“La Repubblica” (Rom):
“Like in 2016, only better. Trump exudes confidence, even boastfulness, even as the most important presidential election in US history is being counted. Convinced that he would repeat the blow against (his then Democratic opponent, note) Hillary Clinton, Even against the second Democratic candidate for the White House, culture wars on issues such as abortion, LGBT issues and ‘wokeness’ will be on the agenda, not to mention the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East.
OÖN analysis with foreign policy director Markus Staudinger:
Trump wants to end this quickly in the name of an isolationism that the USA has perhaps not experienced since the days before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. His convictions, indictments, the storming of the Capitol, numerous sex affairs, outbursts of anger and insults will be forgotten. Because everything is forgiven if the voter is convinced that he is voting to ensure his survival. (…) If everything turns out as currently assumed, then that means ‘Game Over’ – the game is over.”
“The Times” (London):
“The Democrats have always struggled with voters’ dissatisfaction with the status quo. They couldn’t run a campaign based on ‘The country is on the right track.’ So they tried ‘Better the devil you know.’ ‘. It looks like this has proven to be weaker than the message that change is needed (…)
Why did Democrats become more confident as Election Day approached? Due to two considerations. First, that there is a difference in enthusiasm between her voters and those of the Republicans. In particular, they felt that female voters would oppose laws restricting abortion and would also dislike Trump’s “macho” posturing.
There will be plenty of time to evaluate this, but an initial assessment seems to be that this belief in women’s enthusiasm for Harris was misplaced. Something similar happened with Hillary Clinton in 2016.
They had also hoped that their superior on-the-ground operations (volunteers knocking on doors to persuade voters) would prove crucial. They may have simply overestimated this advantage, or at least overestimated how important it is.”
Also listen:
Who will vote for Donald Trump? Former ORF foreign correspondent Hannelore Veit asked herself this question and traveled through the USA to talk to those who are not obvious Trump supporters.
“Politics” (Copenhagen):
“It’s not right for us in Europe to be biting our nails over a US presidential election. If there’s one lesson to be learned from the election, it’s that Europe needs to be able to take better care of itself. For one thing, it can We should not rely on US elections and the changing focus of the United States. On the other hand, we should not fear Russian interference and economic undermining by China.
Europe must show that we can take a leadership role in technological development, green transition, economic sustainability and security policy independence. Not out of distrust of others. Not at all to keep others down. But to keep ourselves at the top and avoid becoming dependent on the politically crisis-ridden USA or on authoritarian forces in Russia or China.”
“De Telegraaf” (Amsterdam):
“After January 6, 2021, there were hardly many people who had bet even a cent on Donald Trump’s political future. After all, the 45th President of the United States not only refused to accept his election defeat against Joe Biden “but also staged a veritable popular uprising to prevent his Vice President Mike Pence from making this defeat official. Nevertheless, he has now done it again – the voters in the USA are making Trump their president again.”
“Hospodarske noviny” (Prague):
“If the Republican candidate Donald Trump wins the fight for the White House, then that would be largely thanks to Elon Musk. He openly supports Trump – and as the richest person in the world and master of the social network X, he can too set the appropriate levers in motion (…)
The most visible of Trump’s allies in the business world is already in line for a reward: Musk is set to head a commission on government efficiency. This should not be a toothless debate circle, but rather a circular saw that, under the baton of the billionaire, saws the federal structures down to the bone. (…)
It cannot be argued away that the drastic cuts that Musk dreams of would impair the functioning of the state. “If voters don’t understand that the expenses of a private company and the obligations of a government are completely different things, then they are in for a big disappointment.”
“Neue Zürcher Zeitung”:
“The German government had bet everything on a Harris victory. Apparently they didn’t have a plan B. That was a mistake. Trump’s victory now mercilessly reveals the failings of the German government. Joe Biden’s term in office should have used this to become more independent of Instead, she slept through the last four years.
This particularly applies to German defense policy. Germany has neglected the Bundeswehr. Ultimately, one could always rely on the USA as a protective power. But Trump doesn’t think much of NATO. He only has vague plans for Ukraine. He doesn’t say whether he will supply her with weapons or support her financially. (German Chancellor Olaf) Scholz now wants to rearm again and strengthen the European pillar of NATO, for example through the recently concluded defense agreement with Great Britain.
But that won’t be enough if the US under Trump reduces its aid to Ukraine and becomes less involved in NATO. Scholz would then be Europe’s most important man in terms of defense – and would also have to fill this leadership role. However, so far he is not behaving that way. His considerations are always about not provoking (Russian President Vladimir) Putin. However, Europe cannot afford a waverer at the top in times of war.”
“Sydney Morning Herald”:
“(First US President) George Washington once called American democracy ‘an experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.’ The American people are now abandoning it as a failed experiment. Donald Trump has been clear in word and deed for years made that he doesn’t respect the results of elections – unless he wins. But most American voters knowingly voted for him in Tuesday’s election.
In case anyone had forgotten his autocratic instincts, Trump reminded them again two days before Election Day. Because he never accepted the results of the 2020 election, incited an insurrection to stay in the White House and insisted on Sunday that he “should never have left.” Seven in 10 Americans were aware of the risk, telling CNN pollsters last week that they would not expect Trump to concede defeat if he lost the election. Nevertheless, most voters willingly gave him power. If Washington was the father of American democracy, then Donald Trump has applied to be its undertaker – and is now in a position to fulfill that task.”
ePaper
Ion to potentially seal its fate.”
The sentiment echoed through various media outlets, where concerns about the implications of a Trump presidency were juxtaposed with the electorate’s apparent willingness to embrace him despite his controversial past. As political analysts and journalists dissected the outcomes, patterns emerged:
- First, there was a palpable sense that voters, driven by fears of their survival amidst economic upheaval and social changes, were willing to overlook past transgressions.
- Second, the Democrats’ campaign strategies were critiqued for lacking a strong, hopeful message that resonated with the electorate, leading to their perceived disadvantage against a Republican base energised by Trump’s polarizing rhetoric.
- The articles highlighted a growing realization in Europe of the necessity for self-reliance, stressed by the unpredictability of American political stability and the rising influence of authoritarian regimes globally.
- The implications of Elon Musk’s involvement in supporting Trump were explored, raising questions about the intertwining of business interests and political power, particularly regarding government efficiency and the potential ramifications for social governance.
- Lastly, there was recognition of the German government’s miscalculations in foreign policy, particularly in relation to security and defense, suggesting that Europe may need to reassess its own strategic priorities in light of shifting American commitments.
As the headlines dissect Trump’s political revival, deeper inquiries arise about the state of democracy in the US and its resonance with the American populace. The comments illustrate a complex landscape where faith in democratic values clashes with a populace eager for a leader who promises radical change, regardless of past actions. Furthermore, the rippling effects in Europe exemplify the interconnected nature of global politics and the necessary preparedness for an uncertain future.
This crossroads offers a moment of reflection for voters, policymakers, and global leaders alike; the outcomes of these elections may well define the trajectory of democracy and intergovernmental relations for years to come.