DONALD Trump’s increasingly Alice-in-Wonderland approach to the US presidential election – he plainly likes to assert six impossible things before breakfast – reached a surreal nadir at the third debate, in Las Vegas.
Mr Trump is extremely competitive and, despite his handlers’ best efforts, frequently says the first thing that comes into his head, regardless of the consequences. His followers admire this habit as proof that he is really one of them: meanwhile, the rest of the US, and the watching wider world, stares in horrified fascination. Thus it was on Wednesday, when Mr Trump, as belligerent and thin-skinned as ever, said he would keep the country “in suspense” over whether he would accept the election outcome. Immediately afterwards, however, his campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, said breezily that he “will accept the results of the election because he’s going to win the election, so they’ll be easy to accept.”
The original statement contradicted not only his running-mate, Mike Pence, but also Mr Trump himself, who in the first debate said he would “absolutely support” Hillary Clinton if she won. He has also claimed that the election is rigged and that a gigantic conspiracy involving the media and his own party is undermining him. All of this is an attempt to deflect attention from his own erratic campaigning. The Clinton campaign manager, Robbie Mook, says Mr Trump, aware he is losing, seeks to blame the system. Mrs Clinton herself says the refusal to accept the outcome is “horrifying.”
Mr Trump is uniquely unqualified to occupy the Oval Office, but his campaign of division, arrogance, bullying and freely-expressed contempt does not augur well for the post-election period. Many Trump supporters might be vehemently disinclined to accept a Clinton victory. What happens then?
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here