The US elections - Transparent Trump scars Cloaked Clinton - a blog
There seems to be a daze in the world media and its hyperactive cousin, social media about Clinton's defeat and Trump's "surprise" win.
The question is, was it really a surprise win?
If you had followed the US media, you would have said that Trump had zero chances of winning.
But, if you followed Clinton's acidic and literal below the belt attack on Trump, you would guessed a Trump win.
Between the US elections and India's 2014 Lok Sabha elections are quite a few similarities.
Much before the Lok Sabha elections, Mr Modi was a simple case of WYSWYG or what you see is what you get.
Everyone knew he had risen from a commoner to become a chief minister. That he was a Tea seller. That he was an efficient administrator. That he was a powerful entity. That he had a troublesome past pertaining to a specific incident.
On the other side was the Grand Old Party of India which had become ossified in its thoughts and its leadership style.
When it had nothing new to offer in the 2014 elections, it committed a cardinal sin. Of making personal attacks on Mr Modi, dismissing him as Chaiwala, scoffing at his apparent lack of English Knowledge, and by labelling him " Maut Ka Saudagar".
Sadly for India's oldest party, each personal attack on Mr Modi only made him become closer to the Indian voter and made him more believable.
The result- a landslide win for Mr Modi. The first time MP directly landed as the country's first PM born after independence.
The similarity with the US elections?
Hillary Clinton has been a part of the US administration for the past 25 years. From 1993 -2001 as the First Lady, from 2001-09 as the New York Senator and from 2009-13 as the Secretary of State.
Her ossification was complete by the time she stood for the presidential polls.
In a rapidly transforming world, she was at best a good administrator who could only offer tired solutions to some real problems like immigration, the fall of the US as a superpower, rise of China etc.
More importantly, she had a veil, very difficult to see through and hiding in her cupboard were skeletons of some mails and some foreign grants.
Trump was the exact opposite. A mildly successful businessman, flamboyant, brash, abrasive, much married, uncouth, irascible, opinionated, not going by the book man. What he never was, was being apologetic for his past.
The man, who the media and the social scientists steeped in covering prim and proper candidates, found unfit to rule the US.
And, Clinton, committed the American cardinal sin. Attacking him, literally, below the belt.
But, unlike the calcified Clinton, Trump had nothing to hide. Everything about him was out in the open.
Each personal attack on him, each villainous portrayal of him by the media further polarised the voters.
As celebrity after celebrity attacked him on his personal past, his credibility among voters went higher and higher.
Here was a man who was real, who was made of flesh and blood, thought his followers.
And, the voters turned up on the most important day and voted for him in larger numbers. On the day that mattered, the average US Citizen voted for Change over continuity and voted for Transparent Trump over Cloaked Clinton.
What the election also threw up was that the so called experts (media, social scientists) know nothing. Also, that this is true when it is the US, Britain (Brexit) or India(Bihar election predictions).
Two lessons from the election results
1) the voter puts a premium on transparency over tradition
2) to guess any election result, just pick up the opposite of what the so called gurus say...
There seems to be a daze in the world media and its hyperactive cousin, social media about Clinton's defeat and Trump's "surprise" win.
The question is, was it really a surprise win?
If you had followed the US media, you would have said that Trump had zero chances of winning.
But, if you followed Clinton's acidic and literal below the belt attack on Trump, you would guessed a Trump win.
Between the US elections and India's 2014 Lok Sabha elections are quite a few similarities.
Much before the Lok Sabha elections, Mr Modi was a simple case of WYSWYG or what you see is what you get.
Everyone knew he had risen from a commoner to become a chief minister. That he was a Tea seller. That he was an efficient administrator. That he was a powerful entity. That he had a troublesome past pertaining to a specific incident.
On the other side was the Grand Old Party of India which had become ossified in its thoughts and its leadership style.
When it had nothing new to offer in the 2014 elections, it committed a cardinal sin. Of making personal attacks on Mr Modi, dismissing him as Chaiwala, scoffing at his apparent lack of English Knowledge, and by labelling him " Maut Ka Saudagar".
Sadly for India's oldest party, each personal attack on Mr Modi only made him become closer to the Indian voter and made him more believable.
The result- a landslide win for Mr Modi. The first time MP directly landed as the country's first PM born after independence.
The similarity with the US elections?
Hillary Clinton has been a part of the US administration for the past 25 years. From 1993 -2001 as the First Lady, from 2001-09 as the New York Senator and from 2009-13 as the Secretary of State.
Her ossification was complete by the time she stood for the presidential polls.
In a rapidly transforming world, she was at best a good administrator who could only offer tired solutions to some real problems like immigration, the fall of the US as a superpower, rise of China etc.
More importantly, she had a veil, very difficult to see through and hiding in her cupboard were skeletons of some mails and some foreign grants.
Trump was the exact opposite. A mildly successful businessman, flamboyant, brash, abrasive, much married, uncouth, irascible, opinionated, not going by the book man. What he never was, was being apologetic for his past.
The man, who the media and the social scientists steeped in covering prim and proper candidates, found unfit to rule the US.
And, Clinton, committed the American cardinal sin. Attacking him, literally, below the belt.
But, unlike the calcified Clinton, Trump had nothing to hide. Everything about him was out in the open.
Each personal attack on him, each villainous portrayal of him by the media further polarised the voters.
As celebrity after celebrity attacked him on his personal past, his credibility among voters went higher and higher.
Here was a man who was real, who was made of flesh and blood, thought his followers.
And, the voters turned up on the most important day and voted for him in larger numbers. On the day that mattered, the average US Citizen voted for Change over continuity and voted for Transparent Trump over Cloaked Clinton.
What the election also threw up was that the so called experts (media, social scientists) know nothing. Also, that this is true when it is the US, Britain (Brexit) or India(Bihar election predictions).
Two lessons from the election results
1) the voter puts a premium on transparency over tradition
2) to guess any election result, just pick up the opposite of what the so called gurus say...
