In the words of my colleague: "At least he doesn't get the nuclear codes until January..."
These words do not comfort me.
2016 has been a year of madness. First the UK votes for Brexit and now this. A sexist, racist, tax evader becomes president of the United States.
And what's worse, the democratic party is to blame. They were under the impression that logic could trump (pardon the pun) lunacy. Clearly they weren't paying close enough attention to Brexit. They prioritised stopping Bernie getting power rather than Trump.
We are clearly at a turning point in society, people are fed up and they are willing to chance their children's future to see real change, as they figure: "well things can't possibly get any worse than they already are so why not vote in a guy who sexually assaults women and wants to exile an entire religion."
God only knows what will happen in 2017...
In February, Current Affairs ran an article by editor Nathan J. Robinson presciently titled, “Unless the Democrats Run Sanders, a Trump Nomination Means a Trump Presidency.” Robinson’s argument was quite simple: in normal election circumstances, Clinton would be a more electable candidate than Sanders. “She is, after all, an experienced, pragmatic moderate,” he wrote, “whereas Sanders is a raving, arm-flapping elderly Jewish socialist from Vermont.” But this was no normal election—or, rather, Trump was no normal candidate—and so Democratic strategists (and Democrats in general) should have pushed the candidate who would match best against Trump, not against Republicans in general, the author argued.