC

      Unfortunately, we can only conclude that this sort of thing does constitute the modern Spectator’s “full journalistic talent”.

      They really should read some of the archive stories they are running – in the “Spectator at war” series – from 100 years ago. To see how serious journalists used to write. Facts and premises stated, arguments derived therefrom. No insults and barely an evaluation to be seen.

      Compare and contrast with a modern article, which would spend 1,000 words doing nothing more than expressing the writer’s opinion of Kaiser Bill in as graphic a manner as possible.

      • E.I.Cronin

        Agreed. The depth and precision of the writing in the SAW series is in dramatic contrast to the impressionistic blog style. While researching family history in the 1870’s I was gripped by the quality of journalism – I never found any genealogical material but was fully informed on the great issues of 1879 🙂

        Perhaps they save their in-depth analysis for the magazine? (which I should read more at the library). Fraser has written some great articles on education, and wealth distribution so surely he could ask his writers to focus on policy instead of personality.

    • JOhn Mackie

      we’re all puzzled

      • E.I.Cronin

        I haven’t met a single critic of Trump who has read his policies. And I haven’t received a single response to my invitation to analyse his Immigration Reform position.

  • trobrianders

    Stop skirting around the issue Spectator. You need to use Reason to get to the bottom of an issue, not Correctness.

  • BillRees

    The use of the word “grotesque” to describe Trump tells us more about The Spectator than it does about Trump.

    Trump may be a megalomaniac, but then so is anyone whose ambition is to be the American President.

    The others try to disguise their megalomania, while Trump doesn’t. Maybe that’s what the Speccie means by grotesque.

    The only question that counts, however, when deciding who to vote for, is who is most likely to fix America’s problems, which mainly consist of 19 trillion dollars of debt, uncontrolled illegal immigration, the financial burden of defending the rest of the world and a malign force (Daesh) that wants to destroy America.

    Does anyone really think that Hillary Clinton will address those issues?

    In the circumstances it’s almost tempting to say that it would be “grotesque” to vote for anyone other than Trump. He may have plenty of faults, but he is perhaps America’s last great hope.

    • mohdanga

      What would be “grotesque” is voting for the hag, Clinton. A liar, an incompetent, completely useless as Secretary of State, ties to the Muslim Brotherhood through her former chief aide, etc.

      • Fritz123

        I love Huma. Her best side.

      • steddyneddy

        A stupid liar too, silly unnecessary lies that make her a very poor choice to be voted in as a president. But then I suppose it doesn’t really matter, because even the presidents just do what they’re told.

  • Badger

    Mainstream politics and all it stands for is dying and not before time. I understand The Spectator is an establisment Conservative publication, but if you fail to represent the new reality your magazine will die too. That is why Breitbart is so much busier than it is here nowadays.

    • Malcolm Stevas

      I stopped visiting Breitbart: the lunatic fringe has a disturbingly strong presence there.

  • gtgunn

    You naive pundits that watch from afar and have no real idea how the behind CLOSED DOORS systems work have no business writing an opinion.I have seen the cronyism,payoffs and backdoor money shuffle that the government elect play with.You idiots trying to tell the FACTS (what a joke) are so unaware of reality. Trump threatens the money grabs! 22 trillion in debts, 8.5 missing from the Pentagon…the way things have been manged so far have FAILED! Why are you British concerned with our country anyway. Mind your own business and take care of that vile stinking dreary island as you sink into fading glory having caused most of the worlds problems!

    • UKSteve

      If that’s your photo, it explains the excrescence with which you’ve just polluted the internet.

      Had any more mass shootings lately? You think that McDonalds is a restaurant, and cheeseburgers a gourmet meal.

      This site is more suited to you.

      • goodsoldier

        No wonder your wife left you.

        • UKSteve

          She hasn’t.

          Back to your Attitude, GT, etc. collections.

    • Sandra Barwick

      Try sub lingual B12. It is often useful when paranoia is one of the symptoms.

      • gtgunn

        sandra go back to your roach motel NYC cubicle and continue to delude yourself that your naive stupidity matters

  • edithgrove

    that’s odd, usually we get a pie chart from the Spectator

  • Malcolm Stevas

    The comparison of Trump with Reagan is useful. A number of the less thoughtful US commentators especially (some of them here) have been yelling “What about Reagan,” when faced with any criticism of Trump, but they really were different animals. Reagan had after all been smart enough to be Governor of California, did well at that, and proved statesmanlike and very effective in the White House. Tellingly, Thatcher thought well of Reagan – and she was not one to suffer fools gladly. Trump is not in the same league, to say the least. It’s sad the Republicans couldn’t field a superior candidate who’d have knocked out DT at an early stage. What a contest/choice, Trump or Clinton…

    • UKSteve

      Spot on.

    • goodsoldier

      You clearly don’t remember how people spoke about Reagan before he was elected, when he was still governor of California. They hated him as much as Trump is hated, for many things, from the personal to the professional. Only later did he gain respect; many kept quiet but still hated him.

      • Malcolm Stevas

        I’ve followed politics for a long time and I recall perfectly well the criticisms of Reagan. I was one of many who doubted initially his credentials for POTUS. But he was criticised on different grounds: I don’t think it was because he was loud, vulgar, unstatesmanlike, improbable, brash, self-aggrandising, anti-intellectual, thuggish and dangerous. Trump is all those things and more. Many people view with concern the prospect of his becoming President. They might even prefer Clinton. God, what a choice…

        • goodsoldier

          Do you think Trump is thuggish and dangerous? If so, what has he said or done to give you this idea?

          • Malcolm Stevas

            Have you not been following his campaign? Not all the reports about Trump are Leftist slurs put out by the usual suspects: a great many conservative/libertarian commentators are worried about him too, such as the highly regarded Mark Steyn. Recently he wrote for example, “Trump has now pledged to strengthen the libel laws to favor the plaintiff in suits against the media….. Thus in November
            America seems likely to have a choice between two candidates who want to
            rein in the First Amendment…. Trump’s hostile takeover of the Republican Party..” [etc]. I’d call that dangerous, and his manner is generally thuggish: when opposed or criticised his first impulse seems to be insult & attack, instead of reasoned rebuttal.

          • goodsoldier

            I find Hillary and her backers much more dangerous. Yes, I have been following Trump’s campaign and I he’s just a typical New Yorker to me, which does mean volatile and straight, but at least you know what you’re getting. I know many like him and they are not dangerous.

          • Malcolm Stevas

            Knowing what you’re getting is useful, but I’m not sure it would compensate for a Trump Presidency… In some ways Dustin Hoffman’s character in Midnight Cowboy (top movie, one of my all-time favourites), “Ratso” Rizzo, could be described as a “typical New Yorker” – but he’d have made an uncomfortable occupant of the White House.

          • Pioneer

            Steyn is in libel case at the moment. He has misunderstood. Trump is merely stating Scalia position – which supports the First.

  • Frank

    The comparison between the US situation and that in Europe is bogus. As you say yourself, the Republican party put up candidates who could barely chew and walk at the same time; whilst Trump was managing to articulate common concerns in a very vivid way.
    In essence, the political battle in Europe is all about nations wanting to recover their self identity after years of being told by the various national establishments that multi-culturalism driven by mass immigration was the European thing.
    Lynton Crosby simply looked at the immense disconnection between the British establishment and the public (eg 4 million votes for UKIP) and advised the tories to bin everything (eg one nation tories, the green stuff, etc, etc) and focus on Fear (such a positive message).
    Most people would say that Cameron’s electoral performance is a pretty perfect example of how the soulless disconnected establishment politician will have immense trouble beating even deeply mediocre oppositions.
    The fact that Cameron could even consider saying that he was the heir to Blair tells you just how deranged are our politicians (let alone persuading the French President to threaten his own nation and to stand grinning whilst he did this). It has got sod all to do with Cameron’s elitist tendencies, the dumb bast*rd doesn’t know whether he is Arthur or Martha, and the public, after Blair, recognise a chancer when they see one! If you dispute this, ask yourself why Cameron is trying to rig the referendum when any rational person realises that continued EU membership is like continuing to invest in a pyramid scheme after the police have arrested the principals (ie it is Cameron who has got Stockholm syndrome about the EU, not the British public)!

    • WTF

      Its not entirely bogus as the comparison is about the electorates of both regions having had enough of the elite establishment. One can argue quite rightly that there’s a lot of differences between ‘candidates who could barely chew and walk at the same time’ in America but remember, its the party that’s controls matters just like in Europe that people are rebelling against.

      • Frank

        The party controls jack once the public walks out the door (metaphorically) as they are starting to do with Merkel, and have done with Hollande.

  • Tickertapeguy

    I voted for Trump in the primaries because I was voting for a person, not a party or whether he is conservative or liberal. I do not care what the Media has to say about Trump. I stopped listening to the US media a long time ago, especially when I could get better news on the internet.

    I also voted for Trump because he is a self made man who has never been part of the establishment. Cruz on the other hand is enmeshed with the establishment, including Goldman Sachs which is one of the banks of the Federal Reserve. His wife worked for Goldman Sachs with a salary of 500 thousand dollars per year. Cruz has taken loans from that bank and I do not even know what collateral he used to get those loans.

    Trump also funds his own campaign and by that is not beholden to any interest groups like Hillary Clinton or Ted Cruz. Trump’s platform addresses all the issues that have effectively gutted the US domestically and in our foreign policy. That is kind of leader I need (not just want). I will vote for Trump in the general elections.

    Couple of side notes: What no article covers is the ‘creep factor” of Ted Cruz. If one goes by comments people cannot stand how Cruz looks. He lacks any charisma. Similar accusations have been labeled on Kasich and Hillary. They turn people off. This is the elephant in the room. Going joke in America is that Cruz looks like a Vampire, Warlock or an undertaker. That affects votes.

  • Elie

    Every time I hear the British press ridiculing Trump, and by extension, the millions who support him, I am reminded of tin pot dictators who cant fix their own problems and so direct their readers attention elsewhere.

    The image on Youtube of British riot police fleeing in terror from a violent muslim mob in London should be all you need to see to get what has happened to the once great nation of Churchill.

    If the American people stay with the strong leader they now need they can reverse this world trend of self suicide. Trump is telling it like it is and thats why so many of the establishment are so vehemently against him. Trump has uncovered a very carefully prepared veneer of politically correct self lulling delusional pablum as fed for years to the unsuspecting masses. They are now waking up to reality the people want it stopped and refuse to be hypnotised any further.

    • UKSteve

      OK, we get it. You only deal with ridiculous generalisations.

      Waking up to the reality?


      • goodsoldier

        Another generalization: Lefties are always accusing other of speaking in generalizations. I hear it all the time. You are truly a breed. You should donate your corpse to science when you are ready.

        • UKSteve

          More brainless garbage.

          If you donated yours, science would contest the will or bin it, as they’d want it to include brain cells.

          Maybe this site is more….you.

  • Freddythreepwood

    I wouldn’t be so sure about Clinton. Trump might know where the bodies are buried and be biding his time before digging them up.

    • WTF

      I tend to agree as he’s wrong footed his own opponents time and time again and although her campaign team are spinning a brave face over her vs Trump, they are dealing with an unknown entity here and they know it. Normal campaign tactics no longer apply and she could be in for a rude awakening. With close on 75% of America distrusting her its an open goal mouth for Trump to play to and I agree with you, his campaign team probably have some unpublished dirt they can use that will stick like s*** to a blanket. She can’t reply in kind as its been tried and doesn’t work and unless she could show he was a serial baby killer like some
      WWII criminal, he’s pretty invulnerable.

  • HomoRationalensis


  • Comrades, the rise of Comrade Trumpovich reminds the Great Stalin, Vanguard Leader of the Happy Soviet Toilers, of the fleeting popularity of Comrade Kirov. There is no need to remind any Fraternal Socialist Comrade of what happened to him (and the Great Stalin denies having anything to do with it).

  • Jacobi

    Trump is not grotesque and it is wrong of you to use that word.

    He expresses a genuine frustration on the part at a large section of voters, not just in the US of A but increasingly now in Europe, at being, ignored by, but used by, the various cardboard cut-outs who those with the real power in the US of A, and also increasingly in Europe, seek to run society to their advantage. Trumpism is a democratic phenomena in any sense of that term and it is here to stay.

    It is also wrong of you to say Merkel has lost votes to the Far Right. What has happened in Germany, and France and no doubt in Holland and Poland etc., is that the centre is realising or rather is now prepare to admit that the so-called Far Right was right!

  • Enoch Powell

    “It isn’t that many voters want migrants shot, or that they wish other unappealing policies to be adopted; it is more that they wish to protest against a remote elite.”

    Wrong. Completely unutterably wrong. We want the borders closed. Period.

    People who jump borders are committing illegal acts. Mass border crossing is an active invasion, propelled by terrorists, people smugglers and anarchist/leftists and should be repelled as such. Refugees should be taken at point of origin, not after they’ve crossed ten different countries, each one entirely safe, because the ones that offer the best benefits happen to be at the far end of the continent. We want our people to be safe from rape and murder. We want the rule of law to apply equally. We don’t want criminals or terrorists to be enriched by the fact that we cannot enforce our laws or our borders. We do not want to be told our entire culture must now change because we’ve imported a million muslims from God knows where and we now have to accept their cultural norms and their sharia law. We do not want adults lying about their ages being put with children. We do not want our women to be unable to go out at night. We do not want to be taking economic migrants who have arrived under false pretences.

    This time last year, this could have been stopped in its tracks without violence. Now, not a chance. If guns do go up on the border fences, Mother Merkel will have no one to blame but herself.

    • Alex

      But I expect you don’t think the same thing about the movement of capital.

      • Enoch Powell

        Why should I? Capital can’t commit Jihad.

        • Alex

          Of course it can, when it buys up our infrastructure and essential services to secure private rents. The Conservative Party are the jihadists for capital, gaily selling our key national assets off at knockdown prices.

          • Enoch Powell

            Wow, you do talk some bollocks don’t you.

          • Alex

            Out of jihadist terrorism and rentier capitalism, I know which one harms me more.

            Like jihad, the Tory programme is done in the name of a rigid ideological dogma, despite not being commercially or strategically advantageous, and despite the misery it causes.

          • WTF

            You’re talking complete bollux as Islamic Jihadism doesn’t even know about the Tories or Labour, the Republicans or Democrats or any other western political party or even the tree hugging greens & the lib-dumbs !

            All it knows about is waging civil war in its own back yard against its own kind and bringing into the west such ‘delights’ as gang rape, be-heading & terrorism.

  • Sargon the bone crusher

    I am watching a Newsnight piece on Labour complicity in the suppression of muslim women by the power of the ‘clan elders’ being respected by the Labour Party. In, I believe, Bradford.
    The presenter described these people as ‘South Asian’. But he did not utter the word muslim. Why not????? (rhetorical, we all know why not)
    Big surprise.
    This, plus Rotherham, and quite possibly other towns and cites with large muslim populations and in-place Labour party people.
    There should be a Royal Commission on the irresponsibility and possibly anti-democratic behaviour of the Labour Party. To say nothing of a possibility – given all that is being reported – of significant illegal activity by the Labour Party.
    Why do the press cover this up? Why do they ‘manage’ the story to the advantage of the socialists???Why did the Newsnight nodding donkey read out a Labour Party statement at the end of the piece??? There is no need to parrot in a wooden manner the Labour Party’s marketing department propaganda on what should be an independent news investigation program.
    Oh, but I forgot.
    The BBC has a known left winger running Newsnight, and the whole corporation is the media department of The Guardian.
    Freedom, truth, buried deeper every day in Britain.

  • goodsoldier

    Trump is a certain New Yorker type that seems unpalatable to a certain sort of snooty Londoner. Do they really think the lying and traitorous Cameron is more respectable and acceptable than Trump? Yvette Cooper, Emily Thornberry, Merkel–these slippery undemocratic sorts are palatable? I don’t get it. I think that people are having a negative transference because Trump looks like the evil businessman or politician in an American TV movie. He says things to shock, and rightly so. It’s interesting to watch nasty people like Merkel and Hillary show shock at somebody much less harmful than themselves. The Spectator is covering up for their own shocking shame at protecting Cameron and the Conservatives for years now as they dissembled. They still hang on for dear life to some idea of being respectable. Only some journalists deserve respect, and these aren’t as squeamish as the general Spectator sort. I’m sick of the line, ‘I don’t love Trump but….’ . He wouldn’t have let Europe be destroyed.

    Not too long ago Nigel Farage was treated as badly as Trump. Why? I find so many other politicians repulsive but not Nigel Farage. Diane Abbot, for example, is truly vile and a racist.

    Here the Washington Post demands that the Republicans stop Trump and explains how to do it. The Spectator would approve I fear.

  • BostonTW

    As a “low information” voter who graduated from one of America’s elite law schools, I, along with my extended family, support Trump because he will protect America by building a wall and enforcing our immigration laws, rebalancing bad trade deals that have bled jobs and treasure overseas, and rebuilding our decaying infrastructure. As a successful businessman with tangible brick and mortar assets worldwide, Trump literally towers above his competition, all of whom are two sides of the same establishment, corroded coin controlled by the donor class.

    The hoi polloi are taking our country back, whether the MSM or PC crowd likes it or not.

    And I’m a 4th generation American of Latino descent. Millions of similar Hispanic Americans support Trump.

  • WTF

    The main reason Trump can’t be knocked off his perch is people are sick to death with the the liars in the establishment as well as main stream media.

    As an example, just listen to Ben Carson the most placid and mild speaking of contestants who has sadly had to bow out. Compared to every other contestant on either side, he never made racist attacks or personal attacks on any one else but promoted himself on his achievements. On this rare occasion in the video clip he rounded on the media pack to highlight the blatant hypocrisy between their attacks on him and the easy ride Obama got. They did the usual trick of deliberately misconstruing other press reports that claimed Carson applied for Westpoint when he didn’t BUT when Carson repeatedly asked this pack of feral reporters why didn’t they question Obamas schooling record, they kept changing the subject. Of course no one knows his record as they are sealed records for some inexplicable reason we can only guess at.

    Its that sort of blatant double standards by the MSM that has helped Trump as unlike Carson who being too nice a guy, Trump if attacked by media bullies or opponents, would thump them back twice as hard immediately ignoring any consequences.


    • Pioneer

      The media here are just as bad. This and other articles in the UK MSM just repeat the distortions, smears and propaganda spewed out by the controlled US MSM.

  • Pioneer

    Absurd article.

    Trump is neither grotesque nor madcap. He talks like a New Yorker and understands how to compete.

    He knows the problems facing America and how to fix them. Perhaps he won’t able to because the rot is too deep – but he is the only candidate who will try.

  • Sipu

    For those who have forgotten the reaction to Reagan’s election may I suggest that they watch this.


    Much of the world was shocked that the US could elect a B-movie actor who was best known for playing side-kick to a chimpanzee.

  • Davedeparis

    Donald Trump does not have a conservative bone in his body and stands for nothing but himself.

    • maic

      This statement does not stand up. While the lefty media like to portray Donald Trump as some sort of geriatric tearaway with no ideals and no policies I say the opposite is true. He does have policies and positions on issues which affect mainstream American citizens and at least some of the citizens are listening and supporting him.
      Donald Trump has written several books which deal with these issues and his proposals to deal with them.
      You can agree or disagree with what he says and writes but your statement that he stands for nothing but himself does not hold water.

      Speaking of agreement or disagreement I wonder if any of the usual political commentators are going to comment on the disgraceful episode in Chicago when disruptive elements forced a cancellation of a Trump rally. What a disgusting situation in “the home of the brave and the land of the free!” Shall conservative American voters be allowed political meetings and assemblies only of the sufferance and permission of the left?
      I wonder what the media coverage and outrage would have been if a conservative group had prevented Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton from holding a political meeting.

      The political establishment and much of the media don’t like Donald Trump because he is not beholden to them, speaks his mind and relates to citizens who have felt betrayed by the establishment politicians.
      I suggest that many conservative citizens in Australia and New Zealand share an equal disenchantment with their so called representatives.
      So will Donald Trump win the required number of delegates to attain the Republican nomination? Well that’s in the hands of the American voters assuming that the left can be persuaded to let normal democratic processes take place. The race is not yet run or won.

      • Davedeparis

        To the extent that Trump has an ideology he is a mercantilistic protectionist. He is explicitly anti-free trade and has excellent in the practice of crony capitalism his entire career. He has repeated the “Bush lied” lie and oscillates wildly between radical isolationism and abridging the constitution by ordering the US military to engage in retributive torture. No sir, he is simply not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination. He is in fact exactly the sort of popularist America’s founding fathers wished to protect the future US against when they drafted the constitution.

  • pbr90

    For Trump, it’s just business as usual, not about politics as usual.
    He cares little who he faces, he’s a steamroller!