Trump - a populist take power in the White House

So then return all who have been on study visits to Trump Mainland USA with their experiences of an unusually dirty and political issues devoid of substance election campaign. An election campaign that has appointed a reality show star and a billionaire who has never been politically active in any context to the president the next four years in the world's most powerful nation. And elected that was his, even though he got about one percent fewer votes than the Democrats, Hillary Clinton, as Democrat Al Gore did when he lost to Iraq Warring Bush's son George from Texas in the election of 2000. Why, yes it is indirect US electoral system with choice of electors in each state makes the most most electors (at least 270) from the USA all the states together also win if the other taken together had more of the total votes cast in the entire country. In countries with direct Hillary Clinton had become president and not Trump.   The cumbersome registration procedure before being allowed to go and vote also makes turnout in presidential elections tend to be on the low 55 percent, and an elected president only has 25 percent of the electorate support. As is the case now for Donald Trump. This considering that voter turnout was now 55.6 percent compared to 58.6 percent when Obama was re-elected in 2012.   Hilliary Clinton also had a lower voter support than Obama. She was not able to really mobilize as many of the Democrats' core voters, an important factor behind the loss of traditionally Democratic states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin (lost Clinton by only 0.3 perc against Trump who took the state's 10 electors), Michigan and even Ohio and major Florida with its 29 electors. And there was also her expected election victory is lost.   Trump managed to better mobilize their core voters (white men but also many white women and the elderly over 65 years), and he also came away with 29 percent of the Latino American voters. Clinton was strongest among young people under 30 years (54 perc), among women (54 perc), voters between 30-44 years (50 perc) and African Americans (88 proc.), Latino voters (65 perc) and voters with higher education than college .   Trump succeeded - so he is a billionaire - capturing large voter groups' frustration and anger against greed (Wall Street), politicians class nonsense spirit of the common people have it and make the choice to clear anti-establishment cool. This without actually having some good solutions to the problems, just a burst of promise. Moreover, he did it with a campaign strategy that built on hatretorik and female bullying. And there went home especially strong among globalization's losers (the unemployed who lost their manufacturing jobs), rural people, gun lovers and all those who wanted a change in Washington. With that message, he managed to mobilize better than Hillary Clinton and win nyckeldelstater like Florida, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Ohio, etc., and get over the necessary 270 electoral college needed to win in an American presidential election.   Had the Democrats independent candidate BERIE Sanders - more of an outsider and anti-establishment than Clinton - managed Trump better? Perhaps, not excluded. Ahead of an anxious time before we know what he intends to do in the economy, eliminate health insurance ObamaCare (leading to 20 million more uninsured), appoint conservative judges to HD, etc. Famous economists like Paul Krugman track economic "recession without end" of Trump's airy valbudskap translated into concrete policies. In foreign policy - Trump considered as the most unqualified selected - no one knows what he is doing, in addition to build a wall against Mexico. So the future looks uncertain out. And he manages more than four years in the White House? Robert Björkenwall; robert.bjorken@telia.com