Mark Blyth and Wendy Schiller – Election 2016: What Happened and Why?

OK. Hi there, everyone. Thank you very much for coming. My name is Jeffrey Salvador. I’m the co-president of the
Political Science Department undergraduate group. We are very excited to be
here for the second part of our political
election series. We had the first
part in September and now the results are in. And we are here to
discuss what happened and why and where
we go from here. So as someone who worked
very hard in this election. I certainly would like to know
the answers to that one too. So I’m very excited to introduce
Professor Wendy Schiller, the Chair of the Political
Science Department and Professor of Political
Science and International Public Affairs and
Professor Mark Blyth, the Eastman Professor
of Political Economy and Professor of Political
Science and International and Public Affairs. Please join me in
welcoming them today. [APPLAUSE] Oh, and if I may, we’ll have
time for a couple questions at the end and those of you
watching in overflow rooms, please feel free to
come down, and we want to incorporate your
questions into the event as well. And how long are we going today? Till 5:30. Till 5:30. Yes. OK, plenty of time
for questions. Have you got a [INAUDIBLE]? Yeah. All right so one of the rooms
I thought OK hashtag brown poly side will be tweeted that will
double the connections yeah it’s background policy Great. OK, well, welcome. I think we first gave a
talk in September together. I think both of us
are a little surprised at the outcome of the
election last night. No, no, no. He’s not. But I am. I’m not stunned
though, not stunned. I’m surprised, but not stunned. And I want everybody
to take a deep breath with me, deep breath. Those of us who are
older in the room have some perspective on
history on these elections. Those of us who are younger,
those of you who are younger, I want to just say that as
I said to my Introduction to American Politics class
this morning, if it’s your first major campaign
that you were involved with, and you were on
the Clinton, side it can be rather devastating to
suffer this loss when you’re so mobilized and so excited. But I’m much older
than you and I too incurred some pretty big loss in
my first presidential campaign and I got over it. And I stayed engaged
and I want to reiterate both the president’s remarks,
President Obama’s remarks and Secretary of State
Clinton’s remarks today, that it’s vitally
important, as bad as it feels for you today those of you who
worked in the Clinton campaign, how bad you feel, you need
to absolutely stay engaged. And when we talk about
the implications of this, I’m going to talk a lot
about the ways I think you can stay engaged
and stay effective, and you know learn how to
lose a presidential election. Because in your lifetime,
you will lose more than one, whatever side of the
political fence you’re on, God willing you
live long enough. So what happened? Well I can tell you that as
soon as we saw that Virginia was too close to call at
about 8:30 last night, I think those of us who
watch elections knew that it was going to be a
difficult night for a Secretary of State Clinton. Why? Because the polling had shown
a very solid healthy lead in Virginia for a long time. And what was clear
from the get go was that the amount of support
indicated by voters in polling was not matching up
with voter support. And why did that happen? Were the polls really
wrong, either the polls from three weeks ago
or the polls that we had, for example in
Pennsylvania for the last four or five months? I’m not persuaded the
polls were entirely off. What I’m persuaded by
is that the people who said they would vote for
Trump were more committed to voting for Trump,
literally getting out the door and voting for Trump than the
people who said they were going or intending to
vote for Clinton. Something happened
with the people who said they were going
to vote for Clinton. They meant it when they said
it, but there was drop off. Either there was
drop off as we know in turnout among some
constituencies in some states, but also people deciding
either at the last minute not to vote at all for president
or actually to vote for Trump. So I think in the terms of the
polling, that’s what happened. When we look at states such
as Wisconsin and Pennsylvania and Michigan, which is
still sort of in dispute, and Virginia even and
Florida, these margins are incredibly small. This is one of the tightest
presidential elections in my lifetime. It’s not quite as tight as
Al Gore versus George W. Bush in 2000, but
it’s very, very tight. 59 million, give or take,
voters voted for Donald Trump. 59 million, give or take,
voted for Hillary Clinton. There’s a couple thousand
in there either way, but generally, that is a
very, very close election. You can’t attribute this to a
failure and turnout machinery. Certainly Hillary Clinton had
a phenomenal organization. That was supposed to be her big
claim to fame in this election. Donald Trump did not have
the same kind of organization with the Republicans, and so
traditional campaign watchers believe that he
couldn’t overcome that organizational
advantage in areas that were already favorable
to Hillary Clinton, notably the suburbs of Philadelphia, the
suburbs of Pittsburgh, Madison, Wisconsin, Milwaukee
areas that were favorable. Certainly those areas were
favorable to Hillary Clinton. But she did not rack up the
lead in those areas that could overcome the turnout among
typically lower educated people without a college education,
who don’t turn out in quite the same numbers
as college educated. Their turnout was higher,
and the big polling number that gave people
confidence in her victory was the gap between college
educated and not college educated in terms
of favorability. She was leading it
initially by 15 points among college educated women. That lead went down
to about 10 points or something or eight points
among college educated women. And among college educated
men, she was at one point leading among all
college educated people, but leading a little bit
and she lost that group too. And so you have to ask
yourself, how did that happen? What was the trigger
that made people decide in the end of the day
that they weren’t going to vote for Hillary Clinton? Generally instinctively,
you can think about your anecdotal
conversations with people and you can think about
all the sorts of reasons. And I think trying to come
up with one is a mistake. I think for some people,
it might have had something to do with gender. For a lot of others
it would have had to do with party defection. People as I said in September,
go home to their parties. It is very tough to
get people to cast a vote against your own party,
to go for the other side. So I never believed that
a lot of Republicans would defect to Clinton. I figured they
wouldn’t cast a vote in that top ballot for president
or they wouldn’t vote at all. I didn’t think that they
would go over to Clinton. She needed a few
of them to do that, particularly among
college educated whites, and she didn’t. African-American turnout
was generally fairly high. It was lower in some areas
of the country, particularly North Carolina. There have been a lot of efforts
made by the North Carolina State legislature to limit
African-American turnout, both in early voting across
the board for Democrats, but also in the number and
location of polling places. So political
scientists and others will have to do some
real studying on that and try to confirm that. But I think by all
accounts that’s one of the factors at
least in North Carolina. But in Florida, for
example in Miami Dade, African-American turnout
was at 2012 levels. So while the turnout
among African-Americans was slightly lower, and the
loyalty to Hillary Clinton was slightly lower,
I don’t think you can attribute the loss
of the election in states like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania,
Michigan to that phenomenon. I think the other
problem for her among particularly college
educated women perhaps, or even just college educated people
in general that typically vote Republican but
might have flipped or who are independent like
New Hampshire, the prospect of continued congressional
investigations, whether you believe these
scandals were manufactured or not, prospect of
having incredible gridlock in the Congress between the
Congress and the president and having an administration
that was bringing a lot of past
experience but also a lot of past baggage in
with her may have turned just enough voters off in certain
precincts and counties in some of these states
to cost her the election. That doesn’t make it
Hillary Clinton’s fault. But it does it does
present the reality of the Republican effort
over the last six years, you could even say 10 years,
to obstruct and to block and to delay. And I think when people
thought about the prospect of another four years
of that, the irony is that it probably worked
in the Republicans favor. Well, let’s just
get a fresh start. How bad can Trump be? I think a lot of people
figured that he would come in with no prior government
scandals, not to say doesn’t have personal issues,
but no government prior scandals. And that in fact,
the Congress wouldn’t be able to stand still
with a Trump presidency, because if they
maintain Congress, there would be a unified
Republican government. And I will talk about
the implications of a unified
Republican government when we talk about the
implications of this election. And going back to
that question, again, given the prospect
of that, you also saw I think to the Democrats
dismay, straight ticket voting. Democrats were hoping
for more a split ticket voting in North Carolina
and Pennsylvania in particular, that the Trump
effect would be negative. One of the most
surprising results was Russ Feingold losing
as badly as he did to the incumbent Ron Johnson. None of that showed
up in the polling. He was a fairly weak incumbent. Clearly Trump carried him in. In the way that
Russ Feingold was supposed to give Wisconsin to
Hillary with the Progressives. The majority of millennials
voted for Hillary Clinton, about 54%. And the same number
is true for 40 to 50, but other millennials voted
for Trump or third party. And if you add up
all of those and you could identify in which states
millenials voted that way, you might make an
argument that that cost her one of these states. Not sure would of course
for all the states, but it cost her
one of the states. So I think in the end of the
day, 24 years of public life and public service and public
vitriol and public attacks, I think can become
a liability that is more difficult to overcome
than a lot of people thought. And that wouldn’t have played
with the people under 40. But the people over 40
vote in bigger numbers. So I think that was an issue. Another surprise 29% of the
Latino vote went to Trump. That was surprising
given that Romney only won 26% of Latino
vote, and the rest of the vote, 65%
of the Latino vote according to New York Times exit
polls went to Hillary Clinton. Latino turnout in Florida
was massively higher than it was in 2012. So it was not a Latino
turnout issue in Florida. And Nevada you can
argue went to Clinton because of Latino turnout. But even just 3 percentage
difference in loyalty, given the margin in
Florida, the margin is a little higher in Florida
than Virginia, Virginia reversing, she won. But even that if you
multiply that basically in North Carolina, even a small
percentage of Latino vote, that can matter. So it was the
demographics where she lost a few votes, a few thousand
votes here and there that cost her some of these states
that cost her the election. So I thought that Trump’s
quote, unquote victory speech was actually much more
measured than most people would have thought. And I think Clinton’s
speech today, especially to young people, was quite
good and quite inspiring, as was the president’s speech. People might have
thought the president was slightly cavalier. But I don’t think he was
trying to be cavalier. I think he was trying to
encourage people that this is one election of many. There will be those
in the future, there have been of
those in the past. And how we’ve would
deal with that the future would
have a lot to do with the impact of the election. So I think I’ll leave it there. I have a lot to say about the
implications of the election. But you want to tell
me what you think? So I wasn’t surprised at all. Many of you have sat
here in this room with me when I’ve spoken
about global Trumpism and various things like this. The first time I came
out publicly and said I thought that he would
win was at a Wharton event in May of last year. I did an interview in Greece
that one viral when I predicted both Brexit and Trump. And it’s not because I have
a clear [INAUDIBLE] crystal ball sitting under my bed
or I made a pact with Satan to see the future in a mirror. It’s pretty obvious if you think
about it in a more global way. This is not a local event. Everything Professor
Schiller just said is true about
this election. But Brexit happened. There’s a left wing version of
this that brought us Greece. There’s the shrinkage
of center party votes across the entire OACD. There’s the collapse of
left wing parties votes in particular across
Western Europe. Coming up next, Renzi is
going to fail in Italy in the referendum
that’s coming up which will cause a
constitutional crisis in Italy. Shortly after that we have
the French election coming up. I would like to remind you
of the following statistics. The lowest that
George Bush ever got, George Bush Jr. got as president
in his approval rating was 29%. The president of
France currently has an approval rating of 4%. And the National
Front have nearly 40% of the intended vote. So even with the design of
the French constitution, which makes it very
difficult and you have to have a second
round et cetera, the most popular political
party by a factor of 2 in France is the National Front. After that, we have the
German elections coming up. Merkel is vulnerable. How is all of this
going to play out and where is it all connected? Here’s a simple way
of thinking about it. From 1945 until
1975, we targeted a particular economic variable
called full employment. And there’s a thing called the
Lucas critique, which basically says if you keep targeting
something, people will game it. And they did. Unions gamed it. Employers gamed it. And the result was inflation. And after a while that inflation
became painful, painful enough for the people who were harmed
by it, who were the creditor classes in these countries to
band together and fund a market friendly revolution. And they liberated finance
and they deregulated banks and they integrated
economies of the world. And they globalized labor such
that labor could no longer demand that it gets its
share of productivity, because if you don’t, I’ll just
move your job somewhere else. And all of those trade
agreements that were signed, the globalization, which
is inevitable and we can’t roll back. You know you can go on the
web and type in WTO text and you’ll find that it’s a very
long 700 page legal agreement that took five
years to thrash out between corporate interests,
lawyers, lobbyists, with very little input
from civil society. The same is true of
the EU’s agreements on capital movements, the
banking union, take your pick. And there’s a moment
when people just began to figure out that
for the past 30 years, going from 1985 until now,
huge amounts of money have been generating
the global economy. And as we know from the work
of Thomas Piketty and others, most of it’s gone out to a tiny
fraction of the population. So there’s been a
huge amount of growth but hardly anyone’s benefited. You don’t have to
go far to see this. Get off the East Side. Go to the west
side of Providence. Go to Northwest Providence
and walk into neighborhoods which have check cashing
agencies, fried chicken joints, pawn shops, broken down
fix your mobile and networks you’ve never heard of stores. That’s the reality for
people, not just here, in many, many countries. So they’re a bit
fed up with this. And they’ve decided at
any possible opportunity with his Brexit, the Italian
constitutional referendum, or anything, to basically
give their elites notice that we’ve had enough of this. And that’s what this is. Now there’s a macroeconomic
underpinning to this one too, because after we decided
to target full employment for 30 years, we decided to target
inflation for 30 years. I don’t see where the Lucas
critique doesn’t actually apply to that one as well. And we’ve managed to
create a world in which you can dump 13 trillion euros
into the global money supply through quantitative
easing and other programs, and there is no
inflation anywhere. And here’s your problem. When you’ve levered
up your banking system and bailed it out, dumped it
on the public purse and said, you need to cut
that terrible debt. When people’s personal
balance sheets are still bloated from all the credit
they took on in the 2000s, and they don’t have wage
growth and there’s no inflation to ease the burden of the debt,
then the creditors fight harder to get their money back. So that’s the case of
Germany versus the rest of the Eurozone, whether
it’s the form of the creditor class versus the debtor
class, what we have everywhere are creditor-debtor standoffs. And these creditor-debtor
standoffs take different forms. For the left it takes
the form of [INAUDIBLE]. For the right it takes the
form of the National Front. And for Trump, which has
a weird coalition, which is of course sexist,
and of course racist, and of course, anti-immigrant,
and all the rest of it, but one part of
it is if you look at the states that really
fell hard, the Rust Belt, it’s economic. Now, if you recognize
that simple fact, you can put Trump in
there with Brexit. You can put Trump in
there with Jeremy Corbyn. You can put him in with
all the rest of them. And I’ll leave you one set of
numbers that I found to do, which I think is just
an absolute clanger for this whole thing. In 2015, Wall Street bonuses,
not regular compensation, bonuses, seven years after they
were bailed out with the public purse, totalled– let me get
this right –$28.4 billion. Total compensation paid
to every single person in this country who earns a
minimum wage, $14 billion. I’ll stop there. OK. So I want to talk
about the implications. And I want to talk a little bit
about the economic disconnect, and I think it’s
really important to look at this historically
the way political parties use economic and racial
wedges to win votes. This has been going on
since the very beginning, but certainly after the
Civil War and Reconstruction and then Jim Crow and then
all the way through the ’30s, and especially in places
like Louisiana, famous Huey Long, pitted white
people who were poor against black people
who were poor in Louisiana. There’s a book by V.O.
Key called Southern State and Nation. And he details this, I
mean really in depth. And you think about
it this way in which, even in the late 1800s,
prior immigrant groups would pit themselves against the
newer immigrant groups, both for position in society,
but also economic gains. America has a history of pitting
one group against the other. And there’s no question
in the Trump campaign, that he did that on multiple
levels with multiple groups. And the Clinton campaign
pitched to the greater good in Americans, right? How could you support
somebody who would do this? And in some ways you wanted
to sort of go with that plea. But on the other, it ignored
what was strategic history throughout the
history of the country and how parties win votes. So the economic
factor that I think Mark Blyth is pointing out
that is absolutely spot on, is also intermixed of course
with race, nation of origin, immigrant status, and gender. But when you’re thinking
about your own little enclave, and what we know in
political science from the work of Sean
Theriault and some others, is that we now don’t just
have political polarization, we have residential
political segregation. People go to live
in places where they think people think
like them politically, which is really striking. We still don’t have
mobility in terms of race. We still have discrimination
in the housing market. But on top of that,
we have people who go live in liberal
areas because they think people think like them and
they want their kids to grow up in those neighborhoods. We know these apples
of friends who say, oh, I’ve never met a Republican. . I’ve never met a Democrat. You know, my gosh, you’re 17. There is a world out there. That happens here in America. So you can imagine
how the reverb happens in a campaign when you have
a neighborhood or a community that is marked by
similar characteristics, maybe working class, maybe
the same economic, maybe same profession, and then you
surround yourself with people like you, not just racially
but also politically. And what the Democrats estimated
was that the people who were like that Democrats 2008, 2012,
would stay Democrats in 2016. And too few of them stayed
loyal to the Democratic Party because the messaging
did not resonate sufficiently with them. I think the tide of Wall
Street was very effective. Donald Trump sort
of portrayed himself as a guy who played
Wall Street, right? Going bankrupt, borrowing
money, going bankrupt, borrowing money, not paying
it back, getting big deals, he always gets a great deal. It was the antithesis of
what the Obama slash Clinton team is, right? I mean so President Obama
did the best he could I think with the
economic crisis. But it is still true
that bankers and banks made a lot of money. And then they were bailed
out, then they were forgiven, and then they paid a lot
billions and billions of dollars in fines by the way
billions of dollars in fines, but as you point
out, they themselves didn’t appear to suffer. And this mattered to the
Democratic constituency. It mattered not just among
white people by the way. Talk to African-Americans
in Cleveland by the way. There was a whole, whole
section of Cleveland that was preyed upon in subprime
mortgages and lost their homes. So this is sort of
a brewing discontent on the Democratic side. So the Republicans
were always mobilized, but the Democrats were
brewing discontent. Then I think she
tried to reach them. But it’s hard to
reach them when you don’t have the policies that
you enacted– she was Secretary of State of course, not
Secretary of Commerce or Labor and it was hard to
get those bona fides. Giving the speeches to Wall
Street wasn’t that big a deal, but it didn’t help. And so when you add that up,
people say to themselves, Trump’s my voice. Trump’s going to
get me back my job or get me a better way of life. The other thing that I also
said in September that I still hold true, which is really
important for people at Brown, is that social change has
moved incredibly quickly. And we have to
sort of understand that some people, a lot of
people, have not caught up. And that the world they live
in and the social attitudes they have remain
to them something they value that they respect. We in society that want to
move forward progressively, ask them to change some of
those values and ideals, and it’s coming down basically
as a fiat from the Supreme Court in some ways, with same
sex marriage for example. That doesn’t mean same sex
marriage isn’t the right thing to do. But what it means is if
you’re the Democratic Party, you have to go back and
you have to figure out a way to integrate the
people that supported you for 40 years and social change. And it’s not that easy to do. So I want to talk a little
about the implications. This is not going to be
popular what I’m about to say, but that’s OK. I’m going to live with that. Two things, I grew up in
the Ronald Reagan era. That was my political
socialization. And I know most of you were
too young to remember that. But I can tell you that
I grew up as a Democrat and now I’m a registered
Independent That may also happen to as you get older. But it’s very important
that you recognize that if you are at Democrat
and you were liberal in 1980 or 1984 in particular, you were
devastated by Walter Mondale’s complete disaster of
an election, where he lost almost all states. You thought there was no way,
how could the America elect Ronald Reagan again? How could this happen? Don’t people see through him? Couldn’t they understand? My 19-year-old, 20-year-old
self is screaming to myself in my head, how could
this have happened and how will I live through it? How will I get through it? And he had people like Ed
Meese as Attorney General. This was a bad guy. He was a bad guy. He’s a bad Attorney General. I mean, he had cabinet
members that were bad. I’m just prefacing who Trump
might put into the cabinet. They were bad. They were bad. But somehow, America
got through that. There were damaging policies. There was damage done,
no question about it. And by 2000, I’m sorry
1986– I’m so old, 1986, American people– the
House is already democratic and the Senate
elections of 1986, after six years
of Ronald Reagan, they were a wipeout
for the Republicans. They lost eight Senate
seats and the Democrats took the Senate back. So there will be a
pendulum in your lifetime. You will lose a
devastating election that will keep you depressed
for quite some time. This may be it. But there’s a long life
cycle in American politics and you have to remember that. And one of the most
important things if you were a Clinton
supporter if you were described as an
independent or a Democrat, separate from Trump. The Republican Party has
been very, very good, even going back to 2006 against
George Bush on immigration reform, but further
going in when Obama gets elected at obstruction. Obstruction and delay,
and obstruction and delay and shutting down the government
and feeding the rhetoric that Trump, I would say,
exacerbated or expanded but certainly the implicit
message is against the other, were very much ever present
in the Republican platform. That goes back to Reagan, but it
was resurrected in the last 10 years with some force
by the Republican Party. And I call this the era
of blameless obstruction. Why was it blameless? Because they did not suffer any
electoral consequences really. In 2010, they won the
House back on the Tea Party and this rhetoric
against Obamacare. In 2012 they lost
the White House, but that’s a bigger reach
and in 2014, Republicans regained the Senate based on
the same, the government’s bad. Shut it down. Block it, block
it, shut it down. And now it’s easy to
do because they did not have the White House. And voters did not
blame the Republicans for wage stagnation. They didn’t blame
them for the failure of retraining programs for
people over the age of 50 that needed retraining. They didn’t blame them
on corporate low taxes or patriation jobs overseas. They didn’t blame them because
Republicans were very, very good at blaming the
Obama administration. They cannot do that anymore. The Republicans own
the government now. They are a unified party
government from top to bottom. They cannot blame the
African-American president. They cannot blame
the female president. What you look forward to, and I
mean forward as in the future, not with great anticipation,
what you see is finally, these there will be
policies you object to. There will be things that
they try to do as a party that you as a Democrat may say,
I don’t want that to happen. But they will own it. There will be no way around it. And that is very important
for the party system. It is very important for the
Congressional functionality in our system. You may say, I
don’t want Congress to do anything because I don’t
like who controls Congress. You can’t think that way. If the House of Representatives
cannot bring bills to the floor, the
government cannot function. The government is
too big for that. So you need the House majority
party and the Senate majority party to be able to function. You need them to bring
bills up, even so that you can fight the
legislation that you don’t like that they propose. But then voters in Pennsylvania
and Wisconsin and Florida will see who is
running the country. And they may reward
the Republicans in 2018, which is the
next electoral cycle. Which by the way if
you’re political, you will always wake up
the next day and say, when is the next regularly
scheduled election? And unlike Britain, we have
that, regularly scheduled. I can tell you when they’ll
be, in 2018 and 2020. And you have pick
yourself up off the floor and say, OK, what are the
venues that I can operate in to fight what I see as
injustice or bad policy now, but gear up for the
next political election. And in an election for the
first time the a very long time since 2006, Democrats
can run against a unified Republican
government that may or may not deliver on the vast promises
that Donald Trump has made. First they have to get
along with Donald Trump. Now all the Republicans
will fall in line because he’s their president. He is the President of
the United States elect. He will be everybody’s
president January 20. They will probably fall in
line, but it is not at all clear to me how much they will
support what he wants to do. He may go too far to the
left for the Republicans in the Freedom caucus, just
by wanting to spend money on infrastructure. Donald Trump builds things
and he puts his name on it. What better use of time as
president to build more things and put more of your name on it? I’m serious about this. He’s going to want to
do things and he’s not going to want to wait for
Congress to figure out to appropriate money. So now we’ve had such
intense difficulty appropriating money
for basic things in the federal government. Now he’s going to want more. His list yesterday,
in his victory speech were things
Republicans cringe at. They don’t want to spend
money on any of that. This is going to be a test of
party loyalty and party unity. There will be a
honeymoon period. But by the time you get
to February and March when the budget
starts to be written, things could go off the
rails in these two, which means that Trump may say, well,
if you don’t cooperate with me, I’ll cooperate
with the Democrats. You have no idea how
this is going to go. I think party
accountability is incredibly important in an American
system which is further removed from meeting the individual
you vote for than ever before. Congressional districts
are 711,000 people. They will be probably maybe
close to a million people in the next redistricting. You can’t meet these people. You can’t see these
people in most states. So in order for us to be able
to hold government accountable it has to be clear
who is in charge and who’s responsible
for delivering. And this is the first
time in 10 years that the Republicans
will face that task, and it’s unclear to me at
this point that they are going to be cohesive and
united on all the things either that Trump promised
to do, good and bad, and what they always like to do. The Democrats will have
to be a loyal opposition. They are that now. They’re going to have to marshal
their forces in big ways. In terms of foreign policy,
I’ll say something else that isn’t going to be
particularly popular, but an unpredictable
president when it comes to the use of force
is not always a terrible thing. There were lots of ways in
which Ronald Reagan was not well received by the
rest of the world. But in one way, one thing that
people thought about him was he might just be crazy enough
to do something serious. I don’t think he was crazy, but
I think he was unpredictable. And Trump is unpredictable. And in terms of
the use of force, that may not always,
depending on who you’re dealing with in the
world, be a terrible thing. Last, on the implications. Oh, what do you do next? Before we go to Mark,
what do you do next? As I said, you stay engaged. And I think a lesson for
your generation that’s really important that
my generation had to learn in the ’80s is that
politics and the government is not the only way
to affect change, that you want to work through
your communities, whatever they are. You want to work through
the local organizations, nonprofits,
non-governmental agencies. You want to make somebody’s
life better, train them, get them a job, educate
them, tutor them, help them out economically. You don’t have to
look to the government to make all that happen. You can make that happen now. And the counterforce,
of that kind of activity is a strong one. It helps to not only
improve people’s lives, but also talk to people you
might not otherwise meet. And talk to people who
might believe the government shouldn’t do this, but they want
to do it in the private sector. There might be
crossed the actions you can make to people whom you
don’t agree with politically. Don’t give up on
all those venues because they’re
important venues. And don’t give up on
the political venue. The idea is not to crawl
away and say, woe is us. The idea is a sort
of pick yourself up as the president said today,
and get back out there and keep fighting for
what you believe in, and keep trying
to win elections. But also recognize
that the venues to win elections, the local
city council, state legislature, governor, all these
things matter. And you want to make sure
that you keep that commitment to stay engaged. Because you will find you
will survive this defeat, and you will want
to be empowered. And it won’t just
be for one election, it’ll be for all elections. And so I really urge
you to keep that in mind and try to turn your attention,
if you can soon, as you can, to those other ways in which
you might be effective. I think the Wall Street issue
goes much deeper than this. If you download from
WikiLeaks the Podesta emails and start searching
for place names, something very
interesting happens. One of the place names
that comes up the most is Martha’s Vineyard. Another one that comes
up after that is Davos. Another one that comes after
that is Washington, DC. And then basically
the distribution of real places where
real people actually live disappears into the tail. We talk about the Democrats,
the Democratic Party. I don’t know who that is. I know that there’s a bunch of
people who have made very, very nice six figure careers in DC
bouncing from agency to agency, starting wars, getting
promoted, never actually paying
the costs for it, waiting for the next
administration they give them another pay hike. And I see a lot of that when
you just spend any time in DC and you bump into
them all the time. Let me read you a
little bit from what Thomas Frank had to say about
this today in The Guardian. There’s an even
larger problem here. There’s a kind of
chronic complacency that’s been rotting American
liberalism for years, a hubris that tells Democrats
they need do nothing different. They need deliver
nothing to anyone really except the
friends on the Google jet and those nice
people at Goldman. The rest of us are treated as
though we have nowhere else to go and no role to play
except to vote enthusiastically on the grounds that these
Democrats are the last thing standing between us and
the end of the world. It’s a liberalism
of the rich and it’s filled the middle
class and it’s filled in terms of its own
electability enough with these comfortable Democrats
in their cozy Washington system. Enough with Clintonism
and it’s prideful air of professional
class virtue, enough. That’s coming from a
left commentator, not a right commentator. So I’m not even sure who
the Democrats are that are going to mount this challenge. Who are the people that
they’re going to connect with? The social organizations,
the movements, the youth, how do they touch that them they
barely only talk to each other and no one else on
the way to Davos or Martha’s Vineyard to
commune with the guys at Goldman that are
funding the party. Let’s talk a few
other consequences. In the summer, if you weren’t
paying close attention to American politics,
if you were a European, I got quite a few calls from
Europeans, friends of mine from email. And they would say,
why are you guys are obsessed with bathrooms? Because it seems
that Obama’s legacy from an outside point
of view– now of course, I get what’s going on here. You’re basically saying states
cannot decide who persons are. This is actually an
incredibly important issue, but it’s done about
bathrooms and who gets to go to a bathroom. Now let’s think about
people who really don’t have the time or the
inkling to figure out that this is actually a really
important civil rights issue, it sounds ridiculous. And so much of what
Democrats spend their time on might be good, but
sounds ridiculous. And let’s think about
what Obama’s actually doing for his legacy. You know they were
saying that he was going to ram TTP
through in a lame duck session of Congress, a
free trade agreement? You know the thing that lots
of people are upset about? Let’s go to Europe for a minute. Sigmar Gabriel the head
of the Social Democrats, I was at his shop
three weeks ago. I said, where’s Sigmar? He was in Boglonia,
campaigning to get a free trade agreement with Canada. This is the head of the
Social Democratic Party. When their job is carrying
water for corporations to get investor
protection treaties, and then going out to
commune with Goldman where the money is, why would
you believe in them? I think the credibility problem
here is absolutely enormous. Now, let’s think
about other things that have happened in the past
that we have responsibility for that we never think
about, the financial crisis, the Commodity Futures
modernization Act, the deliberate discount of
any information anything to do with banks and
finance wasn’t good, the idea that we can’t
prick asset bubbles because we don’t really know
what they’re asset bubbles. Really? My dad [INAUDIBLE] he knew
there was a housing bubble and he didn’t have
a PhD in economics. So we’re left with a technocracy
and a bunch of political people who don’t recognize politics,
who are unwilling to engage in politics, because they
love to think that everything is just a policy problem to be
slide ruled out of existence. So let’s think about the short
term consequences a bit longer when one here. So knowing that this
was going to happen, I had shorts on in the market. So I was short US dollar
and I was short S&P 500. But on Friday, I
took the shorts off, because I started to think
about well, hang on a second. Let’s say he wins. For me to make any
money off this, because I don’t have billions
of dollars to play with and I can’t afford
to take leverage in the wrong direction. How am I not going to do this
with my paltry little bit of a gamble? Well, if you think
about the companies that are going to benefit from Trump,
there’s actually a lot of them, and they disproportionately
weight the S&P 500. So banks, now why are banks
going to start loving this? Because Dodd-Frank
is going to die. That much is clear. Health care companies,
they’re going to love it because
Obamacare is going to die. Infrastructure
companies are going to love it because we are
going to spend money on that and we’re going to
be able to do it, because we’re going to do it
in the form of tax cuts, which is going to bloat the
deficit and is going to be negative on US bonds. But it doesn’t matter
because there’s nowhere else to go except the US
dollar unless you want to buy German
bunds that are already negatively yielding. So we will export our problems
to the rest of the world as we usually do. So in the short
term you can tell the story that makes sense as to
why today, after this guy gets elected– Stock market’s up. Not just the stock market’s
up, all the indexes are up and the US dollar is up. And that’s after we
elected that guy. So you want to think
about consequences, you got to think very hard about
exactly how this plays out. A couple other things
going to happen. There’s going to be a tax
deal with US corporations. They are going to get
a sweetheart deal. They’ll probably pay a 10%
penalty rate bringing back the taxes. After that, everybody’s happy. Because they win
and we slightly win. What will we use
that money to do? To basically balance
the books on the tax cuts that were going
to give and are already going to go once again to
the overwhelmingly well-off. Second thing that’s going to
happen as I’ve said Obamacare is gone. Dodd-Frank is gone. What does that mean? It means we’re going to
[INAUDIBLE] generally an excess of leverage in
the financial sector again. And there’s a real problem here,
which I’m not going into now, but I’ll be happy to answer
during the question and answer. There’s a huge movement to
passive modes of investment, basically not active management. And there’s a strategy
called smart beta strategies, which people are
pursuing, which is increasing massive
amounts of correlation in financial markets again. And if you push leverage
into that system, you basically create
2008 all over again. And the last one I want to
talk about is a domestic one, is both Bernie
Sanders and Donald Trump have been equally
dishonest on this. There is no Renaissance
of manufacturing in the United States. It’s not going to happen. At the end of the
day, manufacturing works in a very simple way. Capital substitutes for
labor at the margin. And the more capital you
have, the less labor you need. Look at German Mittelstand. Employment’s going like this. Output’s going like this. We live in a world
where literally 10% of the global population
could provide super-abundance for everyone. We have a distributional
problem and a political problem. We do not have a
problem of where you’re going to make
your stuff in factories. The notion that we’re going to
rebuild all these factories, the plant suppliers, the
equipment manufacturers, what, so the people can get lung
disease and asbestosis again? Is that actually the plan? I think it is
tremendously dishonest to say that’s going to happen. And then finally
on foreign policy, I mentioned that
the Italians are going to be in trouble soon. The French could
really be in trouble. There’s a whole host
of things going on, German elections coming up. I used to worry about
the future of the euro so much so that I
wrote a book about it. I don’t worry about the euro. I think that stays. I worry about the EU itself. I think that is desperately
unstable and desperately fragile. Because it rests upon a
technocratic consensus that the commission can
run things and the ECB is the best one to
run economic policy. And nobody buys that anymore. So the legitimacy gap
is absolutely huge and the performance
gap is absolutely huge. And the final one, your friend
and mine, Vladimir Putin. Because on the one hand, and
this is where I will actually go very much with
Professor Schiller here, I actually think that
the, let’s call them the, neoliberal but
nonetheless humanist internationalist
interventionist Democrats, who have been running foreign
policy for the past decade and a half have been
an absolute disaster. They haven’t solved Iraq. They continue to
do the same things. They’re still blowing
up Afghanistan. There’s no end in sight. We’re dropping drones on
people without responsibility or oversight. This isn’t going anywhere. So if anything– they’re also
incredibly hostile to Russia. They’ve expanded all the
way– NATO all the way up to the borders. You have given tiny little
states in the Baltic F-15 fighters just to piss them off. You’re putting in
radar installations to look for
non-existent missiles from the Middle East
coming from Iran. And then you’ve got Putin
on the other side of that. So in the short term,
taking that off the table might actually not be bad. That’s why they’re delighted. But here’s your
long term problem. What if Donald thinks
he’s a super smart guy and he’s got a good
deal with Vladimir and everything’s going on. And Vladimir says, watch this
and he invades the Baltics. What does he do then? There’s your risk factors. Consequence that. Yeah, I think that you’ve
raised a couple of good points. I think that Donald
Trump’s going to ask for outright
money for infrastructure. So I do think that the
tax cuts plus the asks are going to trigger the
deficit hawks in the Republican Party, who stand usually
firm against spending money. So I think that’s going
to create some conflict. I do want to talk about civil
liberties and national security a little bit. Can we actually just do it
in the context of question to answer because we’ve been
banging on for 45 minutes. Let’s bring everybody else in. I actually have a question about
civil liberties on Twitter. Right. So let’s start with that one. The question is–
start question. How realistic is a collapsed
progressive social freedoms [INAUDIBLE]? The collapse of progressive
social freedoms? Could give you be a little
specific about what you mean by progressive social freedoms? No, Twitter. You can’t be
specific on Twitter. So like, gay marriage. Well, I think it’s going
to be– even if he were to get a new nominee, just
one, So there’s a four to four court now. Obviously I think Merrick
Garland will be withdrawn once the new president comes. I think that’s going to be over. But I think you need
another justice. And you still can’t get
beyond a 6 3 on that decision. So I don’t see that the court
would overturn the same sex marriage guarantee this quickly. I just don’t see that. John Roberts is a public
opinion sensitive Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. We know this a
little bit of the way he parsed out the
Obamacare decision, which was pretty parsed
in terms of that. I think he doesn’t want to be
the villain that takes away people’s rights. I mean, I think it’s
less secure on abortion actually than I think
same sex marriage. But Donald Trump himself,
it’s unclear to me, even though his rhetoric
in the campaign, I just don’t know what kind
of social agenda he has. Ronald Reagan ran
on a social agenda and he put forth
some things socially, but he was never
super committed to it. And I do think that Donald
Trump is not nearly as committed to that as he is economics
and foreign policy. I just don’t know
that he’s going to be inclined to pick a fight there. Every attack that they
wage, the Republican Party, through Donald Trump or through
Congress on a particular group, will eat away, even
at this coalition that they constructed
for this election, it will still eat away
at that coalition. And the Republicans
may face pressure. The irony is that they
would have faced pressure from their own constituency
to do these things. But the pressure
really on Trump comes from a different constituency. It’s the tradition
Republican constituency, it’s the working class
democratic constituency. So it’s a kind of fine
line the Republicans have to walk because
if they overreach, they could find themselves
fighting on both ends. They could find
themselves fighting different constituencies. So I think it’s really now
the Republicans are looking to get as much done
in the first two years before 2018 as they can. And they’re going to
have to pick and choose. And he doesn’t like to be the
bad guy, at least he doesn’t want to be the villain yet. So it’s really, Mike Pence has
a very socially conservative agenda. He’s the Vice President of
the United States Elect. Whether he’s super influential,
what I see now is happening is Mike Pence is the VP. My guess is he tries to crowd
out Chris Christie and Rudie Giuliani and some
other people who have been the policy
advisers, so that he can be the real policy person. If you don’t see
that happening, I don’t see either
Giuliani or Christie going after that particular
element of social freedoms. I do think that he’ll be
under pressure on abortion, as always. You may see reversion of a
lot of these things to states. And that’s why you have to pay
attention to state politics. Lots of state legislative
seats in governorships are up in 2018. Again, staying engaged,
watching is legislation on this. One more question
so far on Twitter. And for those of
you watching at home you can tweet us your questions
at hashtag Brown Poli Sci. And actually it’s a
historical question. How did racial and political
pitting to get votes play into the 2008
and 2012 elections for President Obama’s wins? Well President Obama, I think,
benefited from sort of a moment in time, which was
that Democrats, particularly
progressives were very, very strongly mobilized
against the Iraq war in 2006, which is unusual
for a midterm election. But both Nancy Pelosi and Harry
Reid did a very, very good job on getting people really out
the door in the 2006 elections and winning the Senate
and the House back. That gave the Democrats
a very active coalition to build on for 2008. Plus I think John McCain’s
choice of Sarah Palin may seem ironic now since she
has more experience than Donald Trump, but was considered
a strong liability. But John McCain didn’t
actually run a particularly racist campaign in 2008. And he resisted some urges on
that, the birther movement, and some other things. So I think that didn’t
come up for Obama to combat the way that it might
have had a different candidate run, certainly Trump. And the economic crisis I
think, just swamped everything. And the Republicans were
out and out blamed for that. And that’s the same
constituency they didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton
in some numbers this time, voted for Barack Obama then. Because he promised that he
would get us out of a jam. And to a lot of extent, he
did get us out of a jam. But not where people
feel it theoretically. Actually they may feel it. One thing about inflation,
there is inflation, but they’ve been really
clever, corporate America, boxes of food, for
example are smaller. Buy any box of
cereal that you pay the exact same price you did two
years ago, you get less food. Can of tuna fish, smaller. Soup cans, smaller. You look at anything,
it’s now packaged bigger with less content. That’s inflation. You’re paying the same
price and getting less. Well no that’s actually
just stealing extra profit. That doesn’t have
to be inflation. Inflation means there’s rising
prices at a general level. But it does cost more because
you’re not getting as much– Commodity prices are falling. That can’t be true. They’re just stealing. Right. It’s semantics. No it’s not semantics. They’re just stealing. They’re just stealing. But to me as a consumer, I am
paying more and getting less. Right. That’s certainly true,
but it’s not inflation. Let’s take questions
from the audience. So first of all,
thank you so much. This is very interesting. I’ve been seeing
some things online that are predicting
that Hillary is going to win the popular vote. Before 2000, this
had happened I think two times in the
history of the country, and now in the
past 15 years it’s happened two times or maybe. Do you think that is a
trend increasingly divided, I mean you said people are
moving to live with people who think like them? Do you think that’s
causing some kind of trend in a difference in popular
vote and electoral college? Yeah the difference is not
as big as it was in 2000. Gore, I think won
the popular vote by more than 300,000 votes. I don’t know if she’s
there yet, but she’s– They think she’s going
to win by more than Gore. Yeah. I think she’s at the advantage
of the popular vote I think now is 1.3% or something. So yeah, that raises questions. And we had this conversation
in class morning. So you look at the
electoral college. You say California, as long
as California stays Democratic and New York stays
Democratic and Illinois says Democratic, big states,
you are going to rack up sheer numbers of vote. So one of the options is
to open up the Constitution and change the
electoral college. I’m not a big fan of
opening up the Constitution, particularly in this particular
atmosphere and climate. What could go wrong? I think the framers
saw a few things. The framers made
a lot of mistakes. We know that. One thing they anticipated
was somebody like Trump winning the presidency. They saw this coming. They were not big fans of
the party for this reason. They didn’t want the Congress
to be unified with someone like this in the White House. But they set up checks and
balances and separation of powers for this reason. Second, the
electoral college was designed to prevent a mistake. If the voters chose badly,
the electoral college should overturn it. That is the intent of
the electoral college. That no longer operates,
because most electors sign pledges to say that
they would vote the way that the State votes. States can make, as
Maine and Nebraska do, the electoral college
proportional in some way. So that if you win
California, you win a portion of
California, and the person who doesn’t win
the majority vote also wins electoral
college votes. That would certainly
make it better I think, and without having to
change the Constitution. So that’s where I am on
the electoral college. Do you think that this
election indicates a political realignment
of any sorts? Do you think that the Republican
Party has now officially been taken over by
right wing populism and now the right
wing neoliberal conservatism as it
were, or Reaganomics is now out of power? And the other part
of that is, now that we’ve seen that
the right changing, what do you think the left
in the US and worldwide is going to look like now? Great question. You want that first? All right. So the only tweet I did
today was the following. I said, this is all I have
to say about the election, and the line was, the era
of neoliberalism is over. The era of neonationalism
has just begun. And that’s what I
think is going on. So that’s the short
answer to that. So to unpack that a little
bit, Professor Schiller can talk to the specifics
of the American context. But there is no left left. It’s already had
its lunch eaten. The SPD in Germany got
19% in Baden-Wurttemberg. That’s like literally
like the Democrats getting 19% in Rhode Island. They’re dead. They’re two electoral
cycles away from death. The British Labor Party has now
elected Jeremy Corbyn twice. Jeremy Corbyn will
never get more than 30% of the popular vote. Those 30% are going to
love him until they die, but he’s never going
to win an election. And then the major parties
that are not like that, for example the
Swedish SAP, which used to be able to get elected
by putting a dead dog up with a red rosette on it, can’t
get above 30% of the vote. And they have to deal with
a right wing party called the Swedish Democrats who
are far from democratic, but really know who’s
a Swede and who’s not. So they’re in trouble. And that’s the European story. Now, does that get
replicated here? One of the virtues
perhaps, is the fact that America doesn’t
have real parties. So you don’t get those
types of dynamics and the party system
is more fluid, even though it’s
dominated by two, but I will leave it
to Professor Schiller to talk about that one. Yeah, I think the
short answer is that is very much all
depends– first of all, I don’t think the
left is– if you’re going to called the
Democratic Party the left, then it’s not at all dead. You know Hillary Clinton 59
million plus million votes. That’s not dead. That’s not even close to dead. That’s not even on life support. That’s just an unlucky
and misguided election in a couple of states, getting
back to the local college. So that’s not in
the least bit gone. And there are 193
members of the House that were Democrats and 47 US
senators who are Democrats. There are many fewer governors. So they’re not at all dead. But what they stand for, how
they articulate their policies, I totally agree with
Mark White on this, has to be just
completely renovated, using some of Bernie
Sanders populist rhetoric, but also programs
that have not worked for lots of
different people have to get renovated and revamped,
redirected, be more effective, and not just lip service. And I think the idea
that the government will do lots of things for you,
I think that’s under siege. I think that’s under challenge. I think as strongly
as it’s probably going to be since Ronald Reagan. George Bush didn’t
go after, W didn’t go after them the same way. But I think you’ll see social
welfare programs reconfigured. Certainly Paul Ryan
would like to do that. But he’d like to do it on
Medicare and Social Security because they’re very expensive,
Medicare in particular, Social Security is mostly
but not totally paid for. The problem is that
the demographic that elects Republicans
is on the older side. Trump in particular is pretty
friendly with older people in Florida. And if you take
away their Medicare and you limit their
Social Security, they will not have the
money to join golf clubs. And I just think
that– I’m serious. That’s the way he’ll think. What does this do to my kid’s
bottom line and our business? And I think that’s
not going to happen. I just think that he’s
going to say no to that. But I do think that
Democrats have to rethink it. I think that Democrats
have to, as you say, explain themselves
more to people about what they want to do
and why they want to do it. And I don’t believe
that the movement that says the government can
do good things for people is gone and will disintegrate. But I think do things for
people has to include, not just people who are
traditionally oppressed or mistreated against or who are
traditionally in economic need, but people who are working and
feel like they can’t really get ahead. And they’d like they’re going
to be able to go to college but they can’t
afford it, or they wanted to have a job in their
town but the job doesn’t exist. What do you do for those people? I think the Democrats
have to go back to that model and that group. And there have been
complaints about this in the Democratic party
since the Clintons. So the Dingells of the
world, John Dingell was one of the longest
serving members of Congress from Michigan and his
people used to say, we’re a fly over party. They fly from New York to LA and
San Francisco and back again. They never touch
down in Cleveland. So I think that’s where
the Democratic Party has to do rebuilding
and they’re going to have to redo building
locally at the local level and the Congressional level. And I do think one other
thing that might or might not come out of this. We have to see what
the problems will do. Will they follow through
with Trump promises or not? That is a big deal. If they do what Mark
suggests they’re going to do, the corporate Republicans will
stay with the Republican party. If they don’t, then corporate
Republicans may decide– and if the social stuff gets out
of hand in terms of restriction of civil liberties and
racism and discrimination, then some Republicans may
say, I can only stand so much, but I don’t think those
will be the Wall Street corporate people. Second, the angry voter. I think there are a lot
of people who are angry, but I think they were
whipped into an angry frenzy by the media and by Trump
and by Bernie Sanders. Get angry. You’re not getting
what you need. Get angry. I’m not persuaded they
were naturally that angry before that happened,
but they’ve been really angry. Had Clinton won,
that block would have been nearly unmovable,
nearly unaddressable. In other words, she would
have tried to reach them, but it would have
been incredibly hard with a Republican House,
maybe a Democratic Senate. Policy-wise it would have
been hard to reach them, but also just that they
would even listen to her and accept her. It would have been digging,
attacking, digging, attacking, nonstop, from today
until the next election. It would have been really
impossible to reach them. And so now when you think
we can’t reach them anyway, what term she used about
them, now their guy won. They feel empowered. If they feel
empowered to do that like attack people of
color or attack immigrants, we have to step in as a
community and a nation and stop it where we see it. That’s clear. But if Trump can slightly pivot
away from that kind of rhetoric to the, let’s do things. I want things to get along,
I want people to get along, if he can even
tone it down a bit. Because he’ll say,
look, I won, we won. We won now. We don’t have to
be quite as angry. If that can happen, that
moves the needle a little bit forward. That’s a big if. I understand that. But it would never have
happened had she won. And 59 million or let’s say
39 million of the 59 million who are angry would have
stayed really angry. And there would’ve
just been no hope, no light at the end of
the tunnel to get past or through this kind of anger. And so it’s as someone said
to me, it’s too big a risk. That’s fine. You can have that opinion. But that’s the reality of a
Trump win vs. a Clinton win. I just have a
question about polling and how you think that might
have affected the outcome, because in my
personal opinion, I feel like there were a lot
of people who grew complacent because there was this
overconfidence in Clinton’s win and because the media is or was
well, critical of both of them but they did make it seem
like Clinton was going to win closer to the election. So do you think that
that caused some people to stay out just because they
felt like it’s Clinton’s going to win. I don’t have to compromise
my dislike for her or my lack of agreement with her
to get out and vote. Because like the whole
call was be like no, it’s about being against Trump. But if I saw polls that
said that Hillary was meant to win in every state, I can
understand not feeling the need to also participate. Do you think that– Another one for you. Can I just get two
cents on this horse. So Professor Schiller said, you
know the polls weren’t wrong, people didn’t turn
out, whatever. But you know polls have
been wrong a few times now. There’s been the Brexit thing. They were very wrong on a lot
of the European elections that have been going on. So there’s something more than
sort of that going on I think. Whether it’s preference,
falsification, or people of figuring things out. I’m not entirely sure. But I saw one when I
was coming down here. Its was on– I went to
CNN’s website, which I’ve never done before. God, what a crap website. But they had exit polling data. So I was going through
the exit polling data. And it breaks it down
by everything, age and all the rest of it. And I saw this one and I
really puzzled over it. It said that 24% of
Donald Trump’s support came from people earning between
$100,000 and $200,000 a year. Now that’s 24% of
the total number of people who
voted for him, that means that every single person
and someone else who earns the income bracket, because
of the skew of the income distribution voted for Trump. That can’t be right. I mean, that’s just that’s
completely nonsense. 24% of the total volume of
people who voted for Trump earned between
$100,000 and $200,000. No, there aren’t that many
people in the United States earning that much. That’s totally weird. The New York Times has a
pretty good exit polling site that has a lot
of this breakdown, and they do it by category. So 24% of people
who earn that money would have voted for Trump. They had it as 24%,
because it added up to 100 for the total of the vote. Just really weird. So anyway, my point being,
right, there’s a lot of schlock out there. Don’t believe everything
they tell you. No, but getting back to
your point about polling and complacency,
you hit on something when you asked the
question, which was that people felt
that they didn’t have to go out and vote for
her because they didn’t want to go out for her. But they were worried
about Trump winning. If they had to, they would. I think the people who
were enthusiastic about her or very scared of Trump
voted early when they could. And that was the big problem
in Pennsylvania and Michigan. And that’s what I
would do if I were– I mean it’s going to be very
difficult for the Democrats to do this, but I would
push and push and push for early voting,
expanded early voting in these states over time. So you can get more of that
vote out the door early. So I do think that
those people voted. So the people left
were people who were not liking either candidate
very much in the states that had early voting. But the ones that did
not have early voting, I don’t think that flies. I think it looked really
tight over the weekend. And I think people thought
he could win, he could win. So in the end of
the day, if somebody feels that they want
this person to win or they’re really scared
about somebody else, they get out the door and vote. And if they didn’t and
they said oh my goodness, I wish I could have voted. I might have made a
difference, that may or may count four years from now. I don’t know. But if you’ve registered to
vote, typically you vote. That’s not true because
55%, 56% of Americans voted this time around,
registered, no eligible voters. So it’s complicated thing. I don’t think I’m going to blame
the polls or the mainstream media for this. I think it was just a
combination of liabilities, plus a guy with a very slick,
attractive sounding message. Now he has to deliver on it. I don’t differ on this one. I mean, I don’t
have a television so it’s very hard
for me to judge. But it does seem to be the case
that every single publication I picked up, The Washington
Post, The New York Post, came out for Hillary, right? I mean everybody
was like, yes, yes. This is it. He’s beyond the pale. Blah, blah, blah. I think to a lot of people
and we saw this again with the Brexit
result, and we saw this in the Scottish
independence referendum, people are very fed up
being told what to do and what to think by people
who think they know better. And I think it was a
really vicious feedback mechanism in that
and I don’t think we should underprice that. We shouldn’t. But I wonder if the same
negative effect would have happened if
she was not a woman and her name was not Clinton. So I think in this case, I
don’t think we can test it as cleanly as we’d like. Are there any Twitter questions? These women have been waiting. You want to privilege them. And then we’ll do some Twitters. So my question is it
seems as though Trump is involved in some lawsuits. I’m just wondering is there
any precedent for that? And like what is the
worst or best outcome? Well actually, one of
my friends is suing him. So there’s a case in Scotland. Scotland falls under
the European directors on data protection. And he has a golf
course up there. And Scotland has
this annoying thing called right of way
access, which means you can walk wherever you want. So his employees filmed
people on his golf course as if this was a bad
thing, but in fact they’re perfectly allowed to do so. So my friend’s a
solicitor advocate. He’s one of the top
lawyers in Scotland and he’s actually suing Donald
Trump, because basically he’s violated their privacy under
the Data Protection Act. I don’t think this will cause
him a microsecond of sleep, because all of this
stuff is civil suits. There’s no criminal
suits involved. So his assets will go
into a blind trust. It will be run by his family. The conciliary for the family
will take care of these things. They will be
settled out of court if they ever come to
court, and very much it will just disappear. Yeah the only problem
is, sometimes they don’t. And in civil suits, that
the big precedent for it was Bill Clinton was sued in the
civil suit by Paula Jones. And as part of that civil
suit, he was deposed and he was asked
about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. He said that he did not
have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, which
was kind of a lie under oath. It’s debatable. He debated that. And so, that is
considered perjury. That’s perjury. And so if that’s
perjury, that’s what’s called high crime
and misdemeanor on the Constitution,
subject to impeachment. So the Republicans
used obstruction of justice and perjury as
high crimes and misdemeanors to launch the
impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton
that started in 1998 and then finished in
January with an acquittal by the Senate in 1999. So and that’s what
was floating around about impeaching
Hillary Clinton. So a civil suit
where a judge rules and if he draws the wrong
judge, an Obama judge, or even a George W. Bush judge,
if he draws those district court judges, and they say, you
have to testify and he lies, that would be subject
to impeachment. But the House is Republican
and it’s unlikely that they’d impeach him. But there is precedent for that. Criminal is totally different. I mean criminal– so
the Supreme Court. He tool it to the Supreme Court. Bill Clinton said, you
shouldn’t allow this suit go on while I’m president. Wait till I’m done. And the Supreme Court
said, no, that’s OK. We’re letting it go forward now. And so then, then he
was deposed and then everything else
happened after that. So there is precedent
for a civil suit. But it depends which judge. A federal district
court judge is appointed for life, which
judge he draws, if it’s lodged in federal court. So we’re going to the gentlemen
and then the young lady. Would Bernie have won? I don’t think so, because if
you look at some of the income numbers and demographics on the
turnout and who voted for whom, I don’t see the people
who were of higher income voting for Bernie
Sanders, a better educated voting for Sanders. He was going to
raise taxes on them. So I just think that
cohort might not have come to the table. And so I just think that would
have been a difficult thing. And I don’t know,
there were a lot of women who supported
Bernie Sanders. But if he had knocked Hillary
Clinton out of this race as the nominee, I’m not sure
there wouldn’t have been also a negative reverb. That’s a double negative. I think there might have been
a negative reverb among women for Bernie. I don’t think he could have won. I don’t think Joe
Biden could have won. I think this was we want
something brand new. And so we’ll never know. It’s a counterfactual
we cannot test. It’s another one of those ones,
is the fault with ourselves, is the fall within the stars? So are there so
many factors that meant that you could
have put Jesus himself up and he would have
lost as a Democrat? Well let’s remember that
Senator Clinton went in with some of the highest
negatives of any candidate imaginable. And if you had
someone who didn’t have those negatives,
that was able to make a positive case, whose
website didn’t look like some kind of a Rorschach
test of liberal policies we like, and actually had
a message, then, and was able to confront
directly Trump on other than you’re a horrible
sexist man, which is all we really
got, then the outcome might have been different. But we can’t test it directly. Yeah, I would say
that differently. But I agree with
Mark’s sentiment that a candidacy matters. And I think the theme
of this unfortunately, I think for women and
unfortunately will be to blame Hillary
Clinton as a candidate, as a flawed candidate. And we’ve seen that before
with Hillary Clinton. But is she not a
flawed candidate? My point is that I think there
were flaws in her candidacy. But I think that given
the message of Trump and also that we
typically, but not always, switch presidential
parties after eight years, I think that mattered. And it’s just a
question of, unless we do follow up focus
groups with people and say, why did
you do what you did? And by the way, if that doesn’t
happen in the next six months, we can’t do it. Or three months. Because the minute the
Republicans or Trump does something unattractive to
the people who voted for Trump, they’re going to lie about the
fact that they voted for Trump. So there’s no way we’re
going to get this done I think in political science. How about we imprison
them all and they’ve got a treatment group. No jokes about any
imprisonment whatsoever. Oh yeah, that’s right. We wouldn’t want
to do that anyway. We’re not going to do that. So it seems like America’s
going to probably have a more isolationist
policy as far as like in the
international sphere. Though like who knows,
because Trump changes whatever he says every single time. But it currently it
kind of looks like it. And also the rest
of Europe is also going to very nationalistic,
very isolationist policy too. And I’m wondering like what
this means for the increasing globalization and like the
international relations I suppose. So let’s take those
as separate things. Let’s leave the IR
bit for a minute. Have the Europeans
been free riding on the Americans contributions
to NATO to since 1947? Yes. Is it about time that the
richest countries in the world started paying at least 2%
of their own GDP in defense? Yes. Has the EU been writing
checks it can never cash by extending its influence
all the way up to the borders of Russia and hoping that
they will get away with it, with nothing to back
it up whatsoever? Yes. Has Donald Trump
called them on this? Yes. Is it a good thing
in my opinion? Yes. America needs a more
isolationist foreign policy, if isolation is defined as
don’t get into stupid wars. Now, remember, the
guy who said that was Obama who hasn’t
closed down Guantanamo and is still dropping
bombs in Afghanistan. The Middle East is
still a total mess. The liberal, interventionist,
humanitarianist agenda, which has killed hundreds
of thousands of people in the arc of
conflict, extending from North Africa all the
way through the Middle East has been an
unmitigated disaster. At the end of the day, if
we do less in the world and the Europeans have
to look after themselves and come to their own
accommodation with Russia, that would be better
for everybody concerned. We need to do less, not more. OK. I’m a realist. I never thought
that would happen. I think the translation in
domestic politics of hat is that Americans– it took a
long time for Americans to turn on the idea of the Iraq war. Afghanistan was a little
bit of an easier sell, because you could identify
Osama bin Laden and the Taliban, as protecting him in
Afghanistan after 9/11. But Iraq was a really
hard sell and there was beginning of
massive distrust of government information. And it took about four
years for public opinion to shift on Iraq. That’s a long time and hundreds
of billions of dollars, I mean a tremendous
amount of money. And George W. Bush came into
office with a unified, tied Senate, but unified Republican
House and a tied Senate and he beat Gore in
the electoral college. And he came in as a
very experienced guy compared to Donald Trump. He was the son of a president. He had all of his
brain trust around him, some from Nixon Administration,
a lot from the Nixon Ford Administration, and some for his
father’s administration, Dick Cheney as his Vice President. You would have thought a man
with this kind of experience and these kind of people around
him, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, all of these
people would not make colossal foreign
policy mistakes that were very expensive in
human life and also in money. Then we didn’t know
necessarily at the time that they were
colossal mistakes. But he did. And then we had the banking
crisis and the Great Recession. So one of the things
you think about Trump is, it’s very disconcerting
that he has no government experience and no apparent
interest in policy at all, and no idea how the military
works or foreign policy. On the other hand, as
Mark has pointed out, he’s probably not going
to be easily driven by people with a long standing
foreign policy agenda. And he’s not going to be as
anxious to exert military power when it costs a lot of
money because that’s not what he ran and won on. He’s not vested in
that reputation. That can be a good in the way
of keeping us out of conflicts we should stay out of. But it can be bad if you
think we should intervene on humanitarian grounds. The point is, you can
have a lot of experience and still make a lot
of really bad mistakes. And you can have no experience
and make bad mistakes. But we don’t know if he will
make the same kind of mistakes, because he doesn’t have
that force of people with a prior agenda
pushing him forward. We don’t know. We’ve gotten several questions
on Twitter about climate change and what are the implications
of a Trump presidency for that. If you can speak like
the Paris Climate Agreement and all that stuff and
how you see that playing out. So [INAUDIBLE]
Watson website I was asked, along with the
rest of faculty here, what should happen in
the first 100 days? And I don’t know if
anybody saw my post. I said, well, I’ll tell you
what’s not going to happen. I posted a map of
heat signatures across the planet,
which I downloaded two days ago and a
link to a Twitter feed for a climate scientist who
is actually in the Arctic. The average temperature
for Providence in November, the average high is 53. The average is 51.7. Every single day
this month has been about 10 degrees above that. And this isn’t local to us. We had two 70 degree
days last week. It’s roasting. The entire Arctic is five
degrees above normal. And we now have a
government who says– he says and he said he was
joking, but he did say it, that this is a hoax perpetuated
by the Chinese government. And we know the Republican
Party, en masse, refuses to believe in climate
change or global warming. So this is your disaster. This is an unmitigated disaster. Paris is already redundant. it’s completely redundant. Two degrees Celsius,
we’re already there. Forget about it, right? So it’s just a question of
when the water in Boston Harbor starts to hit the
million dollar condos, and then maybe people
will wake up a bit. And it’s probably
coming a lot sooner than we think in that regard. Would it have been any different
with Clinton in charge? I don’t think that the sort
of I like to call it the nudge liberalism incremental approach
that those politicians seem to favor, they would
have done a focus group to find people like
climate change or not. And they probably
would have found that many people don’t
like it, so they probably would’ve left it alone. I don’t think it would have
done anything different. They would have both
been equally hopeless. If you go the the Watson
website, you’ll find a link and you can check the map
yourself and build your own, and basically we’re roasting. So there we go. Knock yourselves out. On climate change,
the incremental set of regulations of
the President Obama has issued over the
last eight years, even George Bush
issued one that was pretty good on climate change
before he left as a Republican. But the Democratic president has
used his regulatory authority in pretty sweeping ways,
at least domestically. It’s the international
productivity, I think that’s the big problem. And developing
countries do not want to limit their productivity
and they do not want to limit their emissions. And we will soon be not the
big cause of this problem. And so it’s very difficult,
particularly with globalization and economic trade, to
insist on people do that. We put these safeguards in. Theoretically when China was let
in to the most favored nation status, WTO, theoretically
they’re there, but they’re not enforced. But I do think
domestically the president has done a lot to get around
Congress to at least limit carbon emissions. He’s been struck down by the
Supreme Court, big time, once. And then another lower court,
he had to tweak a regulation. But generally, now
it’s going to take a long time for
President Trump to repeal all those regulations. And if corporations have
already fitted their factories with this technology
and spent the money, they’re not going
to go backwards. However if your generation
says climate change is the most important
thing and that’s the catalyst to get your
voting turnout above 48%, which is less than half of all people
should be aged 18 and 29 vote, if that’s the thing that
drives you over the edge, then that is something
that will change the political configuration
in this country. There isn’t any question
if that number goes up by 10 or 15 points, even in the
mid-term elections, especially the presidential
elections, you’re not going to get a
Donald Trump elected. So that’s up to you guys. And if climate change becomes
that big motivating force, then so be it. But make it something and
get your generation out the door because you’re
inheriting a planet such as it is, warmer, it is warmer. Are there more
Twitter questions? There’s a woman in the
back has a question. Do you have a question? I know there’s been a lot of
discussion among our peers about not being ready to
listen to Trump supporters and try and really
understand what’s going on here beyond racism and
misogyny and some of the issues that we’ve talked about today. So I was just wondering how you
think we can open ourselves up to start to actually understand
these issues in the ways you’ve been speaking about
today, economically and things like that and why that’s
an important thing to do, rather than
to sort of close our ears to that discussion. Well, the first one is
because there’s more of them than there is of you. So closing off isn’t an option. The second one is this,
there’s a whole series of pieces on
about basically, they are all deplorables. Don’t let them tell you
it’s about economics, blah, blah, blah. Again, like I said
earlier, let’s assume the coalition is one third
sexist, one third racist, and one third a genuinely
economically disturbed, the only thing that’s
malleable to public policy is the economic part. What are you going
to do, put like 20 million people on the naughty
step and say, you’re racist. I can’t deal with you. Well they still get to vote. So not talking to them, not
engaging is not an option. So you have to engage. What’s the common language
you can understand? That, if you simply look at
income and wealth statistics, the distribution
of rewards, the way that assets have
been channeled, how the fact that like basically
old people, [INAUDIBLE] all old people are not rich. All rich people are old. There’s a intergenerational
pit going on here. Because when you’re
basically making sure that people with
assets and incomes get bailed and all the
rest of it, right? And their pensions are
secure, you’re piling up debt that the next generation
has to pay off, so their growth
chances are lower. So there’s lots of ways in
which young people in particular can engage across lines that
aren’t just you’re a racist. We can talk about fairness
between generations. We can talk about fairness
across the income distribution. We can talk about opportunity in
different parts of the country, in different neighborhoods, the
zip code lottery for education. There’s lots of ways in
which this can be engaged. But you have to engage. It’s simply not an
option not to engage. I would even dial it down
to just the local level. And I’ve been saying
this for a while and I’m going to
continue to say it. That when you see somebody
who might, let’s say, plant facilities
at Brown, somebody who is cleaning a
classroom or somebody who’s fixing a light bulb,
or somebody who’s fixing a heater or
something, you know, the first place to
start is to say hello. Just say hello. Your generation
is really intense, but you’re also on your phone
all the time with your earbuds in and you don’t look up. And that generation
that voted for Trump is not that same generation. They look up. And if you stop and
say, what’s going on? I mean I do that because
some of you know me. I talk a lot about politics. So people come up to
me and talk to me. And I want to talk to people
and figure out what’s going on. You don’t have to go to Michigan
or Wisconsin or Pennsylvania. Rhode Island is a state
where Trump did pretty well, and you can find
people to talk to you about the kinds of issues that
you want to engage them on, whether it’s immigration,
whether it’s racism, sexism, economic mobility,
there are plenty of people in this
particular state, in this particular community,
on this campus, that you could stop to talk to and say
hello, and bridge some gaps, just as a starting point. And that’s what I
would recommend. So we’ll do one more
Twitter and then call it? Does everybody feel better? Make sure you leave them
feeling just a little better. So Jimmy Carter,
I feel your pain. So I guess we– Joke for old people. [INAUDIBLE] We have one question about how
because Republicans inherently try to limit government, how can
you hold them accountable to be successful in their
policy implementation, because you know, by
definition, the policy they’re trying to implement
is less government. Well we’ve just had a
Democratic president for eight years who
did expand the size of the federal government in
a couple of different ways as did George Bush for the
Medicare Prescription Drug Act. But you have
Obamacare, and that’s going to be a big lightning rod. And the Republicans will either
try to repeal it outright or change it. It’s unclear yet
what they’ll do. And you know their
efforts to undo the previous administration’s
work, Dodd-Frank et cetera, these will all take mostly
legislative efforts, maybe some regulatory efforts,
but mostly legislation. So when that legislation
is being heard in Congress or discussed and there
are certain corporations or businesses that
support it, you want to find out who
they are, what they sell. You want to figure out,
maybe you could figure out how to boycott them, or
make it known that they’re supporting the repeal of this. There are ways now that you are
empowered on social media to be incredibly forceful without
having to go to DC that my generation wasn’t. And so I would look
for, pay attention to who the primary contributors
are, to the key people who are sponsoring this
legislation for repeals of climate change or Obamacare
or anything else like that. And find out if there
are corporate ties where you can make it
known that you’re not going to consume particular
products of companies that support this party. And it’s always worked
in American politics. And I think it still will. And you can organize
in a way that is far I think more effective
and more public than we could. We’ll have one last question
and then we’ll call it a day. Hi. In like my Poli Sci class,
we’ve been talking more on the international justice,
and how during the Obama Administration unlike
Bush Administration US has been more friendly with like
the International Criminal Court and UN and actually
been getting things done, which those
organizations were not able to get a lot of things
done when the US was really antagonistic towards it. And also like
Israel is actually, the Prime Minister
of Israel seems to be pretty happy
that Trump has won. And so I’m wondering
like what this means for what the international
justice as a whole and also what’s going on
in the Middle East with like Israel and
Palestine and those. All that’s one question, right? And you want to take that? Well, I’m saying
absolutely nothing about Israel and Palestine. You forget that. What is does it mean? I think that Rudy Giuliani
and a couple of his supporters and funders, like
the guy from Nevada are very concerned about Israel. And I think they’ll
try and lobby hard. Whether Trump
really has anything to say about any interest
or not, I don’t know and time will tell. In terms of the rest of it. They got stuff done? What did they get done? Could you tell me
what they got done? So apparently a lot
of the prosecutions and those kind of things were
able to like proceed apparently with more US backing. So the ICC managed to
go after a few more guys from Equatorial Guinea
to or something like that and put them on
the naughty step. Greece has still got
a migrant crisis. Turkey is behaving
extremely badly. Hungary is basically
imprisoning its press and shutting down papers. And the notion that
there’s a thing out there called international justice
and we’re doing good on it, I think there’s an
incredible distraction from what’s actually going on. I think you need to watch on
who’s floated for the Secretary of State position. I think that’s going to give
you a very good indication. The Republican Party has been
a very staunch ally of Israel for a very, very long time. And the conservative wing of
the party is fine with that. So I think that would
continue, no matter which Republican got elected,
if a Republican got elected. But I do think that
you want to watch who the Trump Administration
wants to put in for Secretary of State. Remember all
cabinet appointments have to be confirmed
by the US Senate. So it’ll take a while
to replace those that are already in those positions. Thank you so much for coming. [APPLAUSE]

  1. The fact that it appeared than Schiller did not have any well-rounded arguments, and simply used Clinton and DNC rhetoric has been well commented on here, but it also seemed as if her words would be very patronizing to conservatives in that room – I know it's a group of students in Rhode Island, but she didn't concede to the possibility of Trump supporters in that room.

  2. this presentation is invaluable: it puts side by side the sound of the establishment and that of what actual reasoning sounds like. it's harder to realize how mind blowing the difference really is when you hear them separately.

  3. What happened? The left felt they had no one to vote for, they'd been told over and over a vote for Jill Stein was a wasted vote, so they didn't vote at all.

    Here in Australia, voting's compulsory, so we regularly hand the balance of power to microparties and independents – basically, we hang parliament. And we do it for the same reason Clinton lost in the US: no left, just liberals.

  4. Liberals ignore corruption by their politicians spending all their time on the oppositions corruption . My vote for Trump was a very simple F-U to the system that no longer works for me! I don't care about walls or pussy grabbing. I care about the economy and then my Healthcare costs doubled over night thanks to Obama care…Didn't realize 50k a year was rich! Oh well, All I want from Trump is to destroy the establishment and we will worry about the clean up latter!

  5. she really has no clue of whats going on. saying people weren't angry before and are now because of trump and bernie? come on please. people have been fed up for 2 decades but had no one voicing their concerns. now they finaly had and people embraced them.
    obama was elected because of the same reason, change. change that never came.

    the democratic party is dead as it is now. unless they turn progressive again they will hever again hold an office.

  6. Hillary's rallies had an average of 400 people, Trump had an average of 8,000 attendees, even though they knew they might be physically attacked. Trumps online speeches had an average of 30,000 viewers, Hillarys online speeches had an average of 1,000 viewers. Trump won because we are sick of the Leftist globalist agenda, and we wanted a President who couldn't be bought.

  7. wendy schiller just basically pulled an excuse out of her ass in the first 10 minutes and its pretty amusing that someone like this is a professor. 'it's not the polling, it's not hillary, its the republicans over the last 8 years'. nobody i know votes for, or has ever voted for, a party based on the idea that there would be less political gridlock that way. wishful thinking on her part. now, i havent exactly done a survey on this topic, but not having a single person come to mind that represents that idea to me is pretty compelling evidence, if only to myself.

  8. Nice eye opener from Mark for me. On the issue the left is dead and the neo-natiolism is on the rise. Not really accurate , but this is how i would phraise it:
    Angry people do not want to reveive a hug, they want to deliver a punch. 🙂

  9. Schiller is obviously delusional, and ignoring "Bernie or Bust", which was so determined to teach the DNC a lesson, they voted straight republican tickets. If the corporate Dems continue to cheat in primaries, and keep selecting weak corporate candidates to fund for office, we will keep having Republicans elected.

  10. Wendy Schiller likes the sound of her own voice … STFU with that Clinton apologist nonsense!! She was the worst they've put up in years!!!

  11. Point 1:
    The issue is with "Interstate Cross-Check". This knocked 7.2 million voters off the rolls. These voters were all given "provisional ballots". These ballots are not counted. Most voters do not know the difference and would answer they voted in a certain way.

    Their votes wouldn't count. The exit polls would be off.

    Point 2:
    Wendy Schiller said she never thought Republican voters would turn to Clinton??????? Then Why did Hillary Clinton push out Progressive voters and only court "Moderate Republicans"????

  12. Her insights are so much the conventional wisdom (and quite astonishing that she had analysis available ONE day after the election, wrong analysis btw). Still, she thinks, she is the big brain on that podium. Quite full of herself. Not necessarily justifiable.

  13. Clinton lost because she ran.  End of.  Should not have cheated Bernie, and should not have ignored the cheating.  Should not have told his base they were not needed.  Once the DNC kneecapped Bernie, the only PERCEIVED outsider was Trump.  Oh yeah…and the media colluded with Podesta and the Clinton camp to lie to everyone.  Next time, DON'T run Clinton.

  14. Come oooooon people. It's first and foremost gerrymandering, voter roll purging, and voter ID laws. These add up to a significant level of election fraud. Millions of spoiled votes. Normally this would have been absorbed by high turnout for Clinton. And so all the narratives about why Nobody turned out for Clinton in that context make sense, but the first point should be about the ridiculous election fraud that has happened and will continue to happen due to the way the voting laws are designed.

  15. Ooooooo, sorry Professor Schiller, you said "Bernie wouldn't win" and the true fact is that Bernie Would Have Won. Way to shoot your credibility through, there.

  16. Wendy Schiller is evidently clueless.  The REASON WHY the pre-election polling "favored" Clinton  ….  was BECAUSE the "polling" was as RIGGED as the Democratic Primary elections were.  The premise being that if/when a candidate polls more favorably over the other candidate  ….  then it's expected that the supporters of the unfavorable candidate will be negatively influenced by the lower numbers  of their candidate  ….  enough so that they will be less inclined to turn out on election day.  Well  ….  Trump's camp was wise to this  —  and got the word out there beforehand.  So being aware of the underhanded manipulative tactics prior to election day  ….  was a key factor in Trump's supporters staying focused and turning up to vote in spite of it all.  Tens of THOUSANDS enthusiastically attended Trump's campaign rallies all across this country throughout 2016  —  as also did Bernie Sanders' supporters  —  while Hillary Clinton's appearances could barely even fill up a ROOM  ….  much LESS a huge STADIUM or ARENA.  Every. Single.  Time.

  17. Wendy Schiller is very bright and very charismatic, but she has drunk too much liberal democracy cool-aid. We got through Reagan? What? Neoliberalism / Bill Clinton, W, Obama were all to the right of Reagan on economic issues.

  18. How can she sit there and say with a straight face that the democrats are left wing? They are just slightly less right wing than the republicans.

    Mark was spot on, she was just being an annoying activist and Clinton apologist

  19. I turned this off 10 minutes in. Though I had no idea what the leanings of the presenters were, I remember Mark being on Tucker Carlson and had a very intriguing economic theory. So I put up with the lady's schpiel, and loved Mark's analysis of people being fed up by elitist economic policy. Then when he "conceded" that race was "obviously" a factor, I was saying, Ok that's it, I want to think I'm open to opposing views, but they have to be believable.

  20. What is so hard about putting your damn phone in your pocket?…Or am I nuts for thinking that would be showing respect for my fellow panelist.

  21. I think Wendy Schiller is so off the mark why Clinton lost.
    She lost because she had no policy-substance and a blown-up character campaign that could easily be assasinated citing her political corruption. In summary Clinton lost because she was a shitty candidate that lost against Trump! Against Trump!

  22. She tells 100% truths and then she uses that to tell a lie in favor of democrats.
    Ex: bankers did pay billions of fines- truth. But they made trillions in profit so who cares about the fines.
    She's very very skillful at making it seem like she's putting blame on Hillary but then she actually puts the blame on the voters.
    Ex. Hillary tried and tried to get her message across but voters just couldn't hear her, or it didn't sound loud enough.

    the democrats use feminism as a slogan so they don't have to stand up for livable wage, don't care to stop privatization of jails, don't care about health care for all, don't care for full education, etc etc.
    it doesn't cost corporations anything if politicians cry feminism,
    Or cry for bathroom rights, they can cry all the want.

  23. I voted for Jill Stein. Hillary was a horrid candidate and a bad campaigner. I wonder if Prof Schiller ever heard of this guy Bernie Sanders? Shes a cute little shit, but she is obviously a very well paid bourgeoise with very little understanding of the lives of poor folks… OMG, Wendy: not RUSSIARUSSIARUSSIA

  24. Wendy Schiller does most of the talking but has nothing to say. It's a shame because Mark Blyth is his mercurial self with concise and precise analysis.

  25. Both of them were too optimistic, too nice, and too used to things going as they always have. Neither realized that Trump was capable of being the worst of all possible worlds. He doesn't do what he ran on. He does whatever he feels like at the moment according to his ego. He's breaking records at fucking things up. Would Hillary have been better? She might no have moved fast enough, decisively enough to fix things… but she damned sure wouldn't name Rex Tillerson or the other destroyers to agencies of great national and international importance. She wouldn't have made the situation *worse*. And that is what these people missed. They were so optimistic. I wonder how they feel about being disabused after only 7 months in?

  26. This is hilarious all these months later we still can't get enough of this drivel. The funny thing is Trump will win again in 2020.

  27. Mark, I feel for you man. This seems like a stark outline of what's wrong with the thinking of current liberalism (or should I say failed elitism). Refuse to acknowledge facts and keep pushing a failed narrative. Sad.

    Hispanics voted for Trump in big numbers lady, this goes directly against your garbage narrative.

  28. Now she sounds like she's speaking to some kind of support group or something. People don't need ignorant coddling, they need truth. Without truth all the best laid plans are for naught.

  29. Why is she screaming into the microphone? She thinks she's giving a rant on MSNBC or some shit. This is not helpful in the least.

  30. That is a gross misrepresentation of Huey Long politics, who though no friend of African American was no friend of Klan or race baiting politicians either, and generally concentrated on lambasting the financial/political elite. His motto was not every man a king for nothing

  31. Watch carefully when Blyth makes his initial extended statement how his co-panelist's non-verbal speech, through grimace, nodding etc. indicates a form of elitist contempt. Notice that Blyth indicates understanding for those whom with he fundamentally disagrees with, but understands. She, on the other hand, exhibits moral contempt, and intellectual dismissal. I am a liberal Democrat who twice signed a "draft Elizabeth Warren" petition, who voted for Bernie, etc. When I watch this I see the grossly entitled liberal elite, exemplified in her, believing that they "know". They don't. Go and truly look at how the nazi's arose. They appeared, at that moment, as preferable to the alternative. Go and read Yeats's poem, The Second Coming: "the best lack all conviction, the worst are filled with passionate intensity". Feeling superior will not help you when the the iceberg peels back the hull of your unsinkable boat, upon which I am forced to reside on a lower deck. I'll die before you. You, however, along with your children, will die too. And I take no pleasure in that. I feel horror at how the entitlement of the elite has condemned us all.

  32. enlightened,  glad I could hear such cerebral analysis ,  but as usual, some Hillary supporter forgot stats and math place the lights over your arguments, and removing perspective through lack of stats and math, turns the lights out, leaving us to guess what you're even trying to say

  33. trump has said he wants to fix dodd frank, and a year later america still has the highest corporate tax in the world. blyth is smart, but those are two big misses….and hillary lost because she is a greedy,warmongering criminal. and we have an internet

  34. Blyth provides outstanding insight and analysis & real-world examples of the causes and inevitable consequences of our political decisions. What isn’t talked about is the constant & repetitive propaganda infused into the electorate on a daily basis by the Koch/Fox News/Right Wing Media triumvirate. The fact that the democrats are, for the most part, spineless wimps, who, like republicans, have followed a disastrous neoliberal worldview/policy perspective, doesn’t omit the fact that republicans are hell bent on using any force necessary to capture our republic for the benefit of the super-rich. Plutocracy, and maybe worse on the horizon…

  35. I'm very liberal in terms of economic and political beliefs but the Wendy is being biased not with her beliefs but the assumption that the whole crowd agrees with her.

  36. Wendy understands the American social issues that have played a part in past elections and will continue to play a part in future elections but can't fully explain trump. Mark I think understands a trend in Europe and the United States.

  37. Let's see if cable newsy entertainment channels daily and hourly connect that tax cuts for the rich, big corporations and big banks will be more or less paid for by the bottom 80 to 85 percent of the people.

    It will be paid for by scaled back Medicare, health care and — ultimately if the Congress can get away with it– even social security, even poorer schools, and even increased struggles to serve students by the once great middle west public universities and paid for by rising prices for food.

    This growing plutocracy/oligarchy will further destroy Basic Protections for Most People leading to increased cynicism and apathy until something sparks uprisings around the country. Who knows it might only take one person setting themselves on fire or something bigger.

    It may take yet another big business scandal, such as a Volkswagen deliberately building polluting cars or a Wells Fargo Bank creating phony bank accounts, or another Wall Street meltdown.

  38. Is she an idiot I cant think of a country where the Democrats would be considered left wing anywhere in Europe they are a right-wing party and she doesn't know this? The only reason for voting Clinton was to vote against Trump Schiller is as stupid as a Democrat.

  39. For a hot-shot political scientist she's totally ignorant of Huey Long. Long didn't play off the whites against the blacks but was quite progressive for his time and place, and attempted to bring poor whites and blacks together against the oil companies and outside interests.

  40. Ironic people claim sexism played no role while simultaneously saying “ Don’t listen to the idiot woman!” in this very video. Of course Hillary is massively flawed on her own, but don’t overlook the lowest common denominator among many Trumpists.

  41. “Someone whose website didn’t look like some kind of rorschach test of liberal policies.” 
    Mark Blyth is too much. Lol

  42. Gave up after 6 minutes. Schiller was shoveling pure BS.

    Did they discuss evidence of election fraud both against Sanders in the primary and Clinton in the general? Did they explain why the nominal victims – the real victims being us, the American voters – haven't said boo about this election fraud? Did they mention Interstate Crosscheck, the redshift from state exit polls to official results or the Cumulative Vote Share anomalies? Did they explain why the MSM gave billions worth of free air time to a supposed maverick running against the establishment's anointed candidate?

    I suspect the answer to all of the above is no. But if there is actually anything worth listening to in this video please post a time stamp. Or if you know of anyone with an audience out there who's telling the truth, please post a link.

    George Carlin said, "It's a big club; and we ain't int it." I think the club is bigger than most people realize.

  43. Mark is genius and I enjoy listening his well educated and extremely intelligent and factual discussions. This sheila on the other hand is incompetent despite her degree and completely blind to what is going on.

  44. 28 minutes in: These two are terrible, playing on their phones constantly while the other is talking. Really? Two tenured professors of an Ivy League College can't leave their phones alone?

  45. Wow, Pr. Schiller SOUNDS like she is saying something with content and direction, but then you actually listen and discover… nothing.

  46. For those who missed it, Blythe mentions that if the total of Wall Street bonuses 2015 would have been paid to minimum wage workers instead you would have TRIPLED their wages. Neither Trump nor Hillary mentioned this, nor would they have done anything about it even if they did. That is why Hillary lost. No real difference in the outcome economically if she would have won, and people care about their economic situation. Bernie Sanders at least promised effectively lowering medical expenses and doing away with much of the student debt by making public collages tuition free, which would have greatly effected the economic situation of the entire struggling population of America. That is why he would have won. This is not rocket science people!

  47. Why is this lady calling one of the candidates: 'secretary of state'? Why not call her 'first lady'? Or 'Arkansas lawyer'? Is this title-giving part of the delusional entitlement and thereby the arrogance before the fall?

  48. It wasn't democratic party messaging. It was electing a fake progressive in Obama who turned out to be Mitt Romney in disguise.

  49. Democrats are not by any stretch of the imagination the LEFT. They stopped being the left the day Bill Clinton was elected.

  50. Trump is way worse than Reagan, even Nixon, whose crimes will be eclipsed with by Mueller & the House now in Dem. control issuing subpoenas. But Wendy Schiller is speaking as if the "system" isn't delicate; it is & Trump is a serious threat, from which we hopefully may emerge from.

  51. Interesting watching this talk two years later. What stood out to me was the neo-nationalism topic. Both were incredibly realistic.

  52. I really hate the narrative that any problem was "created" by the younger generation or any that any problem is the younger generation's fault in any way, shape, or form. It's not some kid's responsibility to fix the country that they know little to nothing about.
    The 30 and older are the majority of the population. They should be responsible for the own messes and cleaning them up.
    As far as I'm concerned for the most part any time they would engage with an older person on politics the likely hood of them being lied to or coerced into believing something they shouldn't is too high.
    Also the reason they may not want to talk to you is, maybe, because you don't listen regardless of what they say anyway so why would they want to engage with someone that us only going to repeat meaningless rhetoric? Far too many older people seem to think they know more than they have ever actually proven that they know. When you talk to people try to figure out what THEY would find to be valuable and give them that. Other wise it just comes off as YOU are trying to control THEM instead of helping them to be better people in their own way.

  53. People were given the choice of piss or shit is what happened. The people chose piss but it's not much better than shit.

  54. In hindsight, it is hard to find a person more wrong about everything as this lady was. "Hillary lost because of the demographics and the messaging", "Trump may do something that Republican don't like, spending on infrastructure, for example".

  55. "of course sexist, of course racist…" Sorry, but there's a difference between being filled with hate and simply being full to the teeth of SJW nonsense. Of course it's reactionary, I'll grant. Now what is it a reaction to? And do you think you can stop the reaction? And another segment of history learns the lesson of overreach. (But they just call us deplorable).

  56. There is a Republican party? I don't think so. All you have to do is listen to Bill Clinton's 1995 state of the Union address to know that is not at all true. You might want to listen to John Trump Kennedy also.

  57. Would have liked to hear significantly more from Blyth, the other prof just spouted the exact same talking points of every other Dem

  58. That lady just yelled whenever she talked to supplement her crap arguments like “the Wall Street speeches weren’t a big deal.” Clearly she has some segment of disagreement not at all based on fact. She’s so far up her own ass and it’s disgusting.

  59. Obama did not do the best he could. He caved caved and caved. One because he is bought by special interests and also he didn’t really want the change he claimed to support. How else would his crown achievement be the Republican’s own health care plan called the affordable care act, implemented by Gov. Romney in Massachusetts.

  60. Why are people still making excuses for a party running a lame duck candidate simply because she could drive money into the fight?

  61. So giving speeches to the extreme elites for half a million dollars+ isn't a bit of a problem? That's the absolute worst thing she did and does!!

  62. The silent majority showed up. Its only happened a few times in all of history. Every time with sharp pitchforks and resolve. Dont bother overthinking it. Thats what got us here to begin with. Nerds.

  63. Democratic voters did not stay democratic voters because they saw the sham that was the eight years of the Obama presidency and the fact that it was just a continuation of the policies of Bush and Reagan and all the other republicans.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *