Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[y66]

I think "The pollers didn't really get it wrong." is maybe technically right in some sense, but basically wrong. The polls weren't rigged, they reported what they were told, but this doesn't mean that they didn't get it wrong. This is different from, say, the World Series. After game 4, with Cleveland ahead 3 games to 1, no doubt the chances on a Cleveland win would have been rated as far higher than the 71% that 538 was giving Clinton on Tuesday morning. Chicago still won, but as the series evolved it was not settles whether Fowler would or would not hit a home run, it was only settles that he would try. The election is different. By the time of the late polls, most people had chosen how to vote. It seems unlikely that random changes of intent between, say, a Saturday poll and a Tuesday vote explains what happened. The voters had chosen who they would vote for, they did it, the polls failed to predict it. It is reasonable to refer to this as the polls getting it wrong. It need not mean that pollsters were stupid or incompetent, but I do think it means they got it wrong.

I have not looked at the models but don't they basically take the results of previous elections (per demographic per geography voting patterns) and apply changes in demographics per census data and changes in voting patterns per poll data (per demographic per geography)? In their analysis, Nicholas Confessore and Nate Cohn observe that 12 percent of the people who voted for Trump approved of Obama (did not say voted for Obama) and that millions of people who voted previously for Obama voted for Trump on Tuesday. Perhaps the models gave too much weight to the 2012 voting patterns and did not do enough to distinguish between the "change agenda" motivation for Obama voters and the "progressive agenda" motivation.

[Vampyr]

I understand, Trump has explained often enough, that business bankruptcies are part of the way you get rich in his business. I accept that, and he did get rich (even if not at his bragging level he is incomparably richer than I am) so that seems to work for him in his business.

 

The trouble with getting rich via bankruptcies is that other people are getting poor. Basically, you are stealing from your creditors, and I am sure that many businesses, especially small ones, couldn't afford the loss and had to close. Also I guess it's not illegal, but it certainly is immoral to stiff loads of people while still possessing other companies and properties plus vast personal wealth.

 

There is I guess one small silver lining in that TTIP will never see the light of day.

[cherdano]

ACA is DOA. Not only that, this will endear Trump to Tea Party Republicans and you’ll see more silly legislation next year. But ACA did not pan out as planned – there weren’t enough healthy folks joining and the penalty wasn’t enforced / got sidetracked by legislation. Premiums doubling was not an urban myth. Killing ACA will be a major victory, and it may stop the immediate need on other policy positions like the Wall.

I am not so sure. It's easy to pass bills repealing Obamacare when you know the president is not going to sign it. It is easy to campaign against it. But do you really want to be the one responsible for 20 million Americans losing their health insurance?

 

I have no idea what they are going to do. The obvious solution would be to say "Obamacare was irresponsible, and forced a huge change on the American people that they didn't want. But now that we have it, we won't force another huge change on the American people - unlike the Democrats we'll be grown-ups and just repair and fix things with no ideological blinders." But the only ways I see to repair and fix the parts that are working badly (the exchange marketplaces) are either very unpopular (strengthening the mandate) or very un-republican (public option, further expanding Medicaid or offering buy-in for Medicare from a certain age to get some of the sicker people off the exchanges).

[cherdano]

Just one more because this trope really annoys, as it is completely contrary to any facts.

Donald Trump says he's going to try to work for all Americans, and I have to hope that he means it. I know that Hillary Clinton was going to be indebted to the large banks and Wall Street, so that didn't seem like the right choice.

Why do you think the stocks of Goldmann Sachs and similar companies jumped up after Trump got elected, contrary to the overall market? Because Republicans want to deregulate Wall Street (repeal Dodd Frank etc.) while Hillary had stricter regulations.

 

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/9/13573294/donald-trump-financial-regulation

[Vampyr]

I am not so sure. It's easy to pass bills repealing Obamacare when you know the president is not going to sign it. It is easy to campaign against it. But do you really want to be the one responsible for 20 million Americans losing their health insurance?

 

Sure, why not? These 20 million are among the least affluent citizens, and the difficulty/impossibility of their being able to vote will increase with each subsequent election.

[cherdano]

Sure, why not? These 20 million are among the least affluent citizens, and the difficulty/impossibility of their being able to vote will increase with each subsequent election.

I don't know. I think Trump wants to be reelected, and I think he knows that the best way to improve his odds of getting reelected is to make people's lives better.

[kenberg]

I have not looked at the models but don't they basically take the results of previous elections (per demographic per geography voting patterns) and apply changes in demographics per census data and changes in voting patterns per poll data (per demographic per geography)? In their analysis, Nicholas Confessore and Nate Cohn observe that 12 percent of the people who voted for Trump approved of Obama (did not say voted for Obama) and that millions of people who voted previously for Obama voted for Trump on Tuesday. Perhaps the models gave too much weight to the 2012 voting patterns and did not do enough to distinguish between the "change agenda" motivation for Obama voters and the "progressive agenda" motivation.

 

I haven't looked either and, probably like you, I will not be making any serious effort to do so. My impression is that what you say is about right. To some extent, whether the pollsters "got it wrong" is a linguistic question. We had polls, people made predictions based on these polls, the results were different from the predictions. So far, I think everyone agrees with that. I gather turnout was a big issue. I am not sure pollsters can reasonably predict turnout.

[barmar]

One of the problems pollsters had was that this election was really unlikely any in recent history. The rhetoric was different, voter sentiments were different, etc. Pollsters have to make some assumptions when they extrapolate from the polling data, and these assumptions are based on past experience. When past experience is not a good guide, these extrapolations will be less accurate.

 

It's kind of like the difficulty meteorologists have after a big volcano eruption, since their weather models don't assume a boatload of ash in the atmosphere.

[Zelandakh]

One of the problems pollsters had was that this election was really unlikely any in recent history.

I think the two biggest problems for the pollsters were that there was an extremely high proportion of "undecided" voters in the final polls and that the nature of Trump's candidacy meant that there was perhaps some reluctance in some quarters to admit their allegiance, similar to the "shy Tories" of a few years back. These two points are probably not unrelated meaning that a higher than expected proportion of those undecided voters were actually Trump supporters.

 

What I find most interesting though is that it looks very much as if the Republican polling models were better tuned than those of the HC campaign. He was campaigning in what turned out to be the critical battleground come the last day whereas her team appear to have had no idea whatsoever that these states were even in play. Hopefully we will learn a little more over time about why this difference came about. It may even be that just one day from Hillary spent in the Rust Belt would have convinced enough voters that they mattered to her to swing the entire election. We will never know this but it is surely already clear that her not going there at all was a huge blunder.

[helene_t]

Just one more because this trope really annoys, as it is completely contrary to any facts.

 

Why do you think the stocks of Goldmann Sachs and similar companies jumped up after Trump got elected, contrary to the overall market? Because Republicans want to deregulate Wall Street (repeal Dodd Frank etc.) while Hillary had stricter regulations.

 

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/9/13573294/donald-trump-financial-regulation

Not to mention stocks in arms manufacturers and coal mines.

[hrothgar]

 

What I find most interesting though is that it looks very much as if the Republican polling models were better tuned than those of the HC campaign. He was campaigning in what turned out to be the critical battleground come the last day whereas her team appear to have had no idea whatsoever that these states were even in play. Hopefully we will learn a little more over time about why this difference came about.

 

According to 538, the Republican polling models all showed Trump losing

 

Trump went to those states based on his gut...

[Vampyr]

I don't know. I think Trump wants to be reelected, and I think he knows that the best way to improve his odds of getting reelected is to make people's lives better.

 

Not when the polling places being eliminated are in places where he would not win votes (which is what happened this year). Also, registering to vote will become too onerous for many. Again, not his electorate.

[olegru]

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/

I found that article interesting

[billw55]

http://www.cracked.c...ne-talks-about/

I found that article interesting

Nope. I stopped reading after just the first half of one item out of six contained the phrases "holy cockslap" and "dick shaped lake Michigan". I guess I should have known better than to take a link to cracked.

[y66]

The whole Democratic Party is now a smoking pile of rubble By Matt Yglesias

 

If Donald Trump’s win were the Democratic Party’s only problem, the party’s leaders would be justified in affecting a certain amount of complacency. After all, in a year when fundamentals-based models predicted a narrow Republican victory, Clinton actually pulled out a majority of the popular vote. That makes the Democrats from 1992 to 2016 the only political party in American history to win the popular vote in six elections out of seven. It’s actually kind of impressive.

 

What’s less impressive is that at the sub-presidential level, the Obama years have created a Democratic Party that’s essentially a smoking pile of rubble.

 

Republicans control the House, and they control the Senate. District lines are drawn in such a way that the median House district is far more conservative than the median American voter — resulting in situations like 2012 where House Democrats secured more votes than House Republicans but the GOP retained a healthy majority. The Senate, too, is in effect naturally gerrymandered to favor Republicans. Two years from now the Democratic Party will need to fight to retain seats in very difficult states like North Dakota, Montana, West Virginia, Indiana, and Missouri along with merely contestable ones in places like Florida, Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

 

In state government things are worse, if anything. The GOP now controls historical record number of governors’ mansions, including a majority of New England governorships. Tuesday’s election swapped around a few state legislative houses but left Democrats controlling a distinct minority. The same story applies further down ballot, where most elected attorneys general, insurance commissioners, secretaries of state, and so forth are Republicans.

 

One could perhaps overlook all of this if the Obama years had bequeathed the nation an enduring legacy along the lines of the New Deal or the Great Society. But to a striking extent, even as President Obama prepares to leave office with strong approval ratings, his policy legacy is extraordinarily vulnerable. And the odds that it will be essentially extinguished are high.

 

Due to a combination of bad luck and poor decisions, the story of the 21st-century Democratic Party looks to be overwhelmingly the story of failure.

 

The donkey will rise again

 

The point here is not that the Democratic Party has suffered some kind of knockout blow from which it will never return. Every bad electoral defeat is overinterpreted by some circle of pundits as signaling the death knell for one party or the other, and the loser always comes back.

 

Indeed, given the existing down-ballot weakness of the Democratic Party after the 2010 and 2014 midterms, Hillary Clinton’s loss does more to hasten Democrats’ resurrection than to delay it. A Republican president in office will tarnish the brand of blue-state Republican parties, making it easier for Democrats to regain ground in their own turf. At the same time, the absence of a high-profile national Democratic leader will make it easier for state parties in more conservative regions to build up independent identities.

 

But while Democrats shouldn’t be left for dead, it’s also the case that resurrection takes work and specific action. Party leaders who a week ago were confident they were leading the blue team to yet another presidential victory are going to look around and realize they didn’t just lose, they got essentially annihilated — even though the presidential election itself was close. They’re going to have to start doing something different. In particular, something that takes note of the fact that whether you think the constitutional system is fair or not (I don’t, personally), the existing setup simply doesn’t allow you to run up the score in California to compensate for weakness in the Midwest.

 

More broadly, the Obama-Clinton style of liberal incrementalism promised that while it wouldn’t deliver utopia, it would deliver wins and concrete results. And for a while, it did. But no strategy can guarantee an uninterrupted series of presidential election wins. And the withering of the down-ballot party paired with the failure to create entrenched policy accomplishments means much of Obama-era policymaking will have vanished without a trace within six months.

 

To make its comeback, what’s left of the Democratic Party establishment — not just its elected officials but the leaders of its aligned institutions and its major donors — need to recognize that a strategy they believed was working as recently as Tuesday afternoon has in fact failed quite badly.

Resurrection takes work and specific action? Indeed. By whom I wonder?

[onoway]

Isn't it ironic that almost everyone including me thought that the Republican Party was a smoking pile of rubble after the idiocies of the past and this election and the games around threatening to shut down the government by refusing to approve funding etc., now it turns out the Democrats are the ones in total disarray and in need of resurrection. Who'd have thought. The only one who got it right was the guy whose record for predicting presidential wins continues unblemished.

 

An article which several people have sent to me recently shows a younger Trump saying that if he ever ran for office he'd run for the Republicans because they were so dumb he could lie to them and they'd still vote for him. He did and they did. Maybe he's smarter than I thought.

[helene_t]

An article which several people have sent to me recently shows a younger Trump saying that if he ever ran for office he'd run for the Republicans because they were so dumb he could lie to them and they'd still vote for him. He did and they did. Maybe he's smarter than I thought.

yeah that is a hoax. I get it in my newsfeed several times per day also. http://www.snopes.com/1998-trump-people-quote/

 

I don't understand why people post Trump hoaxes. One would think that he has said and done enough outrageous things and that hoaxes should not be necessary. Maybe they are made by Trump supporters who want to discredit the stream of genuine outrageous Trump quotes?

[cloa513]

Isn't it ironic that almost everyone including me thought that the Republican Party was a smoking pile of rubble after the idiocies of the past and this election and the games around threatening to shut down the government by refusing to approve funding etc., now it turns out the Democrats are the ones in total disarray and in need of resurrection. Who'd have thought. The only one who got it right was the guy whose record for predicting presidential wins continues unblemished.

 

An article which several people have sent to me recently shows a younger Trump saying that if he ever ran for office he'd run for the Republicans because they were so dumb he could lie to them and they'd still vote for him. He did and they did. Maybe he's smarter than I thought.

They are both in a mess. The Republicans rejected their own now winning candidate such Ryan Speaker of the House. I can expect some serious Trump payback to Republicans.

[cherdano]

Just one more because this trope really annoys, as it is completely contrary to any facts.

 

Why do you think the stocks of Goldmann Sachs and similar companies jumped up after Trump got elected, contrary to the overall market? Because Republicans want to deregulate Wall Street (repeal Dodd Frank etc.) while Hillary had stricter regulations.

 

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/9/13573294/donald-trump-financial-regulation

Trump Wants to Let Wall Street Scam Customers Again Because of Course He Does

 

Trump is planning to reverse the "fiduciary rule" that says that pension advisers have to give advice in the interest of the customer, instead of trying to get them to buy high fee investments where their bank gets a higher provision.

[rmnka447]

A few random thoughts:

 

- The pollers didn't really get it wrong. As 538 notes, if you move 1% of the valid votes from Trump to Clinton (which is within the normal error margin of polls), Clinton would have won comfortably and the polls would have gotten all states bar NC right.

- The narrative that floods my facebook news feed is all kinds of generalizations of Americans, white Americans, old Americans, Working class Americans, American men. But within all these segments there is room for considerable disagreement. About half would vote for Trump and about half for Clinton, somewhat more in some segments than in others. Largely as expected. The differences between segments might in some ways be a bit bigger than usual. Anyway, a 1% deviation from the forecasts, while hugely significant in terms of political consequences, doesn't really justify a completely reversed narrative about the zeitgeist or of the mental health of Americans in general.

- For someone like me who never watches TV and very rarely clicks on a political video link on the internet, it feels incomprehensible that so many would consider Trump more trustworthy than Clinton. But maybe it is understandable considering that most voters will make there assessment largely based on TV. I have only seen Hillary a couple of times on video so it doesn't have that much influence on my opinion about her, but the little I have seen looks like fake smiles. The kind of facial expression that wouldn't pass a lie detector. If I place myself in the shoes of someone who suspects NYT of being about as biased as Fox News, and spends a lot more time watching politics on TV than reading about politics, then it is maybe not so surprising.

Lovely post, Helene_t.

 

Part of the distress and anxiety that some of the more progressive/liberal posters in this thread feel is due to the change that has occurred because Donald Trump won the election. People get disoriented by any big change that occurs in life. It just takes a while to adapt to the change and get back to a state of equilibrium. But it will come and the country will survive.

 

What has occurred reminds me very much of what happened back in 1980 when Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter.

 

Carter had made some progress in forwarding the Middle East peace process ultimately resulting in the Israel-Egypt peace accords. But other than that the country was a mess. The economy was bad also suffering from something labeled stagflation. It was a cycle of a weak economy with recessions while inflation was very high. Additionally, the US and USSR (Russia) were in SALT (Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty) talks that were not going well. President Carter was telling the country that we would probably have to accept a permanent Russian advantage in nuclear weapons. The Islamic revolution was underway in Iran. The US Embassy in Tehran has been stormed and 86 hostages taken. President Carter had made some radio talks about the malaise that people in the country felt.

 

Ronald Reagan was upbeat, but trailed Carter in the polls going into the weekend before the election. He had a couple good debates against Carter and had coined the phrase "misery index" to describe the economy. It was the sum of the inflation rate and unemployment rate and was about 17% (10% per year inflation and 7% unemployment). Reagan had asked the people to consider this question when deciding who to vote for, "Are you better of than you were 4 years ago?" The following Tuesday, to the shock of the Democrats, the nation handed Reagan a huge election victory.

 

But right after the election many of the same feeling, fears, and despondency were rampant among the Dems. Reagan will start a nuclear war, we'll lose all the progress we've made, he'll ruin the economy, etc. Their feelings were similar to the ones we see now. As for what happened, let's just say the fears were unfounded.

 

The similarity between the two elections lies in the bleek economic out look for most Americans. Real income for working class and middle class Americans is less than what it was 14 years ago. Jobs are being lost to overseas. Because of the healthcare law, jobs were being downgraded to part time work so that some employers can avoid the huge benefit cost increase. Work participation rate (those working or looking for work as a percentage of the total population [i think])is the lowest it's ever been. Add to that the gridlock in Washington because of extreme partisanship. It should be no surprise that people felt we couldn't continue this way.

 

So the choice came down to a non-politician who was seen as telling things as they are, but was a bit of loose cannon with some character flaws, or, a less than trustworthy politician who was trying to portray herself as both a change agent and a continuation of President Obama's policies. Add in the that the Democrats seemed preoccupied with things like climate change and similar issues, you could understand why so many working and middle class people felt overlooked, abandoned, and were angry. Well, after this election, the silent majority has certainly been heard. They decided that Trump was a risk worth taking.

 

To Donald Trump's credit, he recognized this dissatisfaction and anger, and ran a very populist campaign aimed at these people.

[Al_U_Card]

Lovely post, Helene_t.

 

Part of the distress and anxiety that some of the more progressive/liberal posters in this thread feel is due to the change that has occurred because Donald Trump won the election. People get disoriented by any big change that occurs in life. It just takes a while to adapt to the change and get back to a state of equilibrium. But it will come and the country will survive.

 

What has occurred reminds me very much of what happened back in 1980 when Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter.

 

Carter had made some progress in forwarding the Middle East peace process ultimately resulting in the Israel-Egypt peace accords. But other than that the country was a mess. The economy was bad also suffering from something labeled stagflation. It was a cycle of a weak economy with recessions while inflation was very high. Additionally, the US and USSR (Russia) were in SALT (Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty) talks that were not going well. President Carter was telling the country that we would probably have to accept a permanent Russian advantage in nuclear weapons. The Islamic revolution was underway in Iran. The US Embassy in Tehran has been stormed and 86 hostages taken. President Carter had made some radio talks about the malaise that people in the country felt.

 

Ronald Reagan was upbeat, but trailed Carter in the polls going into the weekend before the election. He had a couple good debates against Carter and had coined the phrase "misery index" to describe the economy. It was the sum of the inflation rate and unemployment rate and was about 17% (10% per year inflation and 7% unemployment). Reagan had asked the people to consider this question when deciding who to vote for, "Are you better of than you were 4 years ago?" The following Tuesday, to the shock of the Democrats, the nation handed Reagan a huge election victory.

 

But right after the election many of the same feeling, fears, and despondency were rampant among the Dems. Reagan will start a nuclear war, we'll lose all the progress we've made, he'll ruin the economy, etc. Their feelings were similar to the ones we see now. As for what happened, let's just say the fears were unfounded.

 

The similarity between the two elections lies in the bleek economic out look for most Americans. Real income for working class and middle class Americans is less than what it was 14 years ago. Jobs are being lost to overseas. Because of the healthcare law, jobs were being downgraded to part time work so that some employers can avoid the huge benefit cost increase. Work participation rate (those working or looking for work as a percentage of the total population [i think])is the lowest it's ever been. Add to that the gridlock in Washington because of extreme partisanship. It should be no surprise that people felt we couldn't continue this way.

 

So the choice came down to a non-politician who was seen as telling things as they are, but was a bit of loose cannon with some character flaws, or, a less than trustworthy politician who was trying to portray herself as both a change agent and a continuation of President Obama's policies. Add in the that the Democrats seemed preoccupied with things like climate change and similar issues, you could understand why so many working and middle class people felt overlooked, abandoned, and were angry. Well, after this election, the silent majority has certainly been heard. They decided that Trump was a risk worth taking.

 

To Donald Trump's credit, he recognized this dissatisfaction and anger, and ran a very populist campaign aimed at these people.

Well said and very appropriate. Despite the repetitive nature of the exercise and its painfully obvious lack of success, it is worth going over one more time.

 

Reality check:

How could I have been so arrogant?

How could I have been so sure?

How could I have been so wrong?

 

When our worldview shields us from reality, that same reality will rear up and slap us hard. More than an attempt to wake us up, it serves to show us how easy it is to believe in what makes us feel right. Noble causes lead to fervent zealots and that leads to crusades of conflict.

Recognizing that the consideration of opposing or unpopular views can only broaden our horizons is a start. Respecting the perspective of others helps us to better understand our own limitations. Only skepticism can save us from belief.

Reality reminds us of that repeatedly.

When what happens seems surreal, it is time to check our privilege and come to our senses.

Truth (like being right) is very subjective and it often subjects us to the acceptance of illusions that are needed to maintain that "truth".

Making use of the synthesis provided by others helps us to avoid the pitfalls of our own insular and isolating views, no matter how shared they may seem to be.

Every error is just an opportunity for improvement.

[billw55]

Isn't it ironic that almost everyone including me thought that the Republican Party was a smoking pile of rubble after the idiocies of the past and this election and the games around threatening to shut down the government by refusing to approve funding etc., now it turns out the Democrats are the ones in total disarray and in need of resurrection. Who'd have thought. The only one who got it right was the guy whose record for predicting presidential wins continues unblemished.

 

An article which several people have sent to me recently shows a younger Trump saying that if he ever ran for office he'd run for the Republicans because they were so dumb he could lie to them and they'd still vote for him. He did and they did. Maybe he's smarter than I thought.

Well, the dems did gain seats in both house and senate. Not enough to take majority, but a gain is a gain.

 

Also in the interest of fairness, I must note that here is another case of gullibility regarding political parables/hoaxes - stories that say what the recipient wants to hear. Kaitlyn is not alone, and this is not strictly a conservative trait.

[kenberg]

Lovely post, Helene_t.

 

But right after the election many of the same feeling, fears, and despondency were rampant among the Dems. Reagan will start a nuclear war, we'll lose all the progress we've made, he'll ruin the economy, etc. Their feelings were similar to the ones we see now. As for what happened, let's just say the fears were unfounded.

 

 

A little bit of yes, but also some no. My reaction to Reagan, whom I did not vote for, was different from my reaction to Trump, whom I did not vote for. I had arguments with some of my liberal, more liberal than I, friends about aspects of Reagan. Friends who, I swear, could not tell you the difference between a B-52 and an F-14 were suddenly experts on the imbecility of the Strategic Defense Initiative. It wasn't so much that I thought of myself as an advocate, rather I recognized that military development was going to lean heavily on advanced technology and I favored keeping up with this. Details had to be worked through by people more informed than I. Trump seems to me to be off the wall. Reagan had been a two term governor of California. He had, for example, made some changes in the system of the University of California. It was widely predicted that these changes would devastate the University and that Berkeley's leadership in, for example, mathematics would be destroyed. Well, it didn't happen. Trump's experience is in real estate and casinos. This is, as I understand it, a wild a and crazy business and he has been successful. But some of this success is that you try this and you try that and when a venture doesn't go well you get your own, and maybe more than your own, cash out and then file bankruptcy letting someone else get stuck with the failure. Whatever the merits are for this approach when getting rich in the casino industry, I don't see it as such great preparation for the presidency.

 

In short, Trump isn't Hitler, but also he isn't Reagan.

 

On a more positive note: Many articles and other presentations have been looking for how we might make this all work. I don't mean the sit down with Obama, that was theater and Obama looked like a rabbit discussing dinner plans with a wolf, but there has been talk of what can be done and what cannot. I favor this. That does not mean, not at all, that I am getting comfortable with the result. But discussing how to go forward is better than shutting down an Interstate as some did in my home state of Minnesota.

[y66]

+ a gazillion for the rabbit and the wolf observation. I have never seen Obama look or sound so rabbit like, for good reason. His house has just been blown away. Sorry for the mixed animal metaphor.

[hrothgar]

Trump's experience is in real estate and casinos. This is, as I understand it, a wild a and crazy business and he has been successful.

 

Trump's success, such that it is, is in branding and self promotion.

 

He is no long actively involved in either real estate or casinos. (His long string of bankruptcies means that no one in the US is willing to extend him credit any more. As such, he can't secure the necessary financing to build or buy real estate). Where Trump makes his money is selling third parties the rights to license his name and a variety of short cons such as "Trump University".

 

Its unclear how much money he actually has, but even if he is at the middle to high end of his reported net worth, he has still failed to beat the market return on the money that he inherited.

 

Its worth noting that that Trump's financial disclosure forms earlier this year were reporting his revenue rather than his income.

 

Of course, all this could be cleared up relatively easily if he were actually willing to release his taxes for the past few years...