SINCE
1955, the size of burgers in Mc Donald's HAS INCREASED a lot. The
size of the chips portions HAS EXPLODED. The size of the drinks HAS
SKYROCKETED / QUADRUPLED.
So
/ As a consequence / Therefore, the obesity rate HAS GONE UP / HAS
INCREASED all around the world, and specifically / particularly in
the developping countries, like Mexico or India.
Michelle
Obama, the American First Lady, WANTS people TO move more. She WANTS
everyone TO exercise. She WANTS American people TO eat healthy food,
particularly / in particular in schools !
→ Pour
faire un bilan Passé → Présent, on utilise le Present Perfect. On
relie le passé au moment présent :
Ex :
Since September 2016, the SPCL students HAVE DISCOVERED new subjects.
→ Pour
parler de ce qu'on veut que qqn fasse :
WANT
somebody TO + VB
Ex :
I want you to wake up !
Friday,
December 2nd
2016
Michelle
Obama fights obesity !
SINCE
1955, the size of the burgers in Mc Donald's HAS INCREASED a lot. The
size of chips / French fries HAS DOUBLED and the size of drinks HAS
QUADRUPLED ! A « large drink » is almost one liter !
So
/ Therefore / As a consequence, because
of
junk food, the obesity rate HAS EXPLODED / HAS SKYROCKETED.
Michelle
Obama, the American first lady, decided to react. She WANTS the
American people TO eat healthy food. She WANTS everyone TO move /
exercise.
→ Pour
parler d'une évolution Passé → Présent, pour faire un bilan
entre le passé et le présent, on utilise le Present Perfect.
HAVE
+ PARTICIPE PASSE
Ex :
Since September, Faiza HAS DISCOVERED new subjects, and she HAS
IMPROVED in maths.
Hi everyone! Today's recipe is a healthy and delicious salad, an
incredibly easy to make Greek Salad, so rich and colorful, almost too
pretty to eat it. It is perfect as a light lunch or you can serve it
with your favorite meat to make it a delicious and healthy dinner any
day of the week. This is the salad you saw on my last video, I served it with my Lebanese Style chicken, they make a perfect combination for this summer, so don't forget to check out the video on my Youtube Channel! Serves 4-6Ingredients:
1 head Green Leaf Lettuce (or Romaine Lettuce or Iceberg lettuce will work fine too)
1 Red Bell Pepper
1 Green Bell Pepper
½ a Red Onion
1 cup Black Olives
1 cup Grape Tomatoes
½ an English Cucumber
1 cup Feta Cheese cut into small cubes (more for serving)
To make the Dressing:
3 tablespoons Extra Virgin Olive Oil
The Juice and Zest of one Lemon
2 tablespoons chopped fresh Parsley
½ tablespoon dry Oregano
¼ teaspoon minced Garlic
Salt to taste
Ground Black Pepper to taste
To make the dressing: In a small bowl or container, combine all
the ingredients for the dressing, mix well, taste the flavor add more
salt and pepper if needed. Refrigerate until you are ready to use it. To make the salad: Wash and disinfect all the vegetables, then drain or dry them really well.
Chop the lettuce into small chunks or pieces. Place it in a large bowl.
Remove the seeds, veins, and stems from the bell peppers, and cut them
into thin strips, chunks or cubes. ( I cut mine into strips, 2 inches
long and ¼ inch thick.) Place them in the same bowl with the lettuce,
and also in the same bowl add in the black olives.
Slice the rest of the vegetables. Cut the cucumber into thin slices. (I
made mine ¼ inch thick). Cut the onion into thin slices, and cut the
tomatoes in half. (if you are using larger tomatoes, cut them in
quarters or smaller chunks.) Add all these ingredients to the bowl with
the lettuces, then toss everything together, add in the feta cheese,
sprinkle the salad with a pinch of salt, toss one more time. And that's
it, the salad is done, the dressing is also done, so you can serve your
salad whenever you are ready.
For this salad, I recommend that you add in the dressing just before
serving the salad, or keep the dressing in a different container and let
your guests dress their salad whenever you are ready to eat it. (the
acid in the dressing will soften the lettuce, so for a fresher salad,
do not add the dressing until you are ready to eat the salad!)
Garnish with more Feta cheese and fresh parsley. Enjoy!
Maelie
preferS chicken and potatoes because her mother prepareS / cookS it
herself, it is « homemade ».
Gwendoline
loveS / likeS fish because she doeSn't eat meat. In fact, she is a
vegetarian. She DECIDED to be a vegetarian 2 YEARS AGO because she is
against animal cruelty.
Clementine's
best food memory WAS a vegetable pizza her best friend prepared. It
was very special / incredible !
Marc-Antoine
LOVED when his grandma PREPARED meals for him at lunchtime when he
was a little boy...
→ Pour
parler des habitudes, on utilise le PRESENT. AU présent simple, le
verbe ne change pas, SAUF avec he / she / it on ajoute un « S ».
Ex :
He hateS broccoli !
→ Au
passé, soit le verbe est régulier, on ajoute -ED, soit il est
irrégulier, on l'apprend !
Arthur
loveS pizza because he chooseS the ingredients / toppings and he eatS
exactly what he wantS.
Rihann
likeS eating gnoccis (?) because it LOOKS LIKE insects and the taste
is really nice / delicious.
Gregory's
best meal WAS when he PREPARED a homemade burger : he PILED UP 4
steaks in his hamburger. He ATE / SAVOURED his burger and it was
magic / magical.
Faïza's
worst food memory WAS when she WENT to Australia. She ATE a kangoroo
meat and she DIDN'T LIKE / HATED it because she THOUGHT of the little
kangoroos jumping around.
→ Pour
parler de ses habitudes, on utilise le Présent Simple. Le verbe ne
'bouge' pas, SAUF avec he / she / it, on ajoute un -S au verbe.
Ex :
He loveS burgers !
→ Au
passé, soit le verbe est régulier, on ajoute -ED, soit il est
irrégulier, on l'apprend
SHANKAR VEDANTAM, HOST: This is HIDDEN BRAIN. I'm Shankar Vedantam. Democrats were not
the only ones chagrinned after the U.S. presidential vote. Donald
Trump's election has sent shock waves through the world of pollsters and
political analysts. Pundits on both the left and right had predicted
Hillary Clinton would walk away with the race. Today, we're talking to one expert who got it right. There are
several surprising things about him. For one thing, Allan Lichtman is a
historian, not a data scientist. For another, this wasn't a fluke. This
is the ninth time in a row he's called the election correctly. Finally,
and this is the craziest part, Allan often calls the winner months and
sometimes years before an election. He's sometimes called elections
before he knows which candidates are running. Allan says his secret is
sitting in plain sight, but most of us are too consumed with the drama
of campaigns and candidates to see it. Allan Lichtman, welcome to HIDDEN BRAIN. ALLAN LICHTMAN: Thank you so much. VEDANTAM: Allan, you're in the Middle East right now in a hotel
room in Qatar. I want to take you back more than a quarter century. You
were at Caltech and you sat down to dinner next to another academic. You
were an odd couple. You're a historian with an interest in American
politics, and he was a geophysicist. Since our story begins at that
dinner, can you tell me who you sat next to and what you talked about? LICHTMAN: Yes. This was in 1981, and I was sitting next to
Volodya Keilis-Borok, a geophysicist, the world's leading authority in
earthquake prediction. And it was Keilis-Borok who suggested that we
should collaborate. And of course being a prescient, foresightful
scholar, my answer was absolutely not. What does geophysics have to do
with elections? And then I began to think about it a little bit. And everything
we know about elections, we derive from geophysics anyway - tremors of
political change, volcanic elections, political earthquakes. So why not
explicitly steal from geophysics? And what we did was we reinterpreted
elections in geophysical terms. That is not as Republican versus
Democrat, liberal versus conservative or Carter versus Reagan -
remember, this is 1981 - but in earthquake terms. As stability, the
party holding the White House keeps the White House. And upheaval, the
party holding the White House is turned out of office. VEDANTAM: We'll talk in a moment about the specifics of the model
you build. But to make things clear, what you're saying is that you
said let's look at every presidential election as a referendum on the
party currently holding the White House. LICHTMAN: That's exactly right. Our thesis was that elections are
primarily judgments on the strength and performance of the party
holding the White House. And all the twists and turns of the campaign,
the ads, the speeches, the campaign tricks, the debates count for little
or nothing on Election Day. But of course this was just a theory. And
to test our theory and to create a model, we examined every American
presidential election from the election of Lincoln in 1860, to the
election of Reagan in 1980. And from that examination, we came up with indeed the 13 keys to
the White House. It's a very simple concept. The 13 keys are true-false
questions that can be answered prior to an upcoming election, sometimes
years in advance if they fall into place. And an answer of true always
favors the re-election of the party in power. An answer of false always
predicts political upheaval, the party in power will lose. And the
decision rule is really simple. The party in power will lose if six or
more of the 13 keys are false. That was the model we came up with in
1981. VEDANTAM: So what you did, Allan, is you looked at every election
starting in 1860. And you said what are the factors that might have
influenced this election? And you used that to come up with this model
of 13 keys. What are the keys? Tell us a little bit about these keys and
these 13 questions. LICHTMAN: Yes. These 13 questions primarily gauge the strength
and performance of the party holding the White House. There are four
political keys that have to do with mid-term elections, contests for the
White House Party presidential nomination, whether the sitting
president is running or not, third parties. Then there are a whole
series of performance keys - short and long-term economy, scandals,
social unrest, policy change, foreign policy successes and failures. Only two keys relate to the candidates at all, and they're very
high threshold keys. They ask whether the candidate of the White House
party is one of those once in a generation charismatic candidates like a
Ronald Reagan or a John F. Kennedy. And then they ask whether the
challenging party candidate is charismatic. That is the only key, the
13th key, that has anything to do with the challengers. VEDANTAM: So this is fascinating because, of course, when we
think about presidential elections and we think of the way the media
cover presidential elections, we think it all comes down to the
candidates, and we pay enormous attention. And you would say that is
actually inordinate attention. LICHTMAN: That's right. I think the media covers elections as
though they were horse races, with candidates sprinting ahead and
falling behind according to the twists and turns of the campaigns, with
the pollsters keeping score. But the whole point is that's not how
elections really work. The American people are fundamentally pragmatic.
And they're asking whether or not the White House party merits four more
years of office. And it's the record of the four years - the keys go term by term -
that really counts, not all of these events of the campaign that the
media spends hundreds of millions of dollars covering each election. And
as a result, almost all of the media coverage is not only irrelevant,
it is largely misleading. It sends listeners and viewers and readers
down into blind alleys. VEDANTAM: It's not quite right to sort of say you are looking
into a crystal ball. What you've really done is you've said, looking
back historically at dozens of elections, what are the different factors
that played a role in each of these elections? And you're saying
history can be a guide when we look into the future. LICHTMAN: Absolutely. I'm not a psychic. I don't look at crystal
balls. I don't have a pipeline to the Almighty. I'm an historian, and my
system is guided by a deep study of history that covers a very broad
span of time, all the way back to 1860, and thus is an extremely robust
system that is - it has survived enormous changes in our economy and our
society and our politics and our technology. We go all the way back to
the horse-and-buggy days of American politics. And that's the beauty of
looking at history and using this pattern-recognition methodology. VEDANTAM: When we come back, we're going to explore some of the
extraordinary features of this model. It allows Alan to sometimes call
elections long before candidates announce they are running. Stay with
us. (SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC) TARA BOYLE, BYLINE: Hi there. This is Tara Boyle. I'm the
supervising producer of HIDDEN BRAIN with a suggestion for your podcast
queue - the newest NPR podcast, How I Built This. It's hosted by Guy Raz
and is all about innovators and entrepreneurs and the stories behind
the movements, companies and products they created. Find How I Built
This now on the NPR One app at npr.org/podcasts. VEDANTAM: This is HIDDEN BRAIN. I'm Shankar Vedantam. Allan, I
believe that in 2010 you called the election for Barack Obama before his
eventual opponent Mitt Romney had even declared his candidacy. LICHTMAN: That's correct. I was able to call the 2012 election, a
very difficult election to call, with the polls almost even on the eve
of the election, in 2010. And the reason I could do that was I was
probing the underlying structure of elections and looking ahead to where
the keys would likely fall. I was able to ascertain that it was
extremely unlikely that six or more of the keys would fall against the
White House party, the party of Obama, and therefore Obama was going to
win. VEDANTAM: I want to talk a little bit about the implications of
this work a little later in this conversation because I think it does
raise really fascinating questions about how we come to know what we
know and how we understand elections and how we should think about
politics. But I want to stay a little bit with the model and your
predictions. I understand that in 1991 you got a call from an obscure
governor in Arkansas, and Bill Clinton's people wanted to know if you
thought that George H.W. Bush was vulnerable in the '92 election. LICHTMAN: That's exactly right. My first book on the keys - it's
now in the sixth edition - came out in 1991. And at that time, George
H.W. Bush had successfully conducted the Gulf War. His approval rating
hit the highest of any president in history - around 90 percent. And
every big-name Democrat was tumbling over every other big name Democrat
to get out of the race - Mario Cuomo, Al Gore, Richard Gephardt, Jesse
Jackson. None of them wanted any part of H.W. Bush. But I wrote in my book
that, based on my historical study, Bush is a Carter, not a Reagan - a
one-term president. None of the big shots, of course, listened. But I
get a call from a woman, and she says, Professor Lichtman, this is Kay
Goss from Little Rock, Ark., special assistant to Governor Bill Clinton
down here. And then she asks me - Lichtman, are you serious that George
Bush can beaten in 1992? I said, yes, I am, and the rest is history. VEDANTAM: When did you call the 2016 election for Donald Trump? LICHTMAN: This was, of course, one of the most difficult and
puzzling elections in all of American history to call because of the
unprecedented nature of the Trump candidacy and other factors that were
not entirely clear. I made my call - I believe it was September 23rd -
in an interview with The Washington Post. Mind you, this was before the
sex tape, before the allegations that about a dozen women came out with
with regard to sexual harassment by Donald Trump, before the Comey
bombshell letter about the Clinton emails. VEDANTAM: So this is an odd question to ask, given that you
called the election more than a month before it happened, but why were
you so late this time? LICHTMAN: I was so late because we had, in Donald Trump, a
history-smashing candidate. And I was wondering if Donald Trump was so
far outside the patterns of history that perhaps he could change the
historical odds, that he could destruct a pattern that had - had existed
all the way back since 1860. We've never seen a candidate who had no
record of public service whatsoever, who had enriched himself at the
expense of others, who had demeaned women, Muslims African-American, the
disabled, who had all kinds of scandals on his record. VEDANTAM: So after you made this call and the "Access Hollywood"
tape is leaked where Donald Trump talks about how he groped women
without their consent, many Republicans denounced the candidate. And
some even said that he should drop out. Did you ever think at that point
in October - early October - of changing your call? LICHTMAN: No, I didn't. I was nervous about my call, and I had a
lot of pressure with respect to my call, but I doubled down on my call,
even after all of that dirt on Donald Trump was revealed and before the
Comey letter that kind of reopened the issue of Hillary Clinton's
emails. In other words, if I'm to be true to my system, I am not going
to let events of the campaign - however dramatic and regardless of what
the pundits and the politicians might be saying, I'm not going to be
influenced by that because I think the polls are very badly misused. And
I don't think the pundits actually understand how elections work, and
therefore punditry is not a guide to understanding elections, predicting
elections or explaining their implications. VEDANTAM: Now, to be fair, Allan, we have talked in the past
multiple times after elections. And you've told me in the past that the
model correctly forecasts the winner off the popular vote. In 2000, for
example, you called the election for Al Gore, even though George W. Bush
won the Electoral College in that disputed election. This time, Hillary
Clinton appears to have narrowly won the popular vote, so I guess it's
fair to ask you, would it be more accurate to say that this is actually
your first mistake in nine elections because Donald Trump didn't win the
popular vote? LICHTMAN: That is a very fair question to ask. And what has
happened that has changed my insights into the relationship between the
popular vote and the Electoral College vote is a fundamental change in
our politics that is critically important, not only for the keys, but
for understanding all of American politics. And it's something that
really has not been broadly acknowledged. When I developed my system in 1981, and really up to 2000, the
popular vote drove the Electoral College vote. You had to go back all
the way to 1888 to find a divergence between the popular vote and the
Electoral College vote. But in recent years, that relationship has been
severed. And the reason is very simple. You have two huge, uncompetitive
Democratic states - California and New York - where nobody campaigns
for president. And those states roll up many millions of extra popular votes for
the Democrats, even though those millions of votes don't count for
anything in terms of the Electoral College. And there is no comparable
set of states that roll up those votes for the Republicans. The only
example would be Texas, but Texas is no longer - no longer nearly, for
the Republicans, as uncompetitive as New York and California is for the
Democrats. So there has been a fundamental change in the dynamics of our
elections, which is why, when I made my call, I did not draw the
distinction between the popular vote and the Electoral College but
simply said this is going to be a change election, and the party holding
the White House is going to lose. If you will, you might say, you know,
I was wrong in 2000, although, I don't think so because there were some
very special circumstances that gave those 537 votes in Florida to
Bush, including the suppression and the discarding of many, many
thousands of votes cast by African-Americans. VEDANTAM: When we come back, we're going to talk more about the
2016 election and we'll talk about some of the deeper implications of
Allan's work. If someone can tell you who's going to win months or years
before an election, does it really make sense to follow the ups and
downs of the election for 24 months before the big day? Stay with us. (SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC) VEDANTAM: This is HIDDEN BRAIN. I'm Shankar Vedantam. Allan, I
want to start by asking you about your call in September. I understand
that you're not a personal fan of Donald Trump, and you know many people
who were appalled at your call. And this was presumably difficult for
you to make, difficult emotionally. LICHTMAN: I couldn't sleep at night when I made this call, I have
to tell you. You know, personally, I think Donald Trump is a very, very
dangerous leader who's brought out the worst elements in our society -
the Ku Klux Klan, the neo-Nazis, the white supremacists. I've written
about these issues. I wrote a book called "FDR And The Jews." I'm a
Jewish-American myself, and very sensitive of course to religious and
racial prejudices. So I had many, many sleepless nights when I made this
call. I teach at American University in Washington, D.C., not exactly a
hotbed of Republicanism. And I had a lot of pressure from some very
good friends of mine and some very smart scholars to change my call. And
I had that pressure from the time I made the call, and certainly after I
doubled down on that call right up to the election. So emotionally and
spiritually, this was the most gut-wrenching call I had to make. But I
felt I had to be true to my system. I had to be true to the verdict of
history. VEDANTAM: Has it given you any satisfaction to be right? LICHTMAN: No, it really hasn't given me a whole lot of
satisfaction. It has in the sense that I think people may now start
rethinking how they understand elections and understand how important
governance is, that it's governance, not campaigns that turn elections.
And I have been preaching this for decades now. And the politicians
don't seem to get it. They think elections are won or lost during the
campaign. I've argued they're won and lost during the four years of the
term of the administration. And it's governing that really counts. I have nothing against the pollsters. A lot of them are good
friends of mine. They're very competent people. But I am saying polls
are not predictors. Polls are misused and abused as predictors. I also
think that polls lead to lazy and misleading journalism. You don't even
have to get out of bed in the morning to write a story about the polls.
And it leads to this misconception that elections are horse races. And
it misses all the deeper tides that drive elections. It misses the
implications of elections for governance in this country. Look how the pundits tied themselves into pretzels. Right before
the election they said, oh, based on the polls, Donald Trump can't win. A
day later, they had to twist themselves around to explain why what they
said couldn't happen actually did happen. And it was all after the fact
and meaningless punditry. VEDANTAM: I have to say that as somebody who was not involved in
covering this election, but somebody who was watching it very closely,
there was something about watching the numbers that a lot - that I saw
on a lot of media websites and political websites that assigned a
probability to Hillary Clinton's win that lent it an air of certitude.
So even though people said in the caveats and the footnotes, look, there
is uncertainty, look, we don't quite know what's going to happen and
unpredictable things can happen. When you said Hillary Clinton has a 75
percent chance of winning the White House, an 85 percent chance of
winning the White House, you really had a sense of whiplash on election
night. Because you said how could you switch around from saying you're
85 percent that Clinton's going to win, to being 85 percent that Trump's
going to win in a matter of 45 minutes? LICHTMAN: This is a classic example of what I call the fallacy of
false precision. It looked like those are very precise and accurate
numbers. They are not. They are simply based upon the underlying polling
data. And if the underlying polling data is flawed, then those numbers
are not only meaningless, they are extremely misleading. They do not
really tell you an accurate probability of winning because they're based
on polls which may or may not be right. And none of these analysts go
beyond the polls to really probe whether or not the polls are correct. VEDANTAM: You and I talked in 2012, and you laid out this model
for me. And I remember, you know, doing stories about it. And of course
it made no difference to the way people thought about elections in the
next four years. And I want to talk a little bit about that because I
feel like there is, you know, there are many, many forces that really
would not want to hear the message that you have. There - certainly the,
you know, you raise serious questions about the efficacy and value of
political campaigns. You raise questions about political punditry. You
raise questions about media coverage. You even raise, I think,
disturbing questions for people who are voters because I think people
who are voters at some level enjoy the ups and downs of the campaign.
They want to be gripped by the drama of who's up and who's down and
who's suffering from a scandal and who's had a good day and who's won
the news cycle and who's lost the news cycle. And what you're saying is
deeply dispiriting in some ways to all of these different constituencies
because you're saying it doesn't matter. LICHTMAN: The keys are very deconstructive. And obviously they're
very destructive to the polling industry and to the media industry.
Because the media makes money by covering the elections as an exciting
horse race. By saying who's had a good day, who's had a bad day, they
make money by covering the elections day-by-day. And the pollsters make
money by keeping score in the horse race, telling us who's ahead and who
is behind. And my model suggests all of that is misleading or worse.
And if you covered it according to the deep structure, it would put a
lot of pollsters out of business and perhaps vastly diminish the revenue
that flows into the media during an election campaign. This is the time
of course when the media cashes in. There are also some very big lessons about campaigning from the
keys that of course nobody has followed. The keys suggests that
conventional campaigning takes us in the wrong direction, that all of
these negative ads, all of these attacks on one another are the wrong
way to campaign. That the right way to campaign based on the keys is to
build a mandate for governing over the next four years. That might not
be as exciting as email or sex scandals, but that's the way you
establish a basis for governing. That's for the good of the country. But
campaigners and the media don't follow that because it doesn't have the
same excitement and drama of negative campaigning and day-to-day horse
race coverage. VEDANTAM: Allan, I'm going to ask you to make a prediction. And I
want to make a prediction as well. There's much of what you say that I
find persuasive, but I'm going to predict that in two years' time, we're
going to start hearing about the ups and downs of the 2020 campaign.
And the next election is going to be just as frenetic and just
poll-driven and just as down to the wire excitement coverage as we've
had in 2016. What's your prediction? LICHTMAN: Well, you just depressed me immensely. But I have to
say for over 30 years I have been arguing against exactly what you
mentioned. So far, I haven't made a dent in the way campaigns are
covered or in the way candidates campaign. But I have never had the kind
of attention that I've had after this kind of contrary to everybody
else prediction of a Trump win, and one that certainly does not reflect
my own political views. It was hardly an endorsement. It was a
prediction. So maybe perhaps the attention I've gotten from this
prediction will make people rethink even a little bit the way they look
at elections, the way they look at our politics and maybe, maybe bring
together politics, governing and history the way the keys do. VEDANTAM: Allan Lichtman, I want to thank you for talking with me today. LICHTMAN: Shankar, it was a great conversation. VEDANTAM: The HIDDEN BRAIN podcast is produced by Tara Boyle,
Jenny Schmidt, Maggie Penman and Renee Klahr. For more HIDDEN BRAIN, you
can follow us on Facebook and Twitter and listen for my stories on your
local public radio station. If you like this episode, please do a
couple of things. Make sure you are subscribed to our podcast so you get
new episodes. And please tell one friend who doesn't know about us to
listen to our show. Our unsung hero of this week is Tanya Blue. Tanya works in NPR's
development department. And she has played a vital role in getting this
project launched. She's also been a voice of wise counsel and someone
who has always looked out for us. Thank you, Tanya. I'm Shankar Vedantam
and this is NPR.
It
appears that uneducated white voters massively supported Trump. A lot
of women actually decided to vote for him, despite his sexist
comments. Trump embodied the anti-establishment vote, he captured
the anger of the disaffected
rural workers.
Since
last week, we found
out
that Hillary won the popular vote, even if / even though she lost the
electoral college vote.
Since
his victory, Donald Trump HASBECOME
more serious / responsible / mellowed
/ subdued.
He HASCHANGED
his policies / his promises a little bit too.
Why ?
Maybe he HASREALISED
that he is the President. Reality HASDAWNED
ON him, and Mr Domingos thinks Mr Trump needs to unify / rally the
country behind him.
Jesus's
favourite Trump ad / advert / commercial was the first one, because
Trump LOOKEDLIKE
a hero / a savior / a superhero who could protect the country from
all threats. He LOOKED
strong and determined.
Wednesday,
November 16th
2016
The
Aftermath of Trump's Election
Most
American people voted for Hillary Clinton = she won the popular vote,
but she lost the electoral college vote, Trump won more 'electors'.
Mr
Tabasko thinks that educated people were more likely to vote
Democrat. Trump received a lot of support from disaffected
white workers from rural areas with little or no education.
Since
his election, Donald Trump HASCHANGED
his tune / his attitude. Maybe because he doesn't have to be the
« attack-dog » or the « war-machine » he was
during the election. Maybe because he HASREALISED
that he is the president now. Reality HASDAWNED
ON him and he HASADOPTED
a different behaviour.
Mr
Q's favourite ad / commercial was the one in which Trump's lies were
shown. In this ad, he LOOKED LIKE a compulsive liar. He DIDN'T LOOK
TRUSTWORTHY / RELIABLE / HONEST, he LOOKED deranged and unfit to be
president.
On the eve of this election, the
polls were clearly in favour of Hillary Clinton : they predicted she would
win, so everybody expected the democrats to win.
Mr Selingue thought that if the UK had
voted for Brexit, it wasn't impossible that the US could elect Donald Trump.
Moreover, the Simpsons predicted it in 2000, so it was BOUND TO happen.
In the end, the white, uneducated blue-collarworkers, often from the suburbs or the countryside voted massively for
Trump. They are often deeply religious, conservative. They wanted to protect
America from what they perceived as dangers, such as immigration, globalization,
etc. They felt disaffected / left-out / forsaken, they
were fedupwith the Washington establishment and they
wanted change. Trump embodied / symbolized / epitomized
this change, he was an 'outsider', and he captured these people's imagination.
Thursday,
November 10th 2016
Trump's
Triumph
Before the results, Mr Daage expected
Hillary Clinton because all the polls predicted her victory.
Mr Ait Lahssaine agrees, but he wasn't so
sure because of the Brexit vote : everybody expected the UK to stay in the
EU, but the Brexit vote really happened...
Actually / In reality, Donald Trump won a
massive / large victory. Looking at the election map, a majority of the states
voted for Trump. The east coast and west coasts did vote for Hillary,
but Trump won many more states.
Unsurprisingly Donald Trump won in the
south / in the Sun Belt / in the Bible Belt, but Hillary Clinton was supposed
to win in the midwest / in the Rust Belt and Trump won key Swing States there.
The irony is that in fact Hillary Clinton
won the popular votes, she won more individual votes than Trump.
Trump also won the Congress, i.e. (= that
is to say) the House of Representatives and the Senate !
The typical Trump voter was an uneducated,
religious white man, not living in the city. Disaffected « bluecollars » voted massively for Donald Trump because they were fed up
with Washington. They felt abandonned / left-out.
Trump embodied / symbolized
/ epitomized 'change', because he was not a Washington politician, he
was an 'outsider'. Besides he has great charisma and his personal success is
impressive. Many voters were angry, and Trump « capturedtheirimagination ».
On the contrary, Clinton was a typical
Washington figure and she seemd suspicious / shady / untrustworthy
/ unreliable.