The language and campaigns that gifted Trump Presidency

President-elect Donald Trump (Image: 10News)

I haven't been able to hide my disappointment about Hillary Clinton's failed attempt to be United States' 45th President. Her defeat to Donald Trump has sent shockwaves across the globe. From aspects of American society that didn't expect such event would happen to politicians that prayed for a different result, this election got everyone talking - and the debate isn't likely to go away anytime soon.

I know I shouldn't be disappointed - Donald Trump won't be my President as I don't live in the States. Yet with US's underlining global power and influence, whatever their administration pledges, would affect all of us in some capacity.

Now, Clinton and departing President, Barack Obama have accepted the result and have graciously done so. And I'm sure the protesters who, in recent nights, have taken to the streets showcasing their disgust over the election result, will calm and do what they can to influence the new government's decisions in the powerful and peaceful way that they can. But as an outsider, I'm able to compose myself and analyse how a businessman and reality TV presenter like Trump, follows the footsteps of Ronald Reagan, as a former actor, and influences enough people to give him the keys to the White House.

Trump's steps to victory have been utterly crucial to the way politicians, and we as human beings operate and succeed. His recipe was brutal in language, yet so effective, it can, in the strangest way possible, inspire many candidates (politically or in employment) for years to come - minus the brutality. This goes beyond immigration and jobs, which many believe Trump's views on these gifted him victory.

The first step to Trump's success was the use of simple words and sentences. It didn't matter what guff he uttered, the vast majority of us understood everything he spoke. He also emphasised his key policies in plain English for his targeted fans to grasp - "We're going to build a wall, it's going to be beautiful and they [Mexico] are going to pay for it." It's offensive and divisive to many, but we all know exactly what he is saying.

Let's compare his words to Clinton's. Her visions were fantastic and facing any other Republican candidate, her pledges would have been heard in greater volumes. However, when her website comes up with lines like "Overturn Citizens United - the Supreme Court case that unleashed hundreds of millions of dollars in corporate and special-interest money into US elections," - as good a policy that may be, that's surely going to drift 'disconnected' voters away. If she were to be inspired by speeches from Winston Churchill and Martin Luther King, using punchy, simple and headline-grabbing lines that stick into our minds for decades, her chances for getting her message across would have increased massively.

It's healthy to use fancy words but it isn't going to attract new interest. You won't be stooping to divisive levels that Trump used, though, convey your passions simply, rather than comprehensively. He may not think it, but the Republican's victory can be a firm lesson to learn for Jeremy Corbyn of Labour (here in the UK) if he wants to be anywhere near to being the occupant of 10 Downing Street. Using words that risk of complicating the majority of the public isn't going to help anyone. Simplicity will cure politicians and the so-called 'elite' from the stigma that overshadows them.

Of course, what you say comes with reputation of the individual. And it's fair to say that both Trump and Clinton had their share of scrutiny - by the public, officials and media. Yet, it's Trump, branded a misogynist, racist, narcissist, anti-environmentalist, and every other derogatory name under the sun, emerged victorious against Clinton, who's supposedly biggest crime was using a private email server and being 'part of the establishment'. Most of us can agree that this was a brutal and personal, political campaign from both sides and has led people to believe that whoever they voted for would be 'the lesser of two evils'. For that, I blame social media.

Think about it, if we saw Trump v Hillary Clinton up to the years Bill Clinton was President, I doubt we'd ever see or hear about either candidates' flaws to the extent we have these past months. In my view, it has poisoned people's minds, emphasising the mistakes, misinformed comments and actions made by both front-runners, and it therefore heightened the anger of those who felt their voice weren't heard. We've seen it during the UK general election last year, the EU referendum last June and also with the US election just concluded. This is a vicious cycle that unfortunately isn't going to disappear anytime soon. Sadly, even I've been part of this guilty party. The power of social media entices people like myself to get so involved that we are blinded by the real issues at hand.

We're now in a situation whereby whatever election we face, both sides of the debates are radicalised and executed in a way that whoever wins, regardless of the margin, there's going to be outcry and outrage at levels never seen pre-social media. Newspapers and broadcasters usually get the stick for influencing key results - and they're still capable of doing so - but Twitter and the like are being abused in the same way papers were perceived to had done. The emotions that come out of it are echoed in ways I cannot describe.

It has come to the point that even if I ran for Prime Minister, as a person with a clean record, would be exposed for something insignificant (like Clinton and her emails) and would therefore, ultimately change the course of that election outcome. Today, political result isn't awarded by merit but by emotions - and that's gifted Trump his Presidency, and something that we're seeing not just in politics, but in business as well.

I just personally hope that a President Trump is able to unite a country clearly divided. He has a task at hand to really connect with those who abhor him - and I'm not just talking about the 60 million who voted Clinton. He has to heal wounds and relations with world leaders who he offended during his campaign. It's a really tough task but he has to put his diplomacy hat on and, in effect, 'sleep' with the 'political elite' in order for peace in America and beyond. And yes, that's likely to mean the possibility of turning his back on the people who really believed in his anti-Mexico, anti-China, and anti-Middle East rhetoric.