With reaction and insights to the biggest stories and breaking news from the USA and a little bit of history thrown in.

This is America, A history in the Making.

Welcome to another episode of America, A History in the Making.

And joining me this week is a guest who was on a few weeks back.

So check out that episode at how to run a Democratic Election.

It's Dafyd Townley, a teaching fellow at the University of Portsmouth.

Dafyd, welcome back.

It's lovely to be here.

Liam, thanks very much.

Yeah, great to get you back on now that the election's been and gone and we have something a bit more concrete to discuss.

And on that note, we talked a lot when you were last on about sort of questions around integrity and fairness in running an election, particularly ensuring that it's, it's not corruptible.

There were a lot of questions and a lot of complaints four years ago over the accuracy of the result.

We didn't see that a lot this year.

What do you think the reasons for that are?

I think primarily the Republicans won.

I think that, you know, the last time they lost and they complained about it and arguably took up arms or close to it.

I think that is the main reason.

I think that the Democratic Party, as it currently is, is more likely to recognize that what they would call the rule of law, you know, that there is a process in place and win or lose, you go by that process.

And although it had not really been the case that every single transition of power had been peaceful or at least not contested.

So we can go back to sort of 2000, look at Al Gore and George W.

Bush's contest and, and see where Democrats challenge that.

But I think that, I think that ultimately there was no question, I think it would if it had been very tight.

So if it had been sort of less than 1% in those swing states and it was perhaps down to one swing state, you might have seen a lot of legal challenges to the results.

But I think that it was, and I'm going to say surprisingly one sided, this result in terms of the Electoral College, at least that you would argue that there was no position from which the Democrats to say that the election had been stolen from.

And that is something obviously that Republicans had been putting into this narrative for the past eight to 10 months that there was, you know, there was a chance that it was going to be a corrupt election and, you know, that they would then lead to them being able to challenge the results.

And obviously that's never had to come to play this strangely enough, none of the Republicans have claimed that there's any sort of electoral fraud going on after the event.

It was all leading up to that.

Yeah.

I mean, Trump was saying.

I think it was.

Was it the day before or day of the election that there was.

I think it was the day before.

No, it was the day of the election that there was.

That there was electoral fraud going on in.

Where was it?

I think it was Michigan.

He was claiming it was going on in Michigan.

Pittsburgh, I think, or something like that.

And no mention of it after the result.

So.

So, yeah, I think.

I think Democrats accept the result reluctantly as.

Yeah, as they must.

And I think, you know, it's potentially not about how many swing states Trump won, but the margin by which he won, because, okay, it was still within the margin of error with the polls, but he won most of those states by 2, 3, 4 percentage points.

It's really hard to challenge that much of a difference.

I think if we were looking at, you know, 1% or less between them and a few thousand votes here or there, there's far greater cause for the Democrats to maybe insist on a recount.

But, yeah, it just.

It felt like it was.

It was just beyond reach, wasn't it?

Yes.

Yeah, I think.

I think you're absolutely right.

Yeah.

And thankful that it is that, actually.

Because perhaps we can go back to this normality of political institutions and political processes being trusted and having faith in them.

You know, even if the people that perhaps run those processes and institutions might be questionable, perhaps, at least then we can get back to the idea that this is how a government is or this is how a political process is supposed to work.

I mean, on the subject of the people running government, Trump has been certainly making headlines since his reelection.

Right.

With the appointments that he's been making, of course, some of those pending approval by the Senate.

But, I mean, there are some wild cards in there.

Right?

It's.

So I, like many others, I am now on Blue sky, but I still have an account on Twitter.

And somebody said on.

Sorry, on X now, can't call it Twitter, still called it Twitter.

Somebody said on X that, you know, it's almost as if Trump is trolling every single liberal and Democrat with his appointments.

You know, how bad can it get?

And, of course, I mean, Matt Gaetz for Attorney General is the one that really stands out as being very, very odd.

But his entire, you know, his entire national security appointments are very much, I would argue they're ideological rather than, you know, every appointment is political, but these are ideological appointments that they don't necessarily agree on everything, and that's going to be quite interesting.

But they agree with Trump on the things that they've been put in charge of.

So, you know that people are going to be there to do the job that Trump wants them to do.

He's, he's not interested really in anything else.

And that's very much the transactional nature of how he does not just business, but how he does politics as well.

I do think that, you know, requiring Senate ratification of these, of these appointments is not going to be that big an issue.

But it would be nice if somebody put, you know, should we say that the, the, the country before the party?

But I can't see that happening.

Not, not, not, not this early in Trump's administration.

These are just kind of, I think pretty much there might be a few questions raised by Gates, for example, but the rest of them are pretty much just going to go through.

And, you know, especially he's now got the, what, not just the trifecta.

He's, you know, House, Senate and the White House, but also the Supreme Court.

It's, it's this, these are going to be, this is going to be probably one of the most consequential presidencies, certainly the first, I would say 200.

Yeah, probably 200 days before they start looking to be re elected in 2026.

These are going to be really consequential in terms of what's going to happen.

Yeah.

Though there is an argument from the right that actually, you know, as controversial as these appointments seem, Trump is kind of doing what he promised.

Right.

I mean, he, he said he would come down hard on immigration and deport millions of people.

He's hired a team of people that are very anti immigration and clearly are going to carry through that agenda.

And I mean, he did try and distance himself from Project 2025, but I mean, he's been hiring people as well who, I mean, just look at Musk.

I mean, he's got on the, you know, PR offensive with the whole Department of Education thing in the days following the election.

I mean, it's everything that people thought they were voting for in Trump.

It appears to be so far honored by the people he's hiring.

Yes, well, he has a habit of doing what he says he's going to do apart from build a wall.

He didn't build.

He didn't.

Well, he didn't finish the war.

Maybe he started it in parts, but he does have a habit of, of not caring what other people think and getting, you know, getting done what he said he's going to get done.

I do think that, that he's, he's going to fall short on some of those things, that some of those promises are not necessarily going, you know, he's planning to deport, what is it, a million, a million people a year.

I think he was saying something along those lines.

I'm not sure that they have the infrastructure to do that within ICE or Border Patrol or anything else like that.

You know, I think that that's going to be a challenge for them.

I do, however, think that, you know, perhaps we'll touch on in a minute, but his foreign policy is going to be very America first.

What we'll see, especially with appointment Musk, apart from perhaps lots, lots of government contracts go to X and SpaceX and things like that, you know, no impropriety there whatsoever.

I do think that we will end up seeing, you know, Musk has apparently been tasked with cutting 2 trillion from the federal, federal expenditure.

Well, that's going to be every social policy that or project that they disagree with that's going out the window, but also probably a return to what happened in the first Trump administration where he just didn't point people to the State Department and the State Department ran on bare bones, which, you know, undermines America's impact around the globe.

But he's not worried about that because he's a person that does business at the very top.

So he will go to Putin and he will go to whatever leader he wants and speak to them directly.

And, you know, it's, it's going to be about putting America first, which he, again, going back to what you just said, he promised he's going to do that.

So let's not be surprised.

I mean, I think we need to talk a bit about what's going on around the world at the moment with the escalation between the US And Russia.

But before we do, I think as unpopular as it might be for Democrats to think that maybe Trump's approach might be the best approach, he's promised to end the war.

There's a lot of theories about exactly how he's going to do that.

And a lot of it involves maybe pressuring Ukraine into giving up some of their border.

But is that a bad thing considering the nuclear escalations that are happening right now?

You know, if we're faced with a choice of Ukraine, give up some land or nuclear war, you know, what are Americans going to prefer?

Well, I think, I think that's, it's a big step to make, to take, to go from where we are now to nuclear war, obviously what what is currently happening in so with Biden authorizing the use of missiles that were originally American produced missiles that originally only supposed to be used inside Ukraine to use and inside the Russian interior as well.

I think as much as anything else it's interesting that came after his discussion with Donald Trump, after Trump had gone to the White House.

And I just wonder whether there had been any intimation that Trump is very definitely going to bring this war or American support for Ukraine to an end as as it currently is.

And so I think that there is perhaps an effort, this is perhaps an effort from Biden to give Ukraine a better bargaining position for what might come in January or February.

And you know, we have to ask, you know, at what cost do we want peace as democratic free nations?

At what cost do we want peace?

And what does that then what signal does that send around the globe to other nations that want to impose themselves upon other nations as well?

So you know what, what's next for China and Taiwan, for example?

How does that work?

You know, does Russia then look at other states in Eastern Europe that it's got issues with or claims to?

I do think that and I agree with you.

I think that this is and you just look at his appointments to defense home and security dni, for example, national intelligence Director.

It indicates a very much an isolationist approach to foreign policy.

This is going to be something that America is not interested in, that doesn't want to do.

However, do say this to certain the caveat is that the rest of the world is going to follow suit.

And you know, this may be a time that Europe or the European Union or European Union and its partner states should we say, because we would be involved in that statement now we're no longer part of the EU that perhaps there's an opportunity for us to step forward and fill some of that gap.

Of course, we live in a time of extremely tight budgets in this country.

We're looking at struggling to commit to our public expenditure.

So where do we find for example an extra well, what does America put in the last bill?

I think it was $70 billion for Ukraine.

Where do we find that that's going to be a significant factor in that?

But it does appear as though, you know, that despite Ukraine's valiant efforts over the last couple of years that they are going to be forced by necessity and the fact that they are not going to have that logistical support from the United States.

And this is another thing, of course, this is how United States support has been mis portrayed by the Republicans.

So it's not as though they've just given a massive amount of cash to the Ukrainians, which, you know, their claims of corruption and everything else within Ukrainian government.

What is happening is that the United States has spent all that money on armaments within the United States, produced jobs, you know, created income and generated GDP within United States and then given them to, you know, obviously they've had to borrow this money or find that money somewhere themselves.

But that's suddenly that's going to be, you know, a significant impact on industrial production in the United States as well, certainly within the defense sector.

So, you know, how does that transition as well?

We'll have to find that out.

It's, you know, just see what happened.

I suspect there will be some backlash in 2026, but who knows.

But do you think though that potentially Ukraine is just becoming a bit of a pawn in these sort of domestic power plays between Biden and Trump?

Because Biden, let's not forget, was the person who said no to allowing Ukraine to use long range missiles in Russia only a few months ago.

And now suddenly that he's a lame duck, Trumps the president elect, the Democrats don't have to take responsibility for what comes next.

It just, it feels like suddenly this u turn, there's something a bit, a bit more political in that.

There is a sort of, there is an idea or a feeling that this is, this is sort of at last desperate throw the dice for Biden, as you rightly put, you know, they're desperately trying to get things through in terms of Justice Department as well, trying to get judges appointed before Trump takes office.

Of course, you know, everybody's trying to, all the Republicans are trying to stall that process because, you know, once they're in, like they're in.

I do think that there is something along those lines that, you know, that Biden has changed his mind about this, about the situation.

Would you have changed his mind if, if Harris had won?

Probably not, but they'll probably, you know, Ukraine would have felt that it would have had continued American support beyond January 2025, which, you know, we've heard Zelensky saying that the war is likely to come to come to an end.

What, what has been clear over the last how many weeks?

Two weeks since the election?

Only two.

It felt longer from the Tuesday morning to the Wednesday night that I stayed at 36 hours.

But yeah, it feels as though, it feels as though that has been Ukraine's positions in those two weeks, is trying to position itself as best as it can for those negotiations.

And even with the use, the sending of missiles, which they did yesterday, I think they're, they sent six.

According to, according to the Russians, they used those missiles yesterday.

So we'll, we'll see what happens there.

But, but yeah, I think you're absolutely right there, there is a political nature to that support, but it would have been, it's perhaps too little too late.

Should we say that perhaps if they'd done this back in March, April, it might have been very different.

Of course that would have had an impact on the election.

Yeah.

But as we're seeing though, you know, that the repercussions of the U.S.

making that decision is that Russia have responded by amending their nuclear doctrine, which might just be an intimidation tactic, but you know, because at the end of the day, if they want to use their nuclear weapons, they'll, they'll use them, write a bit of paper that says what they can and can't do is, you know, kind of by the by, but it's, it's, I think it shows it this clear compromisation of the US Russia relationship.

And at what point does that become irreparable?

Well, I think we'll see a very different relationship after Trump takes office.

He does seem to get on well with Putin.

You know, there is an idea that there was suggestion that they have a working relationship even when they weren't, even when Trump wasn't in office.

It's interesting.

I've got a 20 year old son and speaking to him about the situation, he is very fearful.

You know, what's Biden doing?

He's trying to start a nuclear war.

And I said, you should have lived through the 70s and 80s.

That was a completely different, you know, we were really fearful of nuclear war happening, you know, with Reagan and so on.

And I don't feel that I'm perhaps just because I'm older, I don't feel as though I have that same anxiety about nuclear doctrine within, you know, Russia wouldn't, Russia wouldn't gain any advantage from using nuclear weapons and it would not want to sour that relationship with the United States before Trump comes into office.

Because Trump would be forced to take action if that was, if that's the case.

And I think that they are very much, if I was, if I was Putin now, I would be very much looking forward to Trump coming into office, keeping him happy because the idea is that he's going to be then supportive of their efforts in Ukraine.

And I don't think that, you know, it's been a lot of bluster and bluff on Putin's party, you know, that sort of brinksmanship diplomacy, very Cold War like.

And that's why perhaps I'm so used to that sort of stuff.

You notice.

Well, you know, it happened all the time that I just don't think that that's a realistic path for which the, the Russians will take.

So again, I could be, you know, we could be ordering a nuclear winter in six months, six weeks time.

Who knows?

I could be completely wrong, but I just don't, I don't see that.

I think that is really just essentially as grandstanding.

He has to, he has to appeal to his own political base and he also has to act as the hard man that he wants to be portrayed of.

So I think it's just, it's just braggadocio, I think, on his part.

Yeah, I mean, I do agree.

I don't think Russia is silly enough to do anything until Trump is in office because why responds to a president that's going to be out the door in a couple of months.

But I do think that that creates a bit of a tricky scenario for future Trump in that he's going to hit this impasse, right, where if he does have a positive working relationship with Putin, there's going to be a point at which he has to decide does he, does he side with Russia and force Ukraine to give up land or does he stick with Ukraine and continue to fight off Russia with them because he's promised to end the war and they're really the only two options he has?

Yeah, I think, I think, I think, you know, most people are second guessing that he's just going to simply tell Zelensky that there'll be no more support and that's the end of it.

And you know, any authorization for use of US Arsenal inside, inside Russia is withdrawn.

I think he'll put the pressure on Ukraine perhaps also maybe do a sweetener in that.

You know, we'll, we'll provide you with some financial support to rebuild the country, obviously that, which, which we'll need doing, you know.

But at the same time, I, I think that, I think that Trump is, is fully aware of what he's doing, whether we see, we certainly won't see a Ukraine pre 20 2014, for example.

But I do think we may see Russia stepping back from some of its gains, not all of its gains, but some of its gains in order to get its other gains recognized by Ukraine.

That's the real damage to Ukraine's national sovereignty.

It's going to have to give up some of that territory.

Whether that's on top of Ukraine, sorry, on top of Crimea or as just Crimea, we'll find out.

Yeah.

And of course, I mean, we're recording this on the morning of the 20th of November.

Who knows what's going to happen in the next 24 hours before this episode actually goes live, let alone the next few weeks and months.

I'm sure as the US continues to be involved in that, we'll have a lot more to talk about on this podcast.

But for now, I guess it's a whole big watch this space and just hope it's not filled with a big old mushroom ground at some point.

But Dafin, thank you for joining me again to chat about all things America.

No doubt we'll get you back on the podcast at some point in future.

But for those who do want to connect with you, where can they do that?

So you can find me at Twitter Hanseth H A N E S Y double D I had to think how to spell it then.

Or you can find me on bluesky now, which is history David Bluesky's Social I think it is.

And you can also find me on LinkedIn.

Just search for my name on LinkedIn.

I'm there.

Happy to chat with anybody about the situation or anything else.

It's always good to talk about these things.

Awesome.

Well, thank you as always, Dafid.

And to those of you listening, do remember to follow the podcast rate review.

Tell us you're listening.

That'd be awesome.

And thanks again and goodbye.

Thanks for listening to A History in the Making.

If you enjoy the show, please go and check out our main episodes which drop every Tuesday.

And we've linked to some relevant episodes in the show notes for you as well.

Remember also to visit our Patreon page where you can support our show for just a few dollars a month.

You'll unlock some awesome perks and it helps us to keep the show going, which we really appreciate.

Thanks again for listening.

And until next time in pod, we trust.