Counterpunch : ce sont les gros sous de riches Américains, et non pas les Russes, qui ont valu à Donald Trump d’être élu.
Selon un nouveau rapport, Hillary Clinton croyait que Trump était à un tel point inélectable qu’elle avait intérêt à essayer d’attirer les Républicains, et notamment ceux qui financaient les Républicains, dans son camp. C’est pour cette raison qu’elle n’a pas pris la peine de rediger un véritable projet politique.
Aussi bizarre que cela puisse paraître, l’ancien star de la téléréalité avait beaucoup plus de choses à dire sur les questions politiques que l’ex-First Lady, Sénatrice et diplômée en droit de Yale.
Big American Money, Not Russia, Put Trump in the White House : Reflections on a Recent Report
As the esteemed political scientist and money-politics expert Thomas Ferguson and his colleagues Paul Jorgensen and Jie Chen note in an important study released by the Institute for New Economic Thinking two months ago, the Clinton campaign “emphasized candidate and personal issues and avoided policy discussions to a degree without precedent in any previous election for which measurements exist….it stressed candidate qualifications…[and] deliberately deemphasized issues in favor of concentrating on what the campaign regarded as [Donald] Trump’s obvious personal weaknesses as a candidate.”
Strange as it might have seemed, the reality television star and presidential pre-apprentice Donald Trump had a lot more to say about policy than the former First Lady, U.S. Senator, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a wonkish Yale Law graduate.
Le rapport du « Institute of New Economic Thinking » :
Industrial Structure and Party Competition in an Age of Hunger Games : Donald Trump and the 2016 Presidential Election
The U.S. presidential election of 2016 featured frontal challenges to the political establishments of both parties and perhaps the most shocking election upset in American history.
This paper analyzes patterns of industrial structure and party competition in both the major party primaries and the general election. It attempts to identify the genuinely new, historically specific factors that led to the upheavals, especially the steady growth of a “dual economy” that locks more and more Americans out of the middle class and into a life of unsteady, low wage employment and, all too often, steep debts. The paper draws extensively on a newly assembled, more comprehensive database of political contributions to identify the specific political forces that coalesced around each candidate. It considers in detail how different investor blocs related to the Republican Party and the Trump campaign as the campaign progressed and the role small contributors played in the various campaigns, especially that of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. It also critically evaluates claims about the final weeks of the election in the light of important overlooked evidence.