Sometimes, like when reading political journalism, I wonder whether the meanings of words changed while I slept one night. I’m thinking of how I’ve seen Trump’s victory described in print as “sweeping,” “decisive,” “resounding,” and so “broad” and “convincing” as to constitute a “clear mandate.” Right-wing rags have been joined by The New York Times in this exercise in lexical revisionism. I’d just like to point out that, as of now (time to start cooking supper on Monday, November 18), Trump has received 49.96% of the tabulated votes for President, compared to 48.24% for Harris.
There are a lot of ways to express how, in the real world, the scale of such a victory doesn’t deserve such sonorous adjectives. But the one that occurs immediately to me is that when in 2016 Hillary Clinton lost to Trump, she outpolled him by 2.1% of the popular vote. So Trump’s margin over Harris (currently 1.72%, and trending downward) is somewhat less than Clinton’s margin over Trump eight years ago.
No one said that Hillary had won a clear mandate!
On another matter, also relating to facts and figures, those eternal pests, I remember the recent effusions of MAGA fan boys when stocks soared on news of Trump’s win. And it’s true, stock prices rose sharply: for example, the NASDAQ Composite Index closed at 18,439 on Election Day, then rose to 18,983 at close of trading the next day, and to 19,269 on the day after that. There’s a decent chance that’s the last you heard of it, because last Friday the Index closed at 18,680, and the fan boys are now enthusing on other topics. They remind me a little of grandma who reported winning $80 at the casino when actually she lost $120 (but had once been down $200). It sounds like you’re doing great when you only talk about the wins.
I’m just trying to put in a good word for reality. If you’re interested in how the stock market has performed historically during Republican and Democratic administrations, I took up that topic, here.
Comments