YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Schicksalswahl für Donald Trump - Der Professor und der Wolf

Schicksalswahl für Donald Trump - Der Professor und der Wolf — Transcript

by radio FM4 · 8,533 words · 1,344 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00Why are these congressional elections
0:02in the US so important?
0:03>> Would a defeat for his party stop
0:05Donald Trump?
0:07>> How reliable are the polls?
0:08>> Who and what will be elected on
0:10November 3rd?
0:12>> So there is a lot to discuss again.
0:16>> Radio FM4 and ZIP 2 present the
0:18Professor and the Wolf. The one of
0:23politics. Hello to a new episode of the
0:26Professor and the Wolf today about the
0:28so-called midterm elections in the US
0:30on November 3rd, a really important
0:32election. The Professor is Peter
0:35Filzmeier, political scientist at the
0:37universities of Krems and Graz. Hello
0:39Peter.
0:39>> Hello Armin.
0:40>> And I am Armin Wolf. I am a journalist.
0:43I host the Zeit im Bild 2 program here
0:45on ORF, and I was also once a US
0:47correspondent for the ORF. Your own
0:50career as a political scientist also
0:51began as a US expert, if you would like
0:53to tell us about it.
0:55>> I even wrote my thesis on the death
0:57penalty and political culture in the US
0:59while I was still a student. Please
1:02don't ask how many decades ago that was
1:04, that would be uncharming considering
1:06your age. As a young university student
1:09, I wrote my first books together with
1:11my friend and colleague Fritz Blasser
1:14about the political system of the USA
1:16and the elections there.
1:18>> And that's why we want to talk about
1:20the USA today, where a very important
1:23election will take place on Tuesday,
1:25November 3rd, and because this podcast
1:27is also about covering topics in a very
1:29fundamental way and not just current
1:31events. My first question for you is:
1:34Why are these elections actually called
1:36midterms? In American English, terms
1:39means term of office or terms of office
1:42, and these congressional elections
1:44take place in the middle of a
1:45president's term of office. That's why
1:49term elections in German are midterm
1:51elections between two electors, which
1:53were 224 and 28, and where the
1:55presidential and congressional
1:57elections took place at the same time.
2:00>> And who or what is it that is actually
2:03being elected in such midterms? A large
2:05portion of the American parliament,
2:07which is known as the Congress, is
2:08currently being elected. It is
2:10organized in a bicameral system. There
2:13is the House of Representatives, the
2:16House of Representatives, and the
2:19Senate, and all 435 members of the
2:22House of Representatives are elected,
2:25and about a third, 35 out of 100
2:27senators.
2:28>> That sounds a bit strange now. Why only
2:32a third of the Senate and also a third
2:34of 100 senators, that would be 33.33
2:38infinity, is simply not possible.
2:40Dividing
2:41>> members into thirds or even four would
2:43also be a violation of human rights,
2:45that doesn't work. You have to round up
2:46. There were conflicting interests when
2:49the constitution was founded in the USA
2:52. On the one hand, and this is clearly
2:54reflected in the House of
2:55Representatives, there was a
2:56deep-seated concern, given that they
2:58were a society of immigrants who had
2:59suffered bad experiences with royal
3:01families in Europe, that an aloof and
3:03detached class of representatives would
3:04eventually emerge. That is why the
3:06House of Representatives only has a
3:09two-year term of office, the shortest
3:11in democratic countries, and all 435
3:14members are re-elected every two years.
3:17On the other hand, there was, however,
3:19also a certain interest in both
3:21continuity and stability. That is why
3:23senators serve a six-year term, and to
3:25ensure they are not all replaced at
3:27once, approximately one third of the
3:29seats are up for election every two
3:31years. It's an interesting system, and
3:33why is there such a difference in
3:36>> the number of members in the House of
3:38Representatives, 435, and in the Senate
3:40, not even a quarter of that, 100? That
3:44was a political compromise when the
3:45Constitution was founded in the late
3:4718th century, because large states,
3:49such as New York, said that the number
3:51of members should be based on the
3:52number of inhabitants. A small state
3:56like Rad Island argued against that and
3:58said that it was a really bad idea.
4:01Each state should have the same number
4:03of members. The compromise that was
4:05negotiable and came about was that in
4:07the House of Representatives, the
4:08number of members is based on the
4:10number of inhabitants. For example,
4:13California has 52 members because it
4:15has around 40 million inhabitants,
4:17while at the same time Wyoming, like
4:20five other states, Wyoming has only
4:22570,000 inhabitants, and only one
4:24member. In the Senate, however, there
4:27are two each, where Rad Island's
4:29position came into play. Interestingly,
4:32there was a Supreme Court ruling that
4:34each electoral district has
4:35approximately the same number of
4:36residents. That would be around 800,000
4:40mathematically. However, that doesn't
4:43work with Wyoming's 570,000. There, too
4:46, they rounded up, which would make it
4:47difficult to get five members of
4:49parliament with around 45. Okay, so
4:50that means there are 435 members of
4:52parliament for the House of
4:53Representatives. However, they are not
4:55listed on a long ballot like in Austria
4:57during the National Council elections;
4:59instead, every single seat for a
5:00representative is actually elected on
5:02an individual basis. On November 3, 435
5:04parallel elections are taking place,
5:06and at the same time, different
5:07candidates are appearing on ballots in
5:09every single location. That's
5:11>> exactly how it is. There are 435
5:13different ballots and also 435 parallel
5:19election campaigns in the individual
5:21electoral districts. And there, just as
5:24in the Senate, the principle of First
5:25Past the Post or the Winner Takes All
5:27applies. This has nothing to do with an
5:31old pop song by ABBA; rather, it means
5:33that the candidate who places first
5:34with the most votes receives the seat
5:36in the House of Representatives, while
5:37all of the other candidates receive
5:39nothing at all, which is how this
5:40electoral system functions. It makes
5:45absolutely no difference whether the
5:47lead held by the first-placed candidate
5:49is a single vote, or if those leaders
5:51receive 90 to theoretically 99, almost
5:53100 percent of the votes. This is the
5:56phenomenon of a relative majority
5:57election in contrast to the
5:58proportional representation system that
6:00we know from party lists in Austria.
6:02>> Something similar applies to the Senate
6:05seats. Incidentally, there is an
6:06interesting provision. The two senators
6:08representing a single federal state are
6:10never up for re-election at the exact
6:11same point in time. That means, for
6:13example, in Texas, there is a Senate
6:15election. Now, only one of the senators
6:17from Texas is elected, the other one is
6:18elected the next time or the time after
6:20that, I don't remember it off the top
6:22of my head. Well, there are many
6:24parliaments that have two chambers. In
6:26Great Britain, the House of Commons and
6:27the House of Lords. In Germany,
6:29everyone knows the Bundestag and the
6:31Bundesrat. Of course, in Austria, the
6:33National Council and the Bundesrat. But
6:36in all of these countries, one of these
6:38two chambers is much more powerful than
6:40the other. In Austria, the National
6:42Council is much, much more powerful
6:43than the Bundesrat. In the USA, that is
6:45not the case. The House of
6:47Representatives and the Senate are
6:49pretty much equally powerful, right?
6:51Yes, in our country, the Bundesrat can
6:53naturally oppose a law which the
6:55National Council has passed, but the
6:56National Council could then make use of
6:59a so-called persistence resolution in
7:00order to declare that the law should be
7:03put into effect regardless. In the
7:05United States, every single law must be
7:07approved by both of the equal chambers,
7:09which are the House of Representatives
7:12and the Senate. It has become common
7:14practice for more legislative
7:16procedures to originate in the House of
7:18Representatives, with the Senate only
7:20debating the bill after that has taken
7:22place. But that is not the case
7:25anywhere. And a crucial difference in
7:27Austria is that the Federal Finance Act
7:30and the Federal Financial Statements,
7:32popularly known as the budget, are the
7:34sole responsibility of the National
7:36Council. In the USA, the budget
7:39legislative process begins in the House
7:41of Representatives, but the Senate must
7:43also discuss and deal with the budget.
7:46But does that mean that both can be
7:47done in exactly the same way, one after
7:49the other?
7:49>> Yes, the legislative process is the
7:51same in both chambers. The bill is
7:54initially acknowledged within the
7:55plenary session, subsequently
7:57registered with a reference number, and
7:58is then finally assigned to a
8:00designated committee. This committee
8:02can then delegate the matter to a
8:04subcommittee, depending on the subject
8:05area of the law. There, everyone votes
8:09on whether the law should become law
8:10and it then goes back to the plenary
8:12session for a major vote. And if the
8:15House of Representatives is in favor of
8:18a law, the Senate must also be in favor
8:20. In the event of minor disagreements,
8:22a joint committee—which acts as a
8:24kind of mediation board—can be
8:26convened to discuss the matter and find
8:28wording for a paragraph that is
8:30acceptable to both houses, meaning the
8:32representatives from the House and the
8:34Senate alike. If, however, the House of
8:36Representatives wants a law and the
8:37Senate does not, then it will not come
8:39into effect. And what we are discussing
8:41now is not academically abstract. It
8:44could be that after this election the
8:46Democrats win the majority in the House
8:48of Representatives, but the Republicans
8:50retain their majority in the Senate,
8:52and then there is a risk of a deadlock
8:55in legislation, theoretically even for
8:57every law for two years, if they cannot
8:59reach an agreement.
9:01>> This has happened many times in the
9:02history of the USA. There is a
9:04difference between the House of
9:05Representatives and the Senate. The
9:07Senate is responsible for personnel
9:08issues. In contrast to Austria, every
9:10single minister in the United States
9:12must be confirmed by the parliament for
9:13their position. This is done by the
9:15Senate, and not just ministers, but
9:16also, for example, Supreme Court judges
9:18and other high-ranking officials such
9:20as the FBI chief, for example,
9:21>> ambassadors.
9:22>> Bot.
9:23>> Exactly. And there are always hearings
9:25taking place, followed by votes held in
9:26the Senate. So that is a key difference
9:28. The House of Representatives has
9:30little say in this.
9:30>> That is the way it is. But there are a
9:32few exceptions. In the main task of a
9:34parliament, which is legislation, both
9:36sides must give their consent, and that
9:38is required for every single law
9:39without exception.
9:41>> Now you have already mentioned the
9:43majority ratios. Let's take a look at
9:44how things turned out during the last
9:46congressional election, which, as we
9:48know, took place exactly two years ago
9:49from today. And it has to be said that
9:52the last two years have been almost
9:53ideal for President Trump.
9:56>> They were ideal for Donald Trump and
9:58untypical for the USA. We experienced
10:01the comparatively rare case of a
10:02unified government, which is the
10:03consolidation of executive and
10:05legislative power in the hands of one
10:06party, because Donald Trump is a
10:08Republican and his party held a
10:09majority in both the House of
10:10Representatives and the Senate
10:12following the most recent elections,
10:13meaning that all governing authority
10:15was concentrated under the control of a
10:17single political entity. In the House
10:20of Representatives, the Republicans
10:23have 218 + 1 out of 435 representatives
10:25+ 1. This is because one of them
10:28formally ran as an independent
10:30candidate, but always voted with the
10:32Republicans. The Democrats have 214
10:36seats, which does not quite add up to
10:38435, but two seats are up for grabs and
10:40are only now being filled. And in the
10:44Senate, the Republicans have 53 seats,
10:47the Democrats 47, or to be completely
10:49correct, 45 + 2. There are also two
10:52independent senators who always vote
10:55with the Democrats. And of course, for
10:58a president, in this case Donald Trump,
11:00that is a comfortable situation,
11:02because he has a pretty good chance of
11:04getting the approval of Congress,
11:05especially since he has bullied party
11:07critics out of the party. Some of them
11:10are really fanboys and groupies of his
11:13who sit in Congress. A divided
11:15government, which is more in line with
11:17the American understanding, in order to
11:19ensure that they are also able to keep
11:21each other in check. We currently do
11:23not have different majorities. For
11:25Trump, that has been a nearly perfect
11:27situation in the last two years. He has
11:29received the money and the budget from
11:30his party colleagues in the House of
11:32Representatives and, almost more
11:34importantly, he has pushed through all
11:36the important personnel decisions in
11:37the Senate, and when it comes to the
11:39appointments to ministers, there were a
11:41few, let's say, people with
11:42questionable qualifications. He
11:45probably wouldn't have gotten them into
11:46his government with a different
11:47majority. But Donald Trump could now be
11:51ousted from this political paradise on
11:53November 3rd, because it looks as if
11:55the Republicans will lose this election
11:57. What do the forecasts say?
12:01>> Forecasts are supposedly difficult when
12:02they concern the future, and in this
12:04case, that is true, because you would
12:06have to forecast 435 parallel election
12:08campaigns in the House of
12:09Representatives. That would be
12:11difficult even for our US colleagues,
12:13and now we are sitting here in faraway
12:15Austria and dare to do it. But on both
12:17sides, for Republicans and Democrats
12:19alike, there are between 150 and
12:21perhaps even almost 200 election
12:22campaigns that are already considered a
12:25guaranteed win for one party, because a
12:27Democrat or a Republican always ends up
12:29winning in that specific district.
12:31>> So, there are electoral districts that
12:33have simply been Democratic for decades
12:35and no matter who the candidate is, the
12:36Democrats always win there, and there
12:38are other electoral districts where the
12:39Republican always wins, no matter who
12:41else is. For example, a very rural
12:44electoral district remains Republican,
12:46even if a long-serving incumbent
12:47decides not to run again and someone
12:49else is now seeking the seat in their
12:51place. Then, in addition to these many
12:53districts, there are also others where
12:55things could still change during the
12:57campaign; these are not classified as
12:58safe for a party, but rather as likely,
13:00meaning it is highly probable that one
13:02of the candidates will emerge
13:03victorious in those specific areas. And
13:05then there are 40, maybe 50 key
13:07election campaigns in key election
13:10campaigns; these are where the stakes
13:12are high. It's all about who gets the
13:14majority. These are either TOS, as it
13:16is called in American English—too
13:18close to call, with no forecast
13:20possible—or they are merely leaning,
13:22meaning they show a slight tendency in
13:23one direction or the other. And in this
13:27case, it looks like the Republicans
13:29have a problem. They only have a
13:33five-seat lead and more and more of
13:35these election campaigns are being
13:36rated in favor of the Democrats every
13:38day. And that's why a Democratic
13:41majority in the House of
13:43Representatives is not certain, but the
13:45spectrum ranges from neck and neck to
13:47clear victories for the Democrats,
13:49which would be a blue wave. Yes, I have
13:52to say that right away, because this is
13:53often confused in Austria. In our
13:54country, the Social Democrats are red,
13:57meaning the left-wing parties, and blue
13:59is the color of the FPÖ, meaning very
14:01right-wing. In the US, it's the other
14:03way around. The Republicans, meaning
14:04the conservative party, are the red
14:06ones, and the Democrats, meaning the
14:08left-wing party, are the blue ones. So,
14:10exactly the opposite of how it is here.
14:13The Economist, which is a British
14:14weekly magazine, is monitoring these
14:16elections very, very closely. They
14:18utilize a specific forecasting tool,
14:20and their latest projection indicates
14:21that the probability of the Democrats
14:23securing a majority in the House of
14:25Representatives has now reached a level
14:26that is currently well over 90 percent.
14:28So that looks relatively likely. There
14:32are only 100 in the Senate. As you said
14:34, the current figure is 537 for Donald
14:38Trump's Republicans. What do the polls
14:41say?
14:42>> In fact, there are more Republican
14:43seats up for re-election than there are
14:45Democratic seats currently being
14:47contested. One could conclude that this
14:49is indeed a problem for the Republicans
14:51, but there are still many individual
14:53states where a Republican is certain to
14:55win, no matter what happens in the end.
14:58And that's why a year ago, and I would
15:00have said that too, it was considered
15:02very unlikely that the Democrats would
15:04succeed in changing the majority in the
15:07Senate, but suddenly even seemingly
15:09safe Republican seats are shaky. For
15:12example, in North Carolina there will
15:15be a change to the Democrats. This can
15:17be proven quite simply, not only
15:18because of the polls, but because the
15:20Republicans are no longer spending any
15:22money on election advertising in that
15:23region. And they only do that if they
15:25have given up on the state in the
15:26meantime. And there are other states,
15:29such as Texas, for example, where
15:30Republicans are in trouble as to
15:32whether they can secure their
15:33re-election.
15:35>> Incidentally, there is an interesting
15:36peculiarity in the Senate. According to
15:39the constitution, the Senate's
15:40presiding officer is the vice president
15:42, which is currently Jy Vanz, who is
15:43logically Donald Trump's closest ally
15:45in this position. And if a Senate vote
15:48results in a 50-50 tie, which is
15:49possible with 100 senators in total, it
15:51is then the vice president who casts
15:53the deciding vote. That means that in
15:55order to really have a majority, the
15:57Democrats would have to increase their
15:59current majority from 47 seats to 51.
16:0150 is not enough for them, because of
16:03Jy Vans. First question, how reliable
16:06are the polls anyway? There are major
16:09uncertainties. The statistician Gour
16:12Silber even revealed that a polling
16:13institute simply invented polls and
16:15then subsequently handed them over to
16:17the New York Times so that the
16:18newspaper would publish them as if they
16:20were real. Of course, there are
16:23party-affiliated institutes where
16:25strategic interests are also included
16:27in the interpretation of the data. But
16:29it is also methodologically difficult
16:31to determine who I should survey,
16:33because it makes little sense, as
16:34unusual as it sounds to us, to simply
16:36survey those who are theoretically
16:38eligible to vote. In the USA, there is
16:41no obligation to register at the place
16:42of residence and therefore no voter
16:44lists are automatically created by the
16:45state. I have to register separately.
16:49So it only makes sense to survey
16:51registered voters. However, it is also
16:53possible that a person has indeed
16:55registered to vote, yet ultimately
16:56decides not to cast a ballot because
16:58they might not consider either of the
16:59two candidates to be particularly
17:00attractive from a political point of
17:02view. And I must identify likely voters
17:04in the United States, whom I can then
17:07ask, have you already cast your ballot
17:09via mail-in voting or on an early
17:11voting day? That still works quite well
17:13. But the question, will you vote in a
17:16few weeks or a few days and are you
17:18absolutely certain about it, that
17:20already involves another imprecise
17:21relationship and it only has to be the
17:23case that the polls deviate by 2-3
17:25percentage points. That falls within
17:29the statistical margin of error for the
17:30supposedly expected success of the
17:32Democrats, which would lead to a
17:34situation where the Republicans are, in
17:35fact, still able to retain their
17:37majority. And as we have already seen
17:39in the last presidential election, the
17:41numbers are not always very reliable.
17:43Hardly anyone had actually predicted
17:44this landslide victory of Donald Trump
17:46during the presidential election that
17:48took place two years ago. Now only 35
17:50seats in the Senate are up for
17:52reelection. Of these 35, the
17:55Republicans currently hold 22 and the
17:57Democrats 13. As we have already said,
17:59the Democrats would have to flip four
18:01Senate seats in order to gain a
18:03majority. Where do you have the best
18:05chances? Depending on the analysis
18:08model, 7 to 9 states are classified as
18:10truly open. It is uncertain how the
18:13election will turn out. And the good
18:15news for the Democrats, and the bad
18:17news for the Republicans, is that there
18:19are only one or perhaps two previously
18:20Democratic states involved in this
18:22situation. That is Michigan and perhaps
18:25Minnesota, though I doubt that, as
18:26Minnesota has always remained within
18:28the Democratic camp up until this point
18:30in time. And six or seven of these
18:32states are Republican, and the way you
18:34have laid that out is entirely correct.
18:37A tie does not help the Democrats. The
18:40Republicans have a six-seat lead. So
18:42the Democrats would have to win four of
18:45these Republican seats. That is
18:47difficult, but it is no longer
18:48impossible, as was believed some time
18:50ago.
18:52>> And these are quite unusual states,
18:54namely that a Democrat, for example,
18:56has a real chance of becoming a senator
18:58in the ultra-conservative state of
18:59Texas. That has not happened for a good
19:0330 years. The
19:05>> last Democratic senator in Texas served
19:06back in 1993. That was quite a long
19:08time ago, but the Democrats have put
19:10forward a young and promising hopeful
19:12as their candidate for this election.
19:16James Tell Rico, 36 years old, teacher
19:18and vem he cannot be categorized into
19:20clichés. He is what one would call
19:23left-wing in Europe, because he is in
19:25favor of a strong welfare state, also
19:27for a strong expansion of social
19:28welfare. However, he does not justify
19:32this with left-wing ideology, but with
19:33Christian compassion and also very
19:35often quotes Bible verses in his
19:37election campaign. And that makes it
19:39very, very difficult for the
19:40Republicans to attack him. He also does
19:42not allow himself to be categorized in
19:44other ways. An anecdote on the side.
19:46The Republicans accused him of being a
19:48vegan in the cattle state of Texas,
19:50something really terrible to counter
19:52that. That was not true. He is now
19:54making the accusation. He invites the
19:57journalists to do so, and with such
19:59high stakes, that can no longer be
20:01healthy. But what gets interesting is
20:04that his opponent, K. Paxton, former
20:06attorney general, was wanted by Trump
20:08as a candidate. There was a moderate
20:11Republican Senator in the state of
20:12Texas named James Cornin. He was voted
20:15out during the primaries and is now
20:16barred from running, simply because
20:18Trump decided to throw his support
20:19behind Kaxton. He is not only far from
20:21a popular figure, but also carried
20:23corruption allegations in his political
20:25backpack for a long time, and was once
20:27acquitted in a court of law during a
20:29legal proceeding. However, his own
20:31party colleagues have now reached the
20:32decision that he should be formally
20:34indicted. So he is not entirely
20:35uncontroversial either. And the
20:37Christian nationalism that he
20:39propagates does not go down well with
20:41Tellerico and his Bible verses. The
20:44situation is that a mixture of
20:45disappointed supporters of Korn, who is
20:47ultimately not running for the
20:48Republicans, of Latinos who are leaning
20:50towards Tellerco, and of independent
20:52voters who feel they are not bound to
20:54any party, could quite possibly lead to
20:55a scenario where De Rico ends up
20:57winning the election. But the polls are
20:59within the margin of error.
21:01>> But it is a very exciting election
21:03there, a very moderate Democrat against
21:05a very, very, very right-wing
21:07Republican. It is completely different
21:09in Mischigen. There is a new election
21:11for a Senate seat that actually belongs
21:12to the Democrats. Traditionally, but
21:14the Democrats there have a very
21:15left-wing candidate who won the
21:17primaries, the internal ones, in a way
21:18that was quite surprising for everyone
21:20involved. This is highly controversial
21:22within the party, because many believe
21:23that he is too left-wing and he could
21:24now potentially lose this seat which
21:25was considered safe. A doctor, however,
21:27who has a real chance of becoming the
21:29first Muslim senator in the history of
21:31the United States of America. Abdel al
21:33Said is everything that Tellarico is
21:35not, and that is exactly why the
21:36Republicans are criticizing him for it.
21:38He describes himself as clearly
21:41left-wing. For Donald Trump, he is
21:43something like public enemy number one,
21:46because he is for the rich and wealth
21:48taxes. He is in favor of strong state
21:51control over big business, and, for
21:52instance, he is for a complete ban on
21:54the making of corporate donations
21:56within the political sphere. Exactly
21:58the opposite position to Donald Trump.
22:01But he has scored points in this
22:02election campaign. In the United States
22:04, for example, there is no system of
22:05automatic health insurance coverage
22:07provided for all Americans. I have to
22:09pay for it privately myself, as my
22:10employer does not contribute anything
22:12towards it or only does so on a purely
22:13voluntary basis. That's what he demands
22:15. This is naturally very popular in
22:17times of rising living costs, but in
22:19some ways, it is the complete opposite
22:21of what we are seeing in Texas. In
22:24Texas, the Republicans face the problem
22:25of having a candidate who is too
22:27extreme, specifically a Christian
22:29nationalist. El Said is of course
22:31polarizing with his very left-wing
22:33positions and, as you mentioned, he is
22:34also a Muslim, especially given the
22:36fact that he is calling for an
22:37immediate end to all military and
22:39financial aid currently being provided
22:41by the state to Israel. However,
22:44Michigan is a state that the Democrats
22:46almost certainly have to win, because
22:48with just one brief exception in the
22:5090s, since the 70s, only one Democratic
22:52senator has been elected there. So if
22:55they lose this state, that would also
22:57be very problematic for the overall
22:58result.
22:59>> The Democratic Party is monitoring this
23:01election with great intensity, as it
23:03could help decide an internal struggle
23:04within the party regarding how far to
23:06the left it should ultimately position
23:08itself moving forward. This started
23:10with Mamdani, the mayor of New York.
23:13And he could now also provide the very
23:14left-wing faction in Michigan with a
23:15much-needed boost and a new sense of
23:17momentum. If he loses this Senate seat,
23:19that would certainly be a powerful
23:20argument for those who maintain that
23:22the Democrats, above all else, are in
23:23need of more moderate candidates to win
23:25elections. What were the main issues
23:27previously, and what are still the most
23:29important campaign topics in this
23:31current congressional election?
23:32>> It is about money, but within the
23:34context of whether everyday life
23:35remains affordable for people. Already
23:37when Bill Clinton became Democratic
23:39president in 1992, the phrase "It's the
23:41Economist Jupiter" was coined, which
23:43meant that incumbents will lose
23:45whenever the state of the economy is in
23:47poor condition. This time, it refers
23:49less to the high level of debt in the
23:51USA or the budget deficit, but instead,
23:53it relates directly to the rising costs
23:55that people face in their everyday
23:56lives. Just one example: when Donald
23:59Trump's term in office began, a gallon
24:02of gasoline cost just over $ 3 at the
24:04gas station. We are keeping that at
24:07well over $ 4, and heating oil and
24:09diesel have become even more expensive,
24:12and the same applies to housing costs,
24:14for example, to the cost of educating
24:17children in school, etc. And in this
24:19situation, incumbents are at risk. This
24:22applies to the Republican Party here.
24:25The election has little to do with
24:27foreign policy, which is our primary
24:28focus, or only indirectly so, because
24:30Trump is of course responsible for the
24:31rising oil and energy prices, as he
24:33made the specific decision to invade
24:35other countries during his time in
24:36office. First Venezuela and then Iran.
24:39However, the fact that he broke a
24:40central election promise is not what he
24:41is being blamed for all that much. I am
24:43not starting any wars, but he is the
24:45one being accused of doing so. This has
24:47made some people in the oil industry in
24:49the US very rich, including his allies,
24:51but for the individual American, oil
24:53prices are no longer affordable. It
24:55should be noted that every Austrian who
24:57hears that you only pay four dollars
24:58for more than four liters of gasoline
25:00is quite amazed.
25:01>> But they produce it themselves, unlike
25:03us, they have production not least in
25:06Texas
25:07>> and are therefore very, very allergic
25:09to gasoline and diesel prices. That is
25:12why Trump is now even importing diesel
25:13from Russia or trying to do so. Trump
25:15himself is not running for election, it
25:17is not a presidential election, but he
25:19is personally campaigning quite a bit.
25:22In recent weeks, he has aired thousands
25:24of campaign spots for himself on
25:25television at taxpayer expense, until a
25:27court prohibited them because they were
25:28funded by the taxpayers. Furthermore,
25:31Trump has addressed the issue of
25:33affordability by promising every single
25:35adult American, of whom there are 250
25:37million, a payment of 5,000 dollars
25:41should the Republicans emerge
25:42victorious in this upcoming election. $
25:455,000 per adult American would cost $
25:481,250 billion. An unimaginable sum that
25:52Mr. Donald Trump does not have. Is he
25:55even allowed to do that?
25:56>> He is allowed to do it because it is
25:58not explicitly prohibited by law. One
26:00could say that such a law does not
26:01exist, because a few years ago, it was
26:03impossible for anyone to imagine the
26:04way in which Donald Trump would act.
26:06But there is a factual reason why this
26:08is not punishable. He did not say that
26:11he would only give every Republican
26:13voter $ 5,000. That would have been
26:15illegal and would have affected the
26:17voting power. He said that every adult
26:19US citizen who is eligible to vote
26:21would receive it. That puts it in the
26:24category of election promises. Just
26:26like I could, for example, promise a
26:28utopian tax cut that would take effect
26:30after the election. However, he will
26:33have a problem later on, should his
26:34party actually win, he does not have
26:36the authority, which would be illegal,
26:38to initiate the payment of this money,
26:40which incidentally does not even exist,
26:42but would require a congressional
26:43resolution. And even with a Republican
26:47majority in both houses of Congress, it
26:49remains extremely unlikely that they
26:51would be so foolish as to multiply the
26:52already enormous debt level of the
26:54United States of America even further
26:56in this situation. However, on one
26:58point that Trump has addressed, Trump
27:00has demonstrably acted illegally. He
27:02has run campaign ads. Of course, it is
27:04permissible for the government to
27:06provide information about its programs
27:08in television commercials. But Trump
27:10did not do that. Those were election
27:12appeals for his party and a court ruled
27:13that this is not acceptable. The
27:15problem, however, is of course the ads
27:17that have already been broadcast for
27:19many millions of dollars; you simply
27:20cannot stuff those back into your
27:22wallet in any sort of way. Since you
27:24have already brought it up, even if
27:25Trump were to hold a majority after the
27:27election, it is by no means certain
27:28that he would succeed in pushing it
27:30through. We have yet to address a
27:31critical factor, which is the fact that
27:32the American Congress operates in an
27:33entirely different manner compared to
27:34the way things are handled in the
27:35Austrian parliament. There is no party
27:37requirement there. Why is there no
27:39party requirement? Because there are
27:42435 parallel elections, and the
27:43candidates are much, much more
27:45dependent on their constituencies and
27:46the voters there than they are on their
27:48party leader, who is not formally, but
27:50certainly politically, Donald Trump,
27:52because he cannot decide, or can only
27:53partially decide, or have a say in
27:55whether they are actually elected to
27:56their positions. And that is really
27:59very interesting. American members of
28:01parliament vote against their own party
28:02much more often than in our country.
28:05>> This is forced upon me by necessity,
28:06because I must be elected as a person
28:08within my own local constituency. In
28:09Austria, I have to appear on the list
28:11of my party at least one time. And even
28:13if I later conduct a preferential vote
28:15campaign and personal votes, the party
28:17must have placed me on this list
28:19beforehand, otherwise I cannot get a
28:20single preferential vote. Of course,
28:22this leads to a much higher level of
28:24loyalty to one's own party in our
28:26country. And what you refer to as the "
28:28glubzwang", a term used in everyday
28:30language, is in reality nothing more
28:31than a voluntary form of party
28:32discipline. Of course, the free mandate
28:34applies. Everyone should only vote to
28:36the best of their knowledge and belief.
28:38In the USA, I have no motive for this
28:40kind of party loyalty, because: Why
28:41should I support something in a
28:43congressional vote, when I know for a
28:44fact that this will inevitably cause me
28:46to lose my next election? And in the
28:48House of Representatives–as we have
28:50already discussed–it is already quite
28:52soon, two years later. Incidentally,
28:54here is another detail on the side:
28:55because these elections are so close, I
28:57have permanent campaigns. If someone is
29:00elected to the House of Representatives
29:01now, they will be in Washington DC for
29:03the rest of November to organize
29:04trivial things like housing and an
29:06office, especially for new members of
29:07parliament. But he spends the rest of
29:10his time preparing for his re-election
29:12campaign and beginning the fundraising,
29:13even though he has not yet officially
29:15assumed the duties of the office he was
29:17elected to. That won't happen until the
29:19beginning of January, when the new
29:20Congress meets for the first time. This
29:22is also because American members of
29:23parliament have to finance their own
29:25election campaigns, while in Austria
29:27the party finances them, which doesn't
29:28make one much more dependent on the
29:30party. Of course, an American
29:32representative who wishes to run as a
29:34Democrat must also, in a sense, be
29:35included on the ticket as a registered
29:37Democrat. But he can do that against
29:39the will of the party leadership by
29:40running in the primaries and beating
29:42the party leadership's favorite, which
29:43is what happened in Michigan, for
29:44example. Um, now there are also other
29:48old rules in the American parliament,
29:50namely that traditionally the
29:52president's party is more likely to
29:54lose than win in congressional
29:56elections. That's an old rule. Another
29:59rule is that for the representatives,
30:01those incumbents who have held the
30:03mandate for a long time, the so-called
30:06incumbents, are as a rule re-elected.
30:09>> There is even the concept of an iron
30:10law of midterm losses, which describes
30:12the systematic decline of the
30:14presidential party during these
30:15elections, as they are frequently
30:17perceived by the public as a direct
30:18reckoning with the sitting president's
30:20political agenda. Even Bill Clinton,
30:24who became president in 1992 with a
30:26landslide victory, had to learn this
30:28the hard way in the 1994 general
30:29election. Even the Speaker of the House
30:32, the leading Democrat in the House of
30:34Representatives, has actually lost his
30:36own constituency in the election. That
30:37has never happened before, and the
30:39Republicans have gained an enormous
30:41number of seats, which is precisely
30:43what is now threatening Donald Trump.
30:45The fact that there is an incumbency
30:47bonus as an incumbent bonus has to do
30:49with money and the electoral law,
30:51because I do not have a proportional
30:53representation system. If someone loses
30:56the election now, then the incumbent
30:58will be omnipresent in the media and in
30:59public for the next few years and the
31:00loser will simply no longer be
31:02mentioned. He will have to rebuild his
31:04campaign organization. This favors
31:07incumbents to such an extent that in
31:09the House of Representatives 80%or
31:12sometimes more are re-elected, and in
31:14the Senate even 90 to 98%. And the
31:18money factor also plays a role, because
31:20there is only private campaign funding,
31:22no tax money. The big donors do not
31:25rely on ideological affiliation. Nor
31:29does someone have the same opinion as
31:31me, and certainly not on emotional
31:32factors, such as how sympathetic I am.
31:35Instead, they rely on safe chances and
31:37tend to give their money to incumbents
31:40who have a competitive advantage.
31:43>> And this leads to the fact that there
31:44are senators in the Senate in
31:45particular who practically remain in
31:46the Senate forever.
31:49>> For example, there is Mr. Gray Iowa,
31:51who is 93. He is not up for re-election
31:54this year; instead, the second Senate
31:56candidate, Zinova, is being elected
31:59this year. It is not his turn for
32:02another two years, at which point he
32:04will be 95. He has already announced
32:06that he intends to run again; if he
32:08manages to do so and can then endure
32:10for another six years, he would reach
32:12the proud age of 101 by the end of his
32:14next term. He's already the oldest
32:16member of the Senate and the oldest
32:18chairman of the Senate.
32:20>> Well, it is not particularly surprising
32:22that he is 93. There was, by the way,
32:25actually a 100-year-old senator, Strom
32:27Thurmond from South Carolina, a
32:29legendary senator who died in office in
32:312003.
32:33>> He was, in many ways, a legendary
32:34figure who left a significant mark
32:34during his long and storied time in the
32:35United States Senate. Among other
32:37things, he was not yet 100 years old
32:39when he gave the longest speech in the
32:41Senate. He spoke for 24 hours and 18
32:45minutes straight, and his goal was to
32:48keep talking. The filibuster is a
32:51common tactic in the U.S. Senate to
32:53block legislation, and he sought to at
32:55least delay a civil rights bill, which
32:57was hardly surprising given the fact
32:58that he stands in opposition to the
33:00very concept of civil rights. He was an
33:02avowed enemy of the Kuckuchsgladz. And
33:05he also switched his party affiliation,
33:07going from the Democrats over to the
33:09Republicans. Incidentally, that's not
33:11all that uncommon in the US. It's very,
33:13very rare for us to do so, even in the
33:15Second Republic, but it's not all that
33:17uncommon for members of parliament to
33:19change parties in the US. Back to the
33:21current election. Let's assume that the
33:24Democrats win the majority in both
33:26chambers, the House of Representatives
33:27and the Senate. What would that mean
33:30for the last two years of Donald
33:32Trump's term in office? He would be
33:34less able to implement his policy plans
33:37. Regardless of the majority in
33:40Congress, a president towards the end
33:42of his second term in the US is often
33:45referred to as a lame duck, meaning
33:48that opponents of his plans are just
33:51playing for time. According to the
33:53constitution, he is not allowed to
33:54serve a third term, although in the
33:56case of Donald Trump, it is not known
33:57whether he has the slightest intention
33:59of abiding by the constitution. But
34:00that is all the more true of being a
34:02lame duck. When faced with a majority
34:06of the opposing party in either one or
34:08both chambers of Congress, but despite
34:10this formal loss of power, one must
34:13consider: Donald Trump is trying to
34:15rule by decree, by executive orders.
34:19These are a type of regulation that he
34:21issues from the hip like a would-be
34:23dictator, and that would lead to
34:25complications and chaos again, because
34:27they are initially valid, and Donald
34:29Trump, as president, has the right to
34:31veto every law passed by Congress. This
34:35could only be overridden with a
34:36two-thirds majority, even if the
34:38Democrats win big, they will not get
34:40the two-thirds majority. So Donald
34:43Trump could theoretically paralyze the
34:44entire legislative process in the USA
34:46for two years if he were to use his
34:47veto power on every law, even without
34:49justification, because he does not have
34:50to do so in the past. So that could be
34:54difficult domestically. And now there
34:57are concerns that Donald Trump's
34:59already very unpredictable foreign
35:01policy–Ukraine in recent weeks, Iran,
35:03war, Greenland, and so on–could
35:05become even more chaotic because he can
35:07no longer achieve as much domestically.
35:10But even a Congress with a Democratic
35:12majority can only interfere with him to
35:14a limited extent in terms of foreign
35:15policy. Do you also expect that things
35:17will become even more chaotic? That is
35:19to be feared, because Donald Trump
35:21remains commander-in-chief of the
35:22American armed forces and is capable of
35:24ordering military action at any time or
35:27, alternatively, initiating an invasion
35:29of other countries at his own
35:30discretion. It is true that the US
35:33president is not formally responsible
35:35for declarations of war; that would
35:37have to be done by Congress, but the US
35:38has already taken a number of military
35:40actions without a formal declaration of
35:42war. There is the War Powers Act, which
35:46means that the president is only
35:48allowed to deploy soldiers abroad for
35:4960 days and then for an additional 30
35:51days if this is necessary for an
35:53orderly withdrawal. But what if Donald
35:56Trump simply doesn't comply, and now
35:58Siran is already doing the same thing
35:59as well? What happens if Donald Trump
36:01gives the order to drop bombs from
36:03planes or to launch missiles from naval
36:05ships? These are not soldiers who are
36:07serving abroad, because they are
36:08stationed on an American ship or are
36:10currently sitting inside of an airplane
36:12machine. So the potential for chaos
36:14could increase there too.
36:16>> Everyone is counting on the fact that
36:18if the Democrats manage to secure a
36:20majority, they would initiate new
36:21impeachment proceedings, a so-called
36:23impeachment against Donald Trump. To do
36:25that, they need a simple majority in
36:26the House of Representatives. They
36:29could very likely get that, but there's
36:31still no chance of Trump actually being
36:34removed from office, even if the
36:35Democrats were to win both chambers.
36:38Why?
36:40>> Yes, because the House of
36:41Representatives is something of a
36:42stumbling block in impeachment
36:43proceedings against the US president,
36:45and to initiate the proceedings, I only
36:46need a simple majority in the House of
36:48Representatives. But for a conviction,
36:50where the court is, so to speak, the
36:52Senate, a two-thirds majority is
36:54required; the Democrats will not attain
36:56that, and furthermore, they would have
36:57to identify a specific, concrete legal
36:59and criminal reason for such a charge
37:01to proceed. Unlike in our country,
37:04where there is a political vote of no
37:06confidence in a government, in the US
37:07the president may only be removed from
37:09office, according to the constitution,
37:11for high crimes and misdemeanors, for
37:13trespassing or for accepting bribery in
37:15office. Well, one could perhaps find
37:17something in Trump's case as well,
37:20>> yet the hurdle of a two-thirds majority
37:21is so high that an impeachment has
37:23never been successful in the entire
37:24history of the United States. So Trump
37:27doesn't have to fear that, no matter
37:28how the election turns out.
37:29Incidentally, as a general rule, if a
37:31US president were to lose their office,
37:33there would be no new elections held;
37:35instead, the vice president would then
37:37automatically move into the White House
37:39to take over the position. In this case
37:41, it would be Jy Weinz, and the next
37:43presidential election would definitely
37:44take place on the regular date. There
37:46are no early elections in the US. The
37:50vice president will succeed him, even
37:51if President Donald Trump were to die
37:53or be assassinated. Historically, it
37:55has been statistically more likely that
37:57he will be assassinated than that he
37:58will die in office. However, Donald
38:01Trump is 80 years old. The average life
38:03expectancy for men in the United States
38:04is 77 years. Therefore, it is certainly
38:06not something that can be ruled out.
38:10The key difference is that these
38:11impeachments would not result in new
38:13elections, but rather that JD Weiner
38:14would quite simply assume the office of
38:16the president. Would the Democrats like
38:18that much better?
38:22>> Donald Trump is constantly talking
38:24about election fraud and still claims
38:25practically every day that the 2020
38:27presidential election was stolen, which
38:29is nothing but a lie, but if his party
38:30were to lose the upcoming midterms,
38:32will he even be willing to acknowledge
38:34the result at all? Politically, he will
38:38almost certainly not do so. He will put
38:41forward allegations and accusations,
38:43even if they are not substantiated,
38:45about everything the Democrats have
38:46done and how they supposedly lied and
38:48cheated to win this election, claiming
38:50that the entire electoral system is
38:52corrupt and cannot be trusted. He may
38:55also go to court again, as he did after
38:57he lost the 2020 presidential election.
39:01In a democracy, it is his right to take
39:03legal action. Only in a civilized
39:05democracy do you subsequently recognize
39:07the judgment of the courts. And that is
39:09exactly what Donald Trump did not do.
39:12He even incited his own supporters to
39:13attempt a coup by storming the U.S.
39:15Capitol in January 2021, and the
39:17primary ringleaders involved in that
39:19event were subsequently sentenced to
39:20serve very long prison terms for their
39:22actions. There were also deadly police
39:25officers involved in the storming of
39:26the Capitol, the seat of the US
39:28Congress, who were later pardoned. So
39:30who knows what will happen if the
39:31Democrats really do win both elections
39:33in the House of Representatives except
39:34in the Senate, and that was possible,
39:36even by a large margin.
39:37>> And how fair will the elections on
39:39November 3rd be?
39:40>> At the very least, Donald Trump has
39:42done a lot to ensure that they are not
39:45fair. Here are just two examples. One
39:48is that Donald Trump knows that there
39:50are traditionally more Democrats than
39:52Republicans who vote by mail. So he
39:54attempted to restrict mail-in voting,
39:56for instance by asserting that—even
39:59though the individual states are
40:00constitutionally responsible for
40:02conducting elections—every state must
40:04submit a list of mail-in voters to the
40:06Department of Homeland Security, which
40:08is under his authority. That Department
40:11of Homeland Security could then decide
40:13who is to be removed from this list,
40:14ostensibly by verifying citizenship,
40:16but ultimately by making a decision
40:18entirely as it sees fit. The second
40:21thing that would have been, according
40:23to Trump, the federal agency should be
40:25responsible for sending the absentee
40:26ballots to the individual voters. The
40:29individual states have done this up to
40:31now, and he can then decide not to send
40:34them an absentee ballot. That was at
40:36least an attempt at manipulation.
40:38However, a court has ruled that this
40:39cannot be implemented through an
40:40executive order in the way that Donald
40:42Trump passed such a measure back in the
40:43spring. And that's why it was actually
40:47banned. However, there is a second
40:48attempt, not coming from Trump directly
40:50, but instead from the Republicans. In
40:52several states, the electoral district
40:54boundaries were redrawn, but lo and
40:56behold, they favored the Republican
40:58candidates. However, this has a
41:00tradition in the US; it has been done
41:02for decades and even centuries, and it
41:03is also practiced in states that are
41:05governed by the Democrats.
41:06>> And there's even a special name for it
41:08in the US, which is really funny, it's
41:10called Jerry Mandering. There are
41:12>> even several technical terms and
41:14tactics for drawing electoral district
41:16boundaries. For example, Ccking has
41:18nothing to do with the drug of the same
41:21name, but in common I split the
41:22electoral strongholds of the opposing
41:25party into several electoral districts,
41:27then the opposing party wins nowhere or
41:30Beijing. I put these electoral
41:32strongholds of the opponent into one
41:34electoral district. The opposing party
41:36might win by a large margin there, but
41:38only in that specific location and
41:39nowhere else. And the term
41:41Gerrymandering originates from the fact
41:42that, according to a Supreme Court
41:44ruling, all electoral districts must
41:46consist of geographically contiguous
41:48units. It makes sense, too. And in
41:52order to somehow manipulate this in his
41:54own party's interest, a former governor
41:56of Master Jusetts, Elbrich Cherwy, this
41:58was a long time ago, centuries ago,
42:00came up with the idea of creating an
42:01electoral district. It looked like a
42:05snake running across the state, like a
42:07salamander, and then someone said, no,
42:09it's not a salamander, a Jerry Manda.
42:11And this term has caught on, and it is
42:13still being used as a tactic to this
42:14very day.
42:15>> Great. We really need to wrap up, but
42:18just briefly. On November 3rd, it is
42:20not just the members of Congress who
42:22are being elected, those we have
42:23discussed extensively, but also quite a
42:25large number of other politicians who
42:27will be chosen as well. It's a huge
42:29election day. 39 governors will also be
42:32elected. State legislatures are elected
42:36in the US, and in many communities and
42:38cities, positions such as mayors,
42:40justices of the peace, sheriffs, school
42:41board chairmen, or even attorneys
42:43general are filled by popular vote;
42:45these are all elected offices within
42:47the United States, which also include
42:49the local justices of the peace. And I
42:52have learned that in one particular
42:53city in Kentucky, the office of the
42:54coroner is also up for election. A
42:58popular office, we need to take a
43:00closer look at the election campaign,
43:02but it is very different from ours. In
43:05conclusion, this is something we could
43:06or should adopt from the US, so that
43:08the federal government does not have to
43:10constantly take into account every
43:11single election that happens to be
43:13taking place somewhere in a major city
43:14or within a state, as is currently the
43:16case. In theory, this is of course a
43:19good argument for democracy, because
43:21otherwise election campaigns always
43:22influence politics, and this is not
43:24always a factual influence, but parties
43:26and politicians then only think in
43:27terms of election strategy. The
43:29practical implementation will be
43:31difficult if you want to do this in
43:32Austria, because you cannot simply
43:33suggest that we skip elections
43:34somewhere for the sake of having a
43:35single uniform election day, as that
43:37would be a rather problematic and
43:38unreasonable proposal. You probably
43:40have to bring these elections forward.
43:42And because many state governors and
43:43mayors would be affected by this, it is
43:45quite difficult to present these
43:47arguments to them in a convincing
43:48manner. Above all, however, the
43:50election results in the more than 2,000
43:52municipalities in the new federal
43:54states are very different from those in
43:55a federal election. Or, to put it
43:58another way, the simultaneous
43:59scheduling of the election could drag
44:01down the election results for
44:02state-level parties or for individual
44:04mayors. I hope you have fun explaining
44:06to them that you have this suggestion.
44:08Okay, so it probably won't happen in
44:10Austria. In the USA, it does. And that
44:14also means that in the USA we already
44:16know today when the congressional
44:17elections will take place in 100 years,
44:19namely on the Tuesday after the first
44:21Monday in November, as the law states,
44:23for a very, very long time now, and
44:25that would be November 5th in the year
44:272126. The two of us won't talk about
44:29this election any further, but for
44:31today, thank you Peter,
44:33>> thank you Amen.
44:34>> And thank you to you. M.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Schicksalswahl für Donald Trump - Der Professor und der Wolf by radio FM4, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 8,533 words across 1,344 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to choose a caption track available on the video.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, caption language selection, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.