History > 2016 > USA > Politics (I)
Is Elected President
in Stunning Repudiation
of the Establishment
NOV. 9, 2016
The New York Times
By MATT FLEGENHEIMER
and MICHAEL BARBARO
Donald John Trump was elected the 45th president of the United States on Tuesday
in a stunning culmination of an explosive, populist and polarizing campaign that
took relentless aim at the institutions and long-held ideals of American
The surprise outcome, defying late polls that showed Hillary Clinton with a
modest but persistent edge, threatened convulsions throughout the country and
the world, where skeptics had watched with alarm as Mr. Trump’s unvarnished
overtures to disillusioned voters took hold.
The triumph for Mr. Trump, 70, a real estate developer-turned-reality television
star with no government experience, was a powerful rejection of the
establishment forces that had assembled against him, from the world of business
to government, and the consensus they had forged on everything from trade to
The results amounted to a repudiation, not only of Mrs. Clinton, but of
President Obama, whose legacy is suddenly imperiled. And it was a decisive
demonstration of power by a largely overlooked coalition of mostly blue-collar
white and working-class voters who felt that the promise of the United States
had slipped their grasp amid decades of globalization and multiculturalism.
In Mr. Trump, a thrice-married Manhattanite who lives in a marble-wrapped
three-story penthouse apartment on Fifth Avenue, they found an improbable
“The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer,” Mr.
Trump told supporters around 3 a.m. on Wednesday at a rally in New York City,
just after Mrs. Clinton called to concede.
In a departure from a blistering campaign in which he repeatedly stoked
division, Mr. Trump sought to do something he had conspicuously avoided as a
candidate: Appeal for unity.
“Now it’s time for America to bind the wounds of division,” he said. “It is time
for us to come together as one united people. It’s time.”
That, he added, “is so important to me.”
He offered unusually warm words for Mrs. Clinton, who he has suggested should be
in jail, saying she was owed “a major debt of gratitude for her service to our
Bolstered by Mr. Trump’s strong showing, Republicans retained control of the
Senate. Only one Republican-controlled seat, in Illinois, fell to Democrats
early in the evening. And Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina, a Republican,
easily won re-election in a race that had been among the country’s most
competitive. A handful of other Republican incumbents facing difficult races
were running better than expected.
Mr. Trump’s win — stretching across the battleground states of Florida, North
Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania — seemed likely to set off financial jitters and
immediate unease among international allies, many of which were startled when
Mr. Trump in his campaign cast doubt on the necessity of America’s military
commitments abroad and its allegiance to international economic partnerships.
From the moment he entered the campaign, with a shocking set of claims that
Mexican immigrants were rapists and criminals, Mr. Trump was widely
underestimated as a candidate, first by his opponents for the Republican
nomination and later by Mrs. Clinton, his Democratic rival. His rise was largely
missed by polling organizations and data analysts. And an air of improbability
trailed his campaign, to the detriment of those who dismissed his angry message,
his improvisational style and his appeal to disillusioned voters.
He suggested remedies that raised questions of constitutionality, like a ban on
Muslims entering the United States.
He threatened opponents, promising lawsuits against news organizations that
covered him critically and women who accused him of sexual assault. At times, he
But Mr. Trump’s unfiltered rallies and unshakable self-regard attracted a
zealous following, fusing unsubtle identity politics with an economic populism
that often defied party doctrine.
His rallies — furious, entertaining, heavy on name-calling and nationalist
overtones — became the nexus of a political movement, with daily promises of
sweeping victory, in the election and otherwise, and an insistence that the
country’s political machinery was “rigged” against Mr. Trump and those who
He seemed to embody the success and grandeur that so many of his followers felt
was missing from their own lives — and from the country itself. And he scoffed
at the poll-driven word-parsing ways of modern politics, calling them a waste of
time and money. Instead, he relied on his gut.
At his victory party at the New York Hilton Midtown, where a raucous crowd
indulged in a cash bar and wore hats bearing his ubiquitous campaign slogan
“Make America Great Again,” voters expressed gratification that their voices
had, at last, been heard.
“He was talking to people who weren’t being spoken to,” said Joseph Gravagna,
37, a marketing company owner from Rockland County, N.Y. “That’s how I knew he
was going to win.”
For Mrs. Clinton, the defeat signaled an astonishing end to a political dynasty
that has colored Democratic politics for a generation. Eight years after losing
to President Obama in the Democratic primary — and 16 years after leaving the
White House for the United States Senate, as President Bill Clinton exited
office — she had seemed positioned to carry on two legacies: her husband’s and
Her shocking loss was a devastating turn for the sprawling world of Clinton
aides and strategists who believed they had built an electoral machine that
would swamp Mr. Trump’s ragtag band of loyal operatives and family members, many
of whom had no experience running a national campaign.
On Tuesday night, stricken Clinton aides who believed that Mr. Trump had no
mathematical path to victory, anxiously paced the Jacob K. Javits Convention
Center as states in which they were confident of victory, like Florida and North
Carolina, either fell to Mr. Trump or seemed in danger of tipping his way.
Mrs. Clinton watched the grim results roll in from a suite at the nearby
Peninsula Hotel, surrounded by her family, friends and advisers who had the day
before celebrated her candidacy with a champagne toast on her campaign plane.
But over and over, Mrs. Clinton’s weaknesses as a candidate were exposed. She
failed to excite voters hungry for change. She struggled to build trust with
Americans who were baffled by her decision to use a private email server as
secretary of state. And she strained to make a persuasive case for herself as a
champion of the economically downtrodden after delivering perfunctory paid
speeches that earned her millions of dollars.
The returns Tuesday also amounted to a historic rebuke of the Democratic Party
from the white blue-collar voters who had formed the party base from the
presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt to Mr. Clinton’s. Yet Mrs. Clinton and her
advisers had taken for granted that states like Michigan and Wisconsin would
stick with a Democratic nominee, and that she could repeat Mr. Obama’s strategy
of mobilizing the party’s ascendant liberal coalition rather than pursuing a
more moderate course like her husband did 24 years ago.
But not until these voters were offered a Republican who ran as an unapologetic
populist, railing against foreign trade deals and illegal immigration, did they
move so drastically away from their ancestral political home.
To the surprise of many on the left, white voters who had helped elect the
nation’s first black president, appeared more reluctant to line up behind a
From Pennsylvania to Wisconsin, industrial towns once full of union voters who
for decades offered their votes to Democratic presidential candidates, even in
the party’s lean years, shifted to Mr. Trump’s Republican Party. One county in
the Mahoning Valley of Ohio, Trumbull, went to Mr. Trump by a six-point margin.
Four years ago, Mr. Obama won there by 22 points.
Mrs. Clinton’s loss was especially crushing to millions who had
cheered her march toward history as, they hoped, the nation’s first female
president. For supporters, the election often felt like a referendum on gender
progress: an opportunity to elevate a woman to the nation’s top job and to
repudiate a man whose remarkably boorish behavior toward women had assumed
center stage during much of the campaign.
Mr. Trump boasted, in a 2005 video released last month, about using his public
profile to commit sexual assault. He suggested that female political rivals
lacked a presidential “look.” He ranked women on a scale of one to 10, even
holding forth on the desirability of his own daughter — the kind of throwback
male behavior that many in the country assumed would disqualify a candidate for
On Tuesday, the public’s verdict was rendered.
Uncertainty abounds as Mr. Trump prepares to take office. His campaign featured
a shape-shifting list of policy proposals, often seeming to change hour to hour.
His staff was in constant turmoil, with Mr. Trump’s children serving critical
campaign roles and a rotating cast of advisers alternately seeking access to Mr.
Trump’s ear, losing it and, often, regaining it, depending on the day.
Even Mr. Trump’s full embrace of the Republican Party came exceedingly late in
life, leaving members of both parties unsure about what he truly believes. He
has donated heavily to both parties and has long described his politics as the
transactional reality of a businessman.
Mr. Trump’s dozens of business entanglements — many of them in foreign countries
— will follow him into the Oval Office, raising questions about potential
conflicts of interest. His refusal to release his tax returns, and his
acknowledgment that he did not pay federal income taxes for years, has left the
American people with considerable gaps in their understanding of the financial
But this they do know: Mr. Trump will thoroughly reimagine the tone, standards
and expectations of the presidency, molding it in his own self-aggrandizing
He is set to take the oath of office on Jan. 20.
Correction: November 10, 2016
An article on Wednesday about the election of Donald Trump as
president of the United States carried an erroneous byline in some editions. The
article was by Matt Flegenheimer and Michael Barbaro — not by Patrick Healy and
Amy Chozick, Ashley Parker, Patrick Healy and Jonathan Martin contributed
Find out what you need to know about the 2016 presidential race today, and get
politics news updates via Facebook, Twitter and the Morning Briefing newsletter.
A version of this article appears in print on November 9, 2016, on page A1 of
the New York edition with the headline: Trump Triumphs.
Donald Trump Is Elected President in Stunning Repudiation of the
NOV. 9, 2016,
Big Money Rearranges
Its Election Bets
JUNE 4, 2016
The New York Times
SundayReview | Editorial
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Like practiced horseplayers at a racetrack, wealthy campaign
donors are adjusting their bets as the primary season ends and the political
field narrows. This is particularly true of Republican megadonors who cannot
abide Donald Trump and are thus doubling down on keeping G.O.P. control of the
Senate as a firewall against a possible Democratic president, while investing
heavily in keeping statehouses in Republican hands.
One constant is the vast amount of money sluicing through the political system
in what is certain to be the most expensive election in the nation’s history.
Experts estimate that campaign spending, which has risen inexorably in recent
years, will easily surpass the $6.28 billion record set in the 2012 federal
elections and could conceivably reach $9 billion, much of it for political
Both parties are busy exploiting the power of barely regulated super PACs to
accept unlimited six- and seven-figure donations for candidates. At the same
time, campaigns are concealing the names of other rich donors in “dark-money”
operations palmed off as tax exempt “social welfare” agencies supposedly
dedicated to doing good, not to bare-knuckle politics.
Prominent among the Republican super-spenders shying away from Donald Trump are
the billionaire conservatives Charles and David Koch, whose political machine
has invested $42 million-plus to keep control of the Senate. Other Republican
contributors have also indicated a preference for spending on lesser races down
the line rather than on the presidential campaign.
Some superstar check writers like Sheldon Adelson, the casino magnate, have no
problem with Mr. Trump’s erratic policy proposals, bluster, and past vows to
self-fund. Mr. Adelson is talking of a $100 million effort to boost Mr. Trump’s
performance in the finale against Hillary Clinton. Mr. Trump, having
flip-flopped on a primary promise to shun wealthy donors, now seems only too
happy to accept a pledge by Mr. Adelson and others to raise as much as $1
billion for his campaign.
For now, Hillary Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, leads the fund-raising
pack with a money machine that has sucked in more than $80 million in super PAC
support. Democrats are not shying away from the big-check power of super PACs,
creating a new $50 million operation started by major labor unions and the
billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer. At the same time, Mrs. Clinton is
campaigning on proposals to rein in the runaway money race. She says it
undermines American politics.
What voters think of all this as the price of a particularly raucous display of
democracy remains to be seen. But the power of money in politics has grown so
much since the 2010 Citizens United decision that its presence is felt ever
deeper down the ballot. Ominously, there has been a flood of special-interest
money into state judicial races that raises questions about whether judges’
decisions might be affected, according to a Brennan Center for Justice study.
The toughest race in Kansas this year is being waged by furious conservative
Republicans aiming to oust four members of the state Supreme Court because of
their decisions striking down the G.O.P. Legislature’s shortchanging of the
state constitution’s school-aid requirements.
Shrewd big-money campaigns financed by the Koch brothers and others have upended
the Democrats’ one-time dominance of state legislatures. There are now
Republican majorities in 70 percent of two-party statehouses. That success, in
turn, has created a farm system for the G.O.P.’s current control of Congress.
There, the twin powers of big money and statehouse gerrymandering have made
incumbents of both parties unbeatable 90 percent of the time, compounding the
gridlock voters complain about. For all the job security, big donors are
expected to drive this year’s congressional election spending well beyond the
$3.8 billion record set two years ago. Much of this money will surely be wasted,
further enriching the new breed of fat-cat campaign operatives, and further
alienating voters with toxic advertising. But some of it may tip key races.
As the money torrent rises, it’s no coincidence that for the first time in
history, most members of Congress are millionaires (268 of 534 House members),
according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Republican control of the
agenda has snuffed out Democratic proposals to control or at least disclose the
true extent of the wealth now driving elections. Theoretically, this election
should be a forum for dealing with this open invitation to political corruption.
Unfortunately, big money’s main effect on the campaign so far has been a
frenzied pace to raise and spend more of it.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter
(@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.
A version of this editorial appears in print on June 5, 2016, on page SR8 of the
New York edition with the headline: Big Money Adjusts Its Election Bets.
Big Money Rearranges Its Election Bets,
June 4, 2016,
You Need To Know
February 27, 2016
5:09 AM ET
Everyone's talking about "Super Tuesday," what it means and that
it's such a big deal in this presidential campaign. But why? Here's a quick
explainer. Think of it as a frequently asked questions for Super Tuesday:
What is Super Tuesday?
It's when more states vote and more delegates are at stake than
on any other single day in the presidential primary campaign.
Isn't it also called the SEC Primary?
That's a colloquial term used by some. It refers to the
collegiate athletic conference, the Southeastern Conference, known for its
powerhouse football teams. Several states holding contests on Super Tuesday have
teams that play in the SEC (Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee and Texas).
But many others do not.
When is it?
Tuesday, March 1
How many states are actually voting?
13, plus the territory of American Samoa and Democrats Abroad
(expatriates who consider themselves Democrats). We will see results in only 12
of those states (11 for Democrats, 11 for Republicans), because Republicans in
Wyoming and Colorado begin their caucuses that day but won't have a presidential
Where will we see results?
Alabama (R&D), Alaska (R only), American Samoa (D), Arkansas
(R&D), Colorado (D), Georgia (R&D), Massachusetts (R&D), Minnesota (R&D),
Oklahoma (R&D), Tennessee (R&D), Texas (R&D), Vermont (R&D) and Virginia (R&D),
plus Democrats Abroad.
Other contests occurring on March 1, but not producing results: Wyoming (R) and
Colorado (R). They are included on our calendar since Republican voters in those
states will be starting the voting process that day.
How many delegates are up for grabs?
1,460 (865 for Democrats, 595 for Republicans). For Democrats,
there are an additional 150 unpledged delegates, otherwise known as
"superdelegates," in Super Tuesday states. They are free to vote however they
want at the national convention this summer. With superdelegates added in, Super
Tuesday represents 22 percent of all delegates.
How big is Super Tuesday?
For perspective, so far, only about 2 percent of the pledged
Democratic delegates and 5 percent of the Republican delegates have been
allocated. After Super Tuesday, that will jump to almost a quarter (24 percent)
for the Democrats and about 30 percent for the GOP.
That's not a majority, though: True. But it's the snowball effect. If Iowa, New
Hampshire and South Carolina were the kids' snowball that started down the
mountain, Super Tuesday is what happens when that snowball hits the steepest
part of the slope.
What's the day with the second most states and delegates?
March 15, when five big states vote — Florida, Illinois,
Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio. And the system changes. Those carry 1,058
delegates (691 for Democrats, 367 for Republicans). More states start to become
winner-take-all. By the end of March, about half of all Democratic delegates (48
percent) and almost two-thirds of Republican delegates (63 percent) will have
Super Tuesday: Here's What You Need To Know,
NPR, FEB. 27, 2016,
and Hillary Clinton
Race in Iowa
FEB. 2, 2016
the New York
DES MOINES —
Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont were locked in an
intensely tight race in the Iowa caucuses on Tuesday as Mrs. Clinton’s strong
support among women and older voters was matched by the passionate liberal foot
soldiers whom Mr. Sanders has been calling to political revolution.
The close results were deeply unnerving to Mrs. Clinton and her husband, former
President Bill Clinton, as well as her advisers, some of whom had expressed
growing confidence in recent days that they had recaptured political momentum
after weeks when Mr. Sanders was drawing huge crowds and rising in the polls.
The Clintons had appeared optimistic at rallies over the weekend, thanking
Iowans for their support as much as urging them to turn out to vote.
The close vote means that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders are likely to split
Iowa’s share of delegates to the Democratic convention, and Mr. Sanders will be
able to argue that the Iowa result was a virtual tie.
The Clinton team was counting on its huge, well-trained army of volunteers,
covering all of Iowa’s 1,681 voting precincts, to counter the enormous
enthusiasm of voters who jammed into events to hear Mr. Sanders. But his
well-financed Iowa organization was able to convert the energy of his crowds
into voters on Monday night, as he drew huge numbers of first-time caucusgoers,
young people and liberals who responded to his rallying cry against the nation’s
The virtual tie between the two candidates instantly raised the stakes for their
next face-off, the primary next Tuesday in New Hampshire. Mr. Sanders holds a
solid lead in polls there and has the advantage of being from Vermont;
candidates from neighboring states have won the state’s primary in recent
decades, and Mr. Sanders is admired in the state.
Clinton advisers said late Monday night that Mr. and Mrs. Clinton were
discussing bringing on additional staff members to strengthen her campaign
operation now that a pitched battle may lie ahead against Mr. Sanders. The
advisers said they did not know if a significant staff shakeup was at hand, but
they said that the Clintons were disappointed with Monday night’s result and
wanted to ensure that her organization, political messaging and communications
strategy were in better shape for the contests to come.
At her caucus night party here, Mrs. Clinton sought to put the best face on a
tight result that had nearly half of Democrats voting against her. “As I stand
here tonight breathing a big sigh of relief — thank you, Iowa!” she said, joined
on stage by Mr. Clinton and their daughter, Chelsea.
“I am excited about really getting into the debate with Senator Sanders about
the best way forward to fight for us and America,” Mrs. Clinton said.
Mr. Sanders, who spoke shortly after she finished, laughed as his crowd chanted
“feel the Bern,” his campaign’s unofficial slogan. “Thank you — Iowa, thank
you!” Mr. Sanders said.
Noting that he began his Iowa campaign with “no name recognition” and “no
money,” Mr. Sanders drew ecstatic cheers as he said he took on the Clintons —
“the most powerful political organization in the United States of America” — and
drove them into a tie.
“I think the people of Iowa have sent a very profound message to the political
establishment, to the economic establishment, and by the way, to the media
establishment,” Mr. Sanders said. “That is, given the enormous crises facing our
country, it is just too late for establishment politics and establishment
The results suggested that Mr. Sanders would be a strong opponent of Mrs.
Clinton’s for a long time. The voters sent a clear message that income
inequality weighed on their minds, with more than one in four Democratic voters
saying the issue was the most important facing the nation, according to surveys
of voters leaving the polls.
Mr. Sanders’s strong performance in Iowa was a significant milestone in a
campaign in which he began 40 percentage points behind Mrs. Clinton when they
both declared their candidacies last spring. Many Democrats privately dismissed
Mr. Sanders as a left-wing fringe candidate who had no real chance of defeating
Mrs. Clinton anywhere other than his home state of Vermont, where his democratic
socialist politics were not as exotic as many Democratic Party leaders found
But Mr. Sanders proved to be a rigorously disciplined candidate, delivering the
same powerful message inveighing against establishment politics, Wall Street and
the benefits enjoyed by the wealthy and the well-connected.
The Clintons are now hoping for a surprise performance in New Hampshire, where
they have campaigned and connected with voters since 1992, when Mr. Clinton came
in a strong second place in the state’s primary, and Mrs. Clinton won the 2008
primary over Barack Obama, then a senator who had earlier won the Iowa caucuses.
Steve Duprey, a Republican national committeeman from New Hampshire, said if
Mrs. Clinton ekes out a clear victory in Iowa, however small, it would give her
“some much-needed momentum in New Hampshire — and if she can build that into a
New Hampshire win, I think it will start the death rattle of the Sanders
Maglaras, a Clinton supporter who is a commissioner of Strafford County, N.H.,
predicted that Mrs. Clinton would have a lock on the Democratic nomination if
she won New Hampshire on top of a close race in Iowa.
“Any other combination means we are in for a longer nomination process than many
had anticipated early on,” Mr. Maglaras, a former mayor of Dover, N.H., added.
Referring to New Hampshire residents, he said, “If they vote with their heads it
will be Clinton. If they vote with their hearts it will be Sanders.”
After losing the Iowa caucuses in 2008 to Mr. Obama, another insurgent candidate
who she led in the polls for months, Mrs. Clinton vowed to campaign differently
here this time around, holding small events with handpicked voters to learn
about the lives and issues for voters here — and to be shown doing so, humbly
and thoughtfully, in Iowa television newscasts. While she long said that Iowa
would be a tight race, and improved upon her 2008 performance when she won 29.5
percent and fell to third place behind John Edwards, Mrs. Clinton nonetheless
hoped that she would start exorcising the ghosts of 2008 with a victory here,
and she campaigned hard for it.
Mrs. Clinton, 68, performed well on Monday night among women, moderates and
older Iowans who rallied behind her promises to build on President Obama’s
policies and fight for the needs of families. Her shifts to the left on trade,
the environment and gay marriage helped her win over Democrats, though not the
many liberals and young people who mistrusted her pragmatic style of politics
and her ties to wealthy interests and Wall Street.
Mr. Sanders, 74, drew strong support from first-time Democratic caucusgoers, who
accounted for more than four in 10 voters, according to polls conducted by
Edison Research of voters as they entered caucus locations throughout the state
Monday evening. But these voters made up a smaller share of the Democratic
electorate on Monday than they did in 2008, when 57 percent of Democratic
caucusgoers were first-timers. Mr. Sanders was also widely supported by younger
voters and independents, but voters 65 and older accounted for about three in 10
Democratic voters and they strongly favored Mrs. Clinton.
As the results trickled in, the third candidate in the Democratic contest,
former Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland, announced that he was pulling out of
With Iowa accounting for only 1 percent of the delegates at stake in the
Democratic nomination race, Mrs. Clinton is already far ahead of Mr. Sanders in
the delegate count that matters most, given her support from several hundred
superdelegates who count toward the nomination. The Clinton campaign has
expressed confidence to allies that she can afford to lose Iowa, as well as the
New Hampshire primary because of her strength in big-state, delegate-rich
primaries and in the South .
Both candidates planned to fly to New Hampshire overnight and planned to resume
campaigning there on Tuesday.
Mr. Sanders developed a better-financed operation here than the Clinton team
expected, thanks to robust online fund-raising that netted $20 million in
January alone, compared with $37 million for Mrs. Clinton in the last three
months of 2015. (The Clinton campaign on Monday declined requests for its
January fund-raising number.)
Sanders advisers say he now has both money — $28.3 million on hand, compared
with $38 million for Mrs. Clinton — and the political momentum to compete
vigorously not just in New Hampshire but in upcoming primaries in South
Carolina, Massachusetts, and Georgia and caucuses in Nevada, Minnesota, and
Find out what you need to know about the 2016 presidential race today, and get
politics news updates via Facebook, Twitter and the First Draft newsletter.
A version of
this article appears in print on February 2, 2016, on page A1 of the New York
edition with the headline: Little Separates Sanders and Clinton in Tight Race in
Separates Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton in Tight Race in Iowa,
NYT, FEB. 2, 2016,