Agree. Relativist enthusiasm based on uber-low expectations. Many media outlet's cautious, surprised gushing at a single, pandering speech from an otherwise rather unhinged, bloviating buffoon demonstrating a (likely temporary) degree of control...through reading verbatim from a teleprompter a speech someone else wrote specifically for that purpose....is pathetic. But, given the options, a cesspool in a cyclone can start to look like shelter absent anything else.
---
Americans were (and still are) flaming angry at their political class and (particularly federal) governance. And that was before they were presented a bloviating quasi-conservative conspiracy-theorist Twitterati reality show populist buffoon; or an ultra-slimy, demonstrably untrustworthy and dissimulating, astoundingly-corrupted pander-bot establishment shill. As effectively their only choices.
The former installed via a corroded media focused on click-bait, oddity, stupidity and scandal. The latter installed by a (subsequently revealed via Wikileaks) demonstrably corrupted, fixed nomination process including uber-elite political class "superdelegates"....in a party literally calling itself the "Democratic" party. Hypocrisy writ large.
Being told sh*t-sandwiches were the only thing on the menu really reinforced the idea that "DC" is hopelessly corrupt and recalcitrant to "change"...in governance...not the revolving-door corrupted political class government. Wasn't a President hopefully elected to ecstatic US jubilation with the slogan "change"? Who was that bloke? What exactly did the political class (and President) think the American people were expecting as "change"? The particular race of the President and whether they had a (D) or an (R) affiliation? And a reminder, both candidates in that race (and that previous and that subsequent) specifically literally stated in their campaigns that US governance is "broken". Then with respect to governance...essentially nothing changed...and it actually got (much) worse. To clarify, governance is government management and operations, not specific policies; unless they specifically dealt with fixing governance-which none did.
Wrap the above sandwich in as much rhetorical and spin-wrapper as you like, it wasn't selling. And when forced to take a bite, American voters were justifiably furious, disappointed, cynical and keen to throw bricks and smash windows....on both sides.
The "Democrats" somehow nominated the most comprehensively appalling hubris-smothered candidate they could have. So bad in fact, they lost to Donald J Trump. And given the above, smug, self-entitled hubris was a less than optimal look.
So, Americans via their particular electoral college system went for the narcissistic brick thrower buffoon out of intense anger and wholly justifiable frustration. A collective throwing up of hands and turn towards anyone stating they would bash DC. Personally, I believe he could have won solely based on his "drain the swamp" rhetoric. His opponent was the "swamp-monster" incarnate.
And that's how you end up with a Trump. Republicans have progressively less reluctantly hitched their wagons firmly to the Trump-train. A high risk of derailment IMHO. Specifically one in which they will be sandwiched between a still infuriated electorate ready to bash via demand for impeachment, an unchanged or more foetid undrained swamp, and likely revelations RE high crimes and/or misdemeanors by their (now) Train conductor.
But....the "Democrats" are shockingly (but predictably) sticking with precisely the same corrupted establishment shill-bots and drones that has them holding houses of government...hardly anywhere. Good going.
...
And a big heads-up Australia. It's definitely coming our way. Maybe not a Trump as PM, but the sheer-scale of the comprehensive vacuousness and donor corruption of the Australian political class, and intolerance of Australians for chronic and constant infuriating dissimulation and robotic party politicking, has produced by far historic levels of cynicism, dissatisfaction and anger at Australian governance. That will manifest itself.
Knighthoods, choppergate, Dastyari's China benefactors, Gold Passes, magic scholarships, rampant uncontrolled revolving door patronage, Sussan Ley condo larks...then astoundingly replaced as minister by....Arthur ("I do not recall", [im]plausible deniability) Sinodinos of ICAC-AWH infamy...etc., etc., etc.
It is an unfortunate truism that politicians in government respond to nothing but that which will impact their electoral prospects, regardless of how it impacts their constituents. They shamelessly fawn on and legislate for donors, for whom they (openly) sell access like a cheap suit. As in America, that eventually blows up in the political class' face. If Republicans think they're out of the woods, they're entirely misguided. But now, it's Australia's turn.
Unlikely to be as "severe" as the US. But the holistically recalcitrant to change in governance ALP and Liberals and Nationals are in for a very rude shock. Regardless of their attempt to rig the system in their favour by changing senate-election voting rules. Actually, more likely in part because of such attempted rigging.
