THE DELIGHT OF SEEING HARRIS LOSE

Take a butcher’s at this picture!

In almost all her photos, she sports that annoying grin and displays the same self-congratulation at being Kamala Harris, down to providing her own applause. Whilst American politics may seem showbiz and cheese to us Brits, that’s presumably quite difficult to do without alienating more voters than you attract. Imagine being some ‘deplorable’ in rural Pennsylvania and seeing such an image! The tacky wealth and privilege oozing from it. I got the same impression when comparing footage of the blue and red election-night jamborees. The Democratic one far better epitomized wealth and privilege, and seemed more distanced from working-class voters.

It’s incredible how the Democrats seem to have repeated all the mistakes they made in 2016. Just like Hilary Clinton, Harris failed at the bizarre but oddly moving ritual of an American presidential election. She came across as an elitist, a vacuous and patronising bore. The liberal celebs she used exacerbated this. Say what you like about Musk, but Trump getting his endorsement was far smarter than Harris’ use of identikit Hollywood actors or whiny rappers.

Harris just isn't tolerable to many Americans. And Trump is - warts and all - despite a substantial number loathing him. Even Harris’ own party don’t much seem to like or respect her. It's easy for us to underestimate American cynicism about a character like Harris, since we express it differently and our media just rehashes its own hatred of Trump. But their voters are as sophisticated as ours - perhaps more so - albeit in a very different system. Their wonderful directness and rudeness about politicians is certainly something we need much more of.

As a political anorak, I got up at 3 am and stayed watching until it was decided. The betting odds gave the first clue. On election day, Trump was just odds on. But his chances shot up with the evidence from tiny area counts in Texas, then a breakdown of counties in Georgia, Florida, Virginia and North Carolina - showing Harris badly underperforming, especially amongst Latino voters. At 3 am, Paddy Power had Harris at 44% to win. From 3:30 am the New York Times (Trump haters) had him hovering around ‘likely win’, then into ‘very likely’. Somehow I got onto their detailed swing-state report and you could watch those all going to him, inexorably.

Suddenly Trump was at odds of 1:20 then 1:100 on. You could see the vital Pennsylvania projection. As the votes counted approached 50% , it was tipping to Trump. Fascinating to then watch the British TV coverage, where full TDS was in evidence! The pundits kept saying (and hoping) that the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh results would move it back to Harris but there were fewer and fewer votes available. In fact, ITV were saying this could still happen when it required an impossible swing to her. I worried: is this when the truck loads of Harris votes appear, 'discovered' somewhere? But it didn't happen.

Apologies to Americans for the impertinence of some Limey commenting - and to those angry that Trump won. And to add an English perspective, our Labour government is stuffed full of teenagers like Foreign Secretary David Lammy, who’ve made their juvenile opinions on Trump very public.

If one had to design a foreign leader Trump would despise, Sir Two Tier Starmer couldn't be bettered. So annoying is the man that he’d make 'a shy bald Buddhist reflect and plan a mass murder' - and Trump is far from being such. Starmer will be kept guessing how his loathing will be shown, which will keep our petulant and control freakish PM in delicious agony.

I hope Farage exploits this cleverly. Of course, I don't want Britain to suffer but it's wonderful to think of those turds Starmer and Lammy in the firing line.