Massenbach-Letter. NEWS 18.11.16

Massenbach-Letter. News –Gallup:Half of Americans More Confident in Trump Since Election-

· NZZ: Putin baut den russischen Machtapparat um

· The Fate of Russia’s Liberals

· The End of Europe’s Comfort Zone

· Radio Vatikan: Syrien: „Aufnahme von Flüchtlingen zerstört unser Land“

· COLUMN-Trump’s empty threat to stop buying Saudi oil: Kemp – Reuters News

· West-Texas: Permian Oil Riches Rise as U.S. Sees Reserves Worth $900 billion

·

· Deutsche Bank Research: Jugendarbeitslosigkeit in der EU: Besserung in Sicht?

·

· Gallup: Women Lead Men on Key Workplace Engagement Measures

Massenbach* NZZ: Putin baut den russischen Machtapparat um.

Fast täglich verkündet der Kreml neue Personalentscheide für Regierung, Parlament und Verwaltung. Wladimir Putin schafft Platz für eine neue Generation und hievt viele jüngere Technokraten in Schlüsselpositionen. Ein starkes Signal für den internen Machtkampf des Kreml ist auch die Verhaftung von Wirtschaftsminister Alexei Uljukajew am Dienstag. Zum Kommentar .

Das russische Machtgefüge ist in Bewegung wie schon seit langem nicht mehr. Beinahe täglich werden personelle Veränderungen in Regierung, Parlament und Verwaltung verkündet. Eine der jüngsten aufsehenerregenden Personalien ist der von Präsident Putin angeordnete Wechsel von Wjatscheslaw Wolodin aus dem Kreml-Stab an die Spitze der Staatsduma; sein Vorgänger Sergei Naryschkin steht neu dem Auslandgeheimdienst SWR vor. Wolodin ist nicht nur für das Zitat «Ohne Putin gibt es heute kein Russland» bekannt. Vor allem leitete er seit dem Jahr 2011 als erster stellvertretender Leiter die mächtige Präsidialverwaltung und war damit massgeblich für die immer repressiver werdende Innenpolitik mitverantwortlich. Der Einfluss des Kremls auf das Parlament dürfte mit Wolodin noch direkter erfolgen, auch wenn sich die Volksvertretung schon längst davon verabschiedet hat, ein Ort selbständiger Politik zu sein.

Was steht hinter den Veränderungen im Machtapparat? Handelt der Kreml aus einer Zwangslage heraus? Stellt Putin die Weichen für seine Wiederwahl 2018 und bildet schrittweise ein ihm treu ergebenes Führungskader? Auffällig ist, dass nun viele Technokraten im Alter zwischen vierzig und fünfzig Jahren, die über lange Zeit hinweg im nationalen oder regionalen Staatsapparat sozialisiert worden sind, in Schlüsselpositionen gehievt werden. Eine neue Generation rückt nach. Die Wirtschaftskrise und knapper werdende Ressourcen stellen jedoch auch neue Anforderungen an die Effizienz. Strukturen werden verschlankt, der Konkurrenzdruck nimmt zu. Entsprechend werden Verfehlungen weniger geduldet, sondern Fehlbare wieder öfters öffentlichkeitswirksam getadelt oder gerade abgelöst.

Als Startpunkt dieser Entwicklung gilt der Rücktritt von Wladimir Jakunin als Chef der Russischen Eisenbahn im August 2015. Jakunin gehörte lange dem inneren Moskauer Machtzirkel an und ist seit den achtziger Jahren mit Putin bekannt. Sein Abgang als Spitzenfunktionär kann als Warnsignal an andere Staatsfirmen sowie Behörden gelesen werden, dass bei Missmanagement auch Nähe zum Präsidenten nicht vor Konsequenzen schützt. Dies musste ebenso Andrei Beljaninow erfahren, der nach Korruptionsaffären den Posten als Chef des Föderalen Zolldienstes räumen musste. Abgelaufen war im Frühjahr auch die Zeit von Wiktor Iwanow als Leiter der Behörde für Drogenkontrolle oder von Jewgeni Murow, dem Chef des Sicherheits- und Bewachungsdiensts für Präsident und Regierung. Diese beiden alten Freunde Putins waren zwar nicht skandalfrei, doch wird in erster Linie ihr fortgeschrittenes Alter für die Demission verantwortlich gemacht.

Ähnlich dürfte es sich bei Sergei Iwanow verhalten haben. Bis zu seinem Abgang als Leiter der Präsidialverwaltung im August galt er als eine der mächtigsten Figuren in der russischen Politik. Mit Putin verband ihn eine langjährige Beziehung. Wie der Präsident stammt er aus St. Petersburg und verfügt über einen Hintergrund beim Geheimdienst. Iwanows Profil steht dabei stellvertretend für eine der einflussreichsten Fraktionen der russischen Machtelite, die sogenannten Silowiki, hauptsächlich Angehörige der Sicherheitsorgane. Dieser Apparat gilt als eine der Stützen von Putins Regime. Gemäss Schätzungen sind in ihm beziehungsweise im Verteidigungs-, Innen- und Justizministerium sowie im Inlandgeheimdienst FSB und im Auslandgeheimdienst SWR mehr als vier Millionen Personen tätig.

Stärkung der Vertikalen

Sakrosankt sind die Sicherheitsstrukturen indes nicht. Angesichts von Budgetengpässen findet nun auch hier zuweilen ein massiver Personalabbau statt, gleichzeitig werden schon länger diskutierte institutionelle Umbildungen vorgenommen. Dazu gehört die Bildung einer Nationalgarde, wofür der Kreml Einheiten des Innenministeriums sowie die beiden Polizei-Spezialeinheiten Omon und Sobr zusammenlegte. Mit der Leitung betraute Putin General Wiktor Solotow, der zuvor an der Spitze der Truppen des Innenministeriums gestanden und viele Jahre die Präsidenten-Leibgarde kommandiert hatte.

Aus dem Silowiki-Umfeld ernannte Putin zwei Personen gar zu Gouverneuren in Tula und Kaliningrad, wobei die letztere Personalentscheidung nach zwei Monaten bereits wieder rückgängig gemacht wurde. Wie das Beispiel der Nationalgarde zeigt, fallen Reformprojekte oft mit der Stärkung der «Machtvertikale» zusammen, wird damit dem russischen Präsidenten doch ein weiteres mächtiges Instrument in die Hand gegeben. Dass dies Befürchtungen weckt, ist angesichts der nationalistischen Rhetorik des Kremls und der Repression gegen Andersdenkende verständlich.

Nervosität ist aber selbst bei den Silowiki zu spüren. Wie labil die Balance im weitverzweigten Sicherheitsapparat ist, zeigte sich beispielsweise im Sommer, als der Inlandgeheimdienst gegen zwei hochrangige Mitarbeiter des Ermittlungskomitees vorging, die angeblich in einen Bestechungsskandal verwickelt waren. Im Herbst legte der FSB zudem einem leitenden Offizier im Innenministerium das Handwerk, der über 120 Millionen Dollar veruntreut haben soll.

Besonders im ersten Fall spiegelt sich ein seit Jahren schwelender Konflikt über Machtbefugnisse und Kompetenzen. Dieser scheint nun vom FSB-Chef Alexander Bortnikow gegen das Ermittlungskomitee gewonnen zu werden. Das Komitee war 2007 als Konkurrenz zur Staatsanwaltschaft aufgebaut und später direkt dem Präsidenten unterstellt worden. Wegen Verwicklungen in kriminelle Machenschaften und fehlender Ermittlungserfolge geriet das Gremium aber seitens des Kremls zunehmend unter Druck. Seit Monaten reissen die Gerüchte nicht ab, dass der Leiter der Behörde, Alexander Bastrykin, ein Jugendfreund und Studienkollege Putins, vor dem Rücktritt stehe. Überdies spekulieren Medien über die Bildung eines Ministeriums für Staatssicherheit, also über eine noch grössere Bereinigung im nationalen Sicherheitsapparat.

Was auch immer die Entwicklungen bedeuten, von einer Schwäche des Kremls kann nicht die Rede sein. Im Gegenteil wird durch die Rotationen allzu selbstherrlichen Akteuren im Apparat signalisiert, dass niemand unberührbar ist. Das ist ein probates Disziplinierungsmittel, gerade in Zeiten knapper Mittel. Als ein solches kann auch die in der Nacht auf Dienstag erfolgte Festnahme und anschliessende Absetzung des Wirtschaftsministers Alexei Uljukajew gelesen werden. Ihm wird die Annahme von Schmiergeld in der Höhe von zwei Millionen Dollar vorgeworfen. Auch die Beförderung von jüngeren Kadern auf höchste Positionen ist für Putin kein Nachteil. Mit Anton Waino machte er einen 44-jährigen ehemaligen Diplomaten, der schon über beträchtliche Erfahrung im Regierungsapparat verfügte, zu seinem neuen Stabschef.

Dem Präsidenten verpflichtet

Loyale Bürokraten wie Waino sind in der heutigen Machtkonstellation gross geworden und haben als Präsidenten stets nur Putin gekannt, jenen schwer lesbaren, taktisch versierten, immer wieder ausserordentlich schnell und überraschend agierenden Machtmenschen. Ernsthafte Konkurrenz und Widerspruch sind von solchen Personen, die ihre Karriere primär Putin verdanken, weniger zu erwarten als von enttäuschten oder alten politischen Schwergewichten, die den Kremlchef noch aus Petersburger Zeiten kennen, wo man sich noch auf Augenhöhe begegnete.

Folgt man diesem Erklärungsansatz, können die Personalentscheide durchaus mit den Präsidentschaftswahlen im Frühjahr 2018 in Verbindung gebracht werden. Wladimir Putin wird dann 65 Jahre alt sein. Wenig spricht dagegen, dass er seine vierte Amtszeit anstreben und haushoch gewählt werden wird. Das Verharren im Kreml bietet ihm auch den grössten Schutz vor Retorsionen. Mit dem jüngst durchgesetzten Wechsel von Sergei Kirijenko von der Spitze der Atomenergiebehörde Rosatom zum ersten Stellvertreter der Präsidialverwaltung kann Putin gar in Anspruch nehmen, zumindest auf dem Papier einen Reformer an Bord geholt zu haben. Kirijenko gehörte wie der ermordete Kremlkritiker Boris Nemzow einst der Union der rechten Kräfte an und amtete 1998 kurze Zeit als Ministerpräsident. Natürlich spricht die Repression des Staates gegen die demokratische Opposition eine andere Sprache. Auch müssen politische Etikettierungen nichts heissen, genauso wenig wie die Spekulation, dass sich (Verweis) nun der Druck auf den Regierungschef Dmitri Medwedew erhöhen werde. Über seine Auswechslung wird seit Jahren gemutmasst. Doch warum eigentlich? Er spielte beim abgekarteten Ämtertausch 2012 mit Putin perfekt seine Rolle. Nun, vier Jahre später, erfüllt er ebenfalls einen wichtigen politischen Zweck, indem er die Frustrationen der Bevölkerung von seinem Mentor Putin abzulenken versteht.

Konkurrierende Gruppen

Das russische Machtsystem besteht allerdings nicht nur aus dem Staatsapparat. Putin bildete um sich ein informelles Netzwerk (siehe Infografik), das ihm nicht nur Einfluss auf unterschiedliche Interessengruppen aus Politik, Verwaltung und Wirtschaft gibt, sondern auch von Bedeutung für die Entscheidungsfindung und Ausgestaltung der Kreml-Politik ist. Wie es genau funktioniert, ist strittig. Putin selbst sprach einst von der «Vertikale der Macht», also von einer strikten Kommandostruktur. Russische Politologen sprechen mittlerweile treffender von einem amorphen Regierungssystem. Darin ringen verschiedene Machtgruppen um Einfluss. Es hat weder eine feste Struktur, noch sind die Allianzen starr, obwohl ihnen oft eine gemeinsame Geschichte, persönliche Abhängigkeiten und Verpflichtungen zugrunde liegen. Auch verändern sich die Interessen; Akteure können daher nicht immer klar dem einen oder anderen Lager zugeordnet werden.

Putin ist in einem solchen Netzwerk dominante Kraft und Moderator zugleich. Durch den Abgang Sergei Iwanows und vor dem Hintergrund andauernd geschürter Bedrohungsszenarien und patriotischer Mobilisierung dürfte Verteidigungsminister Sergei Schoigu seine Position gestärkt haben. Zusammen mit Ministerpräsident Medwedew stellten sie die Figuren mit dem derzeit wohl engsten Verhältnis zu Putin dar. Trotz seinem Wechsel an die Duma-Spitze ist Wolodin weiterhin zu den einflussreichsten Personen zu rechnen, auch deswegen, weil ihn Putin erst kürzlich zum ständigen Mitglied des mächtigen Sicherheitsrates bestimmt hat.

In die oberste Elite sind Waino und Kirijenko vorgestossen. Zum inneren Machtzirkel gehören zudem potente Personen wie Igor Setschin, ursprünglich ein Silowik und derzeit Chef des Mineralölkonzerns Rosneft, die Milliardäre Arkadi Rotenberg (Baubranche) und Gennadi Timtschenko (Erdöl) oder der Manager Sergei Tschemesow (Rüstungsindustrie). Einige Magnaten mussten in diesem Jahr zwar Razzien in Teilen ihres Firmenimperiums über sich ergehen lassen. Insgesamt bleiben aber die Energieindustrie wie auch der Finanzsektor bis jetzt von grösseren personellen Umbildungen verschont.

Gleich korrupt wie früher?

Wichtig für das Funktionieren und die Stabilität von Putins Regime wird sein, ob es ihm auch künftig gelingt, den Zugriff auf Ressourcen und Machtpositionen derart zu verwalten, dass der Konsens in der Elite erhalten bleibt. Vorerst zeichnet sich keine Kursänderung ab. Wie in der Wirtschaft deuten im politischen Apparat die Zeichen auf Stagnation hin. Von der Bevölkerung und der Opposition ist keine Reaktion zu erwarten. Für viele ist es so lediglich eine Frage des Masses, wie stark sich die nachrückende Generation ebenfalls gierig über die Ressourcen des Lands hermachen wird und weiterhin eine Politik nicht für das russische Volk, sondern für die Mehrung der eigenen Macht und des persönlichen Wohlstands betreiben wird.

Politik-Korrespondent Daniel Wechlin

http://www.nzz.ch/international/europa/umbesetzungen-in-russland-putin-spielt-mit-den-vasallen-ld.128625?mktcid=nled&mktcval=107_2016-11-16**********************************************************************************************************************

The Fate of Russia’s Liberals

Geopolitical Diary – November 16, 2016 | 01:06 GMT

Russia’s economic and political problems are piling up, and they may be putting members of the country’s more liberal circles at risk. In the most high-profile arrest to be made in post-Soviet Russia — and arguably, since the 1950s — Economic Minister Alexei Ulyukayev was detained Tuesday on charges of bribery and extortion.

According to Russian authorities, Ulyukayev received $2 million from state-owned oil giant Rosneft in exchange for approving the company’s purchase of the Bashneft oil firm. The sudden arrest has topped the headlines throughout the day. Ulyukayev was paraded through court, and a stream of Kremlin officials expressed their shock at the accusations against him. But the arrest has also raised some disturbing questions about President Vladimir Putin’s involvement in the incident and the fate of the country’s remaining liberal elites.

Ulyukayev has been a prominent figure in Russian politics for 25 years, rising through the ranks of Putin’s administration to reach the top of the Ministry of Economic Development in 2013. Widely viewed as one of Russia’s most liberal economic minds, Ulyukayev has pushed for deep structural reforms that include reducing the state’s control over and intervention in the economy. Under pressure from the government’s more hawkish factions, however, he has been repeatedly forced to revise his proposals for change.

One of the minister’s biggest political battles has centered on his bid to partially privatize Rosneft. The controversial move, intended to loosen the Kremlin’s grip on the oil firm, has pitted him against one of Russia’s most powerful politicians: Rosneft chief Igor Sechin. But the oil tycoon recently offered the Kremlin a deal. In return for Moscow’s permission to take over Bashneft, the country’s sixth-largest oil firm, he would agree to allow Rosneft’s partial privatization. Ulyukayev, along with many other liberal economists (and at the time, Putin himself), vocally opposed the deal, which he considered to be an attempt by Sechin to expand his own power base. In the past few weeks, however, Ulyukayev appeared to be reconsidering his stance before suddenly throwing a wrench in the talks by threatening to privatize an even larger share of Rosneft in 2017. The threat, which would have left the government with a minority stake in the company, was peculiar: It came at a time when the Kremlin and Rosneft seemed to have reached a temporary truce, and Ulyukayev seemed to be acting alone.

Regardless, it is clear that Ulyukayev crossed Sechin and is now paying dearly for it. The investigation against the economy minister has been in the works for months, and it has been spearheaded by the Federal Security Service’s economic crimes unit — a group that was purged at the end of July and replenished by Sechin’s closest supporters. (The unit is even known as Sechin’s "personal task force.") Weeks later, the Investigative Committee (the force that made today’s arrest) was similarly cleared out and restaffed in what many saw as a power grab by Sechin, giving him the tools to target high-ranking officials for financial crimes.

According to the allegations being leveled against Ulyukayev, he received $2 million in bribes from Rosneft just before his arrest. The charges are questionable, however, for a number of reasons. For one, Ulyukayev would have known that threatening Sechin had its risks, and the amount of money in question is fairly small compared with the massive funds at Rosneft’s and Sechin’s disposal. If the charges stick, Ulyukayev will become the highest-ranking Kremliner to be found guilty of criminal charges since the arrest and execution of Soviet security chief Lavrentiy Beria in 1953. Even the members of the "Gang of Eight," who attempted to launch a coup against Mikhail Gorbachev in 1991 before the Soviet Union fell, were nearly all given amnesty or acquitted. (One of the gang’s members committed suicide.) In fact, when Russian ministers or elites fall, they are almost always shuffled into different posts instead of forced out in disgrace.

Today’s arrest marked an unexpected and extreme exception that was put on display for all to see. Whereas Sechin’s role in Ulyukayev’s reversal of fortunes is fairly obvious, Putin’s is not. Presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Putin was aware of the investigation, but he gave no hint as to whether the president backed or pursued it. Either way, the Kremlin will undoubtedly spin the arrest as proof of the government’s toughness on corruption, no matter the rank of those implicated. But if Sechin built his case against Ulyukayev without first getting Putin’s blessing, it would be a notable demonstration of Sechin’s power at a time when the president is growing concerned by challenges to his reign emanating from the Russian elite. Should Sechin have acted on his own, Putin may choose to put him in his place by forcing him to drop the charges, arranging for Ulyukayev’s acquittal, or curbing Rosneft’s clout.

Alternatively, Sechin could have coordinated the arrest with Putin, a troubling sign of a crackdown on Russia’s liberal circles to come. As the country’s economic and demographic problems worsen, Moscow is becoming more hawkish and autocratic in its policies at home and abroad. Ulyukayev may just be the first victim of a sweeping effort to target the reformist and progressive figureheads among the Russian elite. But until more information emerges, the question of whether Ulyukayev was simply caught in a struggle between Russia’s most powerful men or was made an example of by an increasingly aggressive Kremlin will go unanswered.

https://www.stratfor.com/geopolitical-diary/fate-russias-liberals?id=be1ddd5371&uuid=2d8834cc-cb21-4362-adf2-840f9843664a

************************************************************************************************************************

Policy= res publica

Freudenberg-Pilster* Jugendarbeitslosigkeit in der EU: Besserung in Sicht?

Die Europäische Kommission hat im Rahmen der Halbzeitüberprüfung des Haushalts vorgeschlagen, die Mittel für Programme zur Bekämpfung von Jugendarbeitslosigkeit deutlich aufzustocken. Wie ist der Vorstoß vor dem Hintergrund der Arbeitsmarktsituation für junge Menschen in Europa zu beurteilen? Den vollständigen Text finden Sie hier:

http://www.dbresearch.de/MAIL/DBR_INTERNET_DE-PROD/PROD0000000000425208.xhtml

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Gallup: Women Lead Men on Key Workplace Engagement Measures

by Jane Miller and Amy Adkins

Story Highlights

· Women lead men on most engagement items

· Female managers‘ teams are more engaged

· Companies should strive to hire and develop more female managers

Gender diversity strengthens a company’s financial performance.

Research from Gallup and many other organizations demonstrates this. Women bring distinctive viewpoints, ideas and insights to the workplace, and diverse perspectives lead to superior performance at the business-unit level.

Women bring another valuable advantage to their employers — higher levels of employee engagement. Engaged employees are involved in, enthusiastic about and committed to their work. These employees contribute to their organization positively. Gallup has found concrete links between employee engagement and crucial performance measures, including absenteeism, turnover rates, productivity and profit.

In the U.S.:

· 32% of all employees are engaged

· 35% of female employees are engaged

· 29% of male employees are engaged

· 41% of female managers are engaged

· 35% of male managers are engaged

Female managers are also better at engaging their employees than their male counterparts are. Employees who work for a female manager are six percentage points more engaged, on average, than those who work for a male manager. Female employees who work for a female manager are the most engaged; male employees who report to a male manager are the least engaged.

Engagement is the most important factor for empowering individuals, teams and organizations to perform with excellence. And while outcomes matter, organizations often forget that engagement is also highly emotional. When employees are engaged, they work with passion and feel a profound connection to their jobs. They view their jobs as energizing and rewarding, and they like where and how they spend their days.

In the U.S., working women have the engagement edge. But there is an important caveat: While female employees have higher levels of engagement than male employees, only slightly more than one-third of women are engaged at work.

Women Lead Men on Most Engagement Items

Female employees have been more engaged than male employees throughout Gallup’s history of tracking employee engagement.

Job choice may explain some of the difference in engagement levels between men and women. Our data show that a higher percentage of men than women say they work in manufacturing and production jobs, which are consistently linked to lower engagement levels. On the other hand, more women than men say they work in professional jobs, which are associated with higher engagement levels.

Along with the job they choose, employees have workplace needs. They look to their companies — most often their managers — to provide them with essential tools and information to do their jobs, to know and value them as people, to inspire their sense of belonging, and to support their professional development. When companies — and managers — meet these needs, engagement increases, and when they don’t, it falters.

Gallup’s Q12 employee engagement data show that female employees are more likely than their male counterparts to believe that their companies meet their workplace needs. Specifically, female employees outscore male employees on 11 of the 12 employee engagement survey items and outscore male employees considerably on five of those items.

Women Outscore Men on Most Employee Engagement Items

How much women outscore men
pct. pts.
Q01. I know what is expected of me at work. +3
Q02. I have the materials and equipment I need to do my work right. +4
Q03. At work, I have the opportunity to do what I do best every day. +6
Q04. In the last seven days, I have received recognition or praise for doing good work. +10
Q05. My supervisor, or someone at work, seems to care about me as a person. +6
Q06. There is someone at work who encourages my development. +8
Q07. At work, my opinions seem to count.
Q08. The mission or purpose of my company makes me feel my job is important. +6
Q09. My associates or fellow employees are committed to doing quality work. +3
Q10. I have a best friend at work. +2
Q11. In the last six months, someone at work has talked to me about my progress. +3
Q12. This last year, I have had opportunities at work to learn and grow. +2
The Q12 items are Gallup proprietary information and are protected by law. You may not administer a survey with the Q12 items or reproduce them without consent.
Gallup

Female Managers‘ Teams Are More Engaged

Employee engagement is a puzzle for many managers, but female managers are more successful than their male counterparts at figuring out how to put the pieces together. Employees who work for female managers give higher ratings to nearly all of Gallup’s employee engagement survey items than do employees who work for male managers.

The greatest differences in ratings between male and female managers are on items related to development. For example, employees who work for a female manager are 1.3 times more likely than those who work for a male manager to "strongly agree" that there is someone at work who encourages their development.

This finding suggests that female managers surpass their male counterparts in cultivating potential in others and helping define a bright future for their employees. This does not mean female managers are more likely than male managers to promote their associates. But it could signify that women are more apt than men are to find stimulating tasks that challenge their employees, thus ensuring that associates develop in their current roles and beyond.

Female managers are not only more likely than male managers to encourage their employees‘ development, but they are also more inclined to check in frequently on their employees‘ progress. Those who work for a female manager are 1.3 times more likely than those who work for a male manager to "strongly agree" that someone at work has talked to them about their progress in the last six months. This finding suggests that female managers, more so than male managers, tend to provide regular feedback to help employees achieve their developmental goals.

Overall, female managers eclipse their male counterparts at setting basic expectations for their employees, building relationships with their employees, encouraging a positive team environment and providing employees with opportunities to develop in their careers.

Find the Best Managers

Managers are key to engagement. They are responsible for not only ensuring that employees can successfully do their jobs, but also that employees feel cared for personally and professionally.

While female employees are somewhat more engaged than male employees, engagement is still a significant area of opportunity for many U.S. organizations. To move the needle on engagement, hire and promote people into manager roles who understand the value of treating people as people. Look for candidates who naturally want to help others succeed, and compensate managers on how well they retain, engage and develop people.

When hiring managers, talent and fit to role are most important, but organizations should strive to hire and develop more female managers.

Gallup data show that female managers‘ teams are more engaged than male managers‘ teams, and the more engaged a team is, the more it delivers on business outcomes such as profitability and productivity.

To make gender diversity in management more than just talk, start tracking success through metrics. Implementing programs can help raise awareness of an organization’s initiatives, but keeping track of hard numbers and their subsequent increases creates accountability and change. Measure metrics annually, and applaud improvements as they happen.

Learn more about what it takes to attract, engage and retain a gender-diverse workforce. Download Women in America: Work and Life Well-Lived.

http://www.gallup.com/businessjournal/197552/women-lead-men-key-workplace-engagement-measures.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication

****************************************************************************************************************** Politics: From Vision to Action

Barandat* Carnegie Europe: The End of Europe’s Comfort Zone

By Judy Dempsey

Shortly before Donald Trump was elected U.S. president on November 8, leading EU officials paid a visit to NATO’s headquarters in Brussels. Led by Nathalie Tocci, who is the top security and foreign policy adviser to the EU’s foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, the delegation spent two hours briefing the alliance’s ambassadors during their regular Wednesday meeting of the North Atlantic Council.

Tocci explained in detail the implications of the EU’s global strategy, a document that sets out Europe’s foreign, security, and defense ambitions. The EU, she told her audience, was not set on establishing an army—contrary to what Jean-Claude Juncker, the European Commission president, keeps calling for. The union had no intention of duplicating the alliance. That would be a waste of money and resources. Nor was it in competition with NATO, a race that would be impossible to win.

Instead, Tocci wanted to explain how NATO and the EU could and should work together, something on which the two organizations agreed during the NATO summit in Warsaw in July 2016. She also explained how and why the EU had to be much more strategic on security and defense issues.

This need for the EU to take a hard look at its security and foreign policies has taken on an urgency since Trump was elected U.S. president. That’s not only because Trump has called some of America’s European allies free riders or said that the alliance might even be “obsolete.” It’s also because he has called into question the value of the transatlantic relationship. That is what scares Eastern as well as Western European allies.

For the first time since 1949, when NATO was founded, Europeans no longer have the luxury of taking the pillar of transatlantic security for granted. It is that—not the refugee crisis, not the eurozone crisis, not the rise of populist movements across Europe, not Brexit—that is finally shaking Europeans out of their comfort zone that they had become so used to.

And because they assumed the United States would always provide a security guarantee and be the guardian of their collective defense, Europeans didn’t bother to question that arrangement. Nor did they protect it by spending more and wisely on military capabilities in ways that would have reassured the United States that they were not free riding. Nor did they take their own security and defense seriously. Those times are now coming to an end.

The responses of some European leaders to Trump’s (unclear) views on the transatlantic relationship encapsulate both the fantasies and the possibilities of how Europe can reshape its security and defense policy. The idea that the EU can have its own army, which has become Juncker’s clarion call, is simply not going to fly—at least, not in the coming decades. There is neither sufficient political will nor available financial resources.

Christoph Heusgen, the foreign and security adviser to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, slapped down the idea of a European army. “A European army is just a buzzword,” he said during a conference organized by the German Federal Academy for Security Policy on November 14. “A European army would not be supported by [the German] parliament. It would not be possible.” By all means, he added, Europe should develop its security and foreign policies much further, but there should be “no duplication” with NATO. “NATO is the main pillar. NATO is the pillar of German policy.”

Other countries, particularly the Baltic states, support Germany’s views because they don’t believe that other Europeans can guarantee their protection by means of a collective defense clause—although in the future, that shouldn’t be ruled out. As things stand, the EU’s 2009 Lisbon Treaty has a reference to mutual assistance and solidarity. The clause states that “if an EU country is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other EU countries have an obligation to aid and assist it by all the means in their power.” Implementation of that clause requires a whole range of capabilities—military, logistics, and intelligence, to name just a few—that the EU as a whole does not yet have.

Trump’s victory could change this. The conclusions of the meeting of EU foreign ministers on November 14 reveal a hardheaded realism about what the member states have to do to increase their defense and security. It is a question of “addressing further Europe’s current and future security and defence needs, [enhancing] its strategic autonomy and [strengthening] its ability to cooperate with partners,” the conclusions state. If that sounds woolly, read the rest. Mogherini’s team spelled out in detail what was needed for the EU to carry out civilian missions and military operations. (Yes, military operations.)

These tasks will take time, money, and political will to implement. No doubt, populist leaders who believe their own countries can go it alone will balk—if not oppose—a stronger security and defense policy for Europe because it would mean some form of integration. But for once, among most EU governments, there is now an awareness that Europe’s comfort zone has come to an end. It’s not going to return.

http://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/?fa=66139&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWW1VM01qUmpaak13WWpnMSIsInQiOiIrMnYwNHlWcThHbkdUdUkyc0tWcVdwK1cwZjhIZWk2UUhXMEpzYUcyelRPaEUxakxBQlJnK0NUZkZrcm1PSWxNcTNkWlliWUx6RTdBZm1tRVh0eTNwcHZYWTZLNjZIc0Y5cTM5VndXN0xrZz0ifQ%3D%3D

Radio Vatikan: Syrien: „Aufnahme von Flüchtlingen zerstört unser Land“

„Wenn Ihr uns wirklich helfen wollt, dann beendet endlich diesen Krieg und lasst uns Christen weiter in unserer Heimat Syrien leben.“ Mit deutlichen Worten hat der griechisch-katholische melkitische Erzbischof von Aleppo, Jean-Clement Jeanbart, die westliche Syrien-Politik kritisiert. Die Menschen in Syrien, vor allem auch in Aleppo, würden seit fünf Jahren unvorstellbar leiden, so Jeanbart gegenüber Kathpress.

Die Menschen in der heftig umkämpften nordsyrischen Metropole lebten Tag und Nacht in Angst. Bomben und Granaten könnten jederzeit einschlagen und Tod und Verderben bringen. Die aus der ganzen Welt nach Syrien geströmten Terroristen würden überall, wo sie können, Terror verbreiten, so der Bischof: „Sie haben schon so viele Unschuldige getötet, Männer, Frauen und Kinder.“ Die Christen fürchteten sich vor der Zukunft. Dass ihre Kinder unter der Herrschaft eines fundamentalistischen islamistischen Systems leben müssten, sei eine Horrorvorstellung für die Menschen.

In Aleppo lebten einst 3,5 Millionen Menschen. Jetzt sind es laut Erzbischof Jeanbart noch 1,5 Millionen. Von den 160.000 Christen sind nur mehr 60.000 in der Stadt. Die Stadt ist geteilt in einen westlichen Teil, der von der Regierung und ihren Verbündeten gehalten wird, und den östlichen Teil, in dem die „Rebellen“ ihre Stellungen halten. Christliches Leben gibt es nur mehr im Westteil. „Europa spricht so oft von Freiheit, Gerechtigkeit, Menschenrechten, sogar den Tieren wird Würde gegeben. Geben Sie uns auch Würde und respektieren Sie uns! Tun Sie etwas für uns! Wir werden zerstört, wir wollen aber da bleiben, wo wir sind.“

Clinton stünde für „Politik der Zerstörung Syriens"

Jeanbart erläuterte ebenfalls, weshalb die Menschen im Nahen Osten den künftigen Präsidenten Donald Trump weit positiver sehen würden als viele im Westen: „Das Positive an Trump: Wir wissen noch nicht, was er zu tun gedenkt. Da gibt es wenigstens eine Chance, dass es eine bessere Entwicklung gibt. Bei Frau Clinton war es immer klar, dass sie weiter gemacht hätte, Syrien zu zerstören. Aber es stimmt, wir wissen noch nicht, was jetzt passieren wird.“

Im Syrien-Krieg könne es keine militärische Lösung geben, zeigte sich Jeanbart einmal mehr überzeugt. Die Konfliktparteien müssen zurück an den Verhandlungstisch und Kompromisse eingehen. Freilich räumte der Bischof ein, dass es mit den fundamentalistisch-terroristischen Gruppierungen keine Verhandlungen geben könne, bzw. diese daran auch gar nicht interessiert seien. Moderate Rebellengruppen würde es zum Teil noch geben, diese würden aber kaum noch eine Rolle spielen. Die Situation sei extrem kompliziert und unübersichtlich – ein Dilemma.

Kritik an Aufnahme christlicher Flüchtlinge

Zur Aufnahme christlicher Flüchtlinge aus Syrien äußerte sich der Bischof ebenfalls deutlich. „Sie helfen uns nicht, wenn sie Flüchtlinge in ihrem Land aufnehmen. Sie zerstören uns! Sie zerstören die Kirche und auch die Städte und das Land. Die Christen sind wichtige Elemente der Gesellschaft, positiv und wie das Salz im Essen oder Sauerteig für gutes Brot.“ Gerade darum brauche es so dringend Frieden.

Die Christen im Land wollten nichts anderes, als mit ihren muslimischen Mitbürgern in Frieden leben. Und die Mehrheit der Muslime wolle das auch, so Erzbischof Jeanbart. So gebe es beispielsweise auch im von Regierungstruppen kontrollierten Westteil von Aleppo keine Auseinandersetzungen zwischen Christen und Muslimen, sagte der Bischof. Jeder Bewohner, ob Christ, Muslim, Anhänger einer anderen Religion oder ohne Konfession müsse die gleichen Rechte und Pflichten als Bürger besitzen. Das sei die einzig mögliche positive politische Perspektive für Syrien. „Wenn Sie uns helfen wollen, dann helfen Sie uns den Krieg zu beenden und da zu leben, wo wir sind. Darum bitten wir Sie.“

(kap 16.11.2016 ord)

http://de.radiovaticana.va/news/2016/11/16/syrien_„aufnahme_von_flüchtlingen_zerstört_unser_land“/1272616

*******************************************************************************************************************

Middle East

COLUMN-Trump’s empty threat to stop buying Saudi oil: Kemp – Reuters News

16-Nov-2016 14:16:51

John Kemp is a Reuters market analyst. The views expressed are his own

By John Kemp

LONDON, Nov 16 (Reuters) – President-elect Donald Trump is very unlikely to restrict imports of crude oil from Saudi Arabia despite threats to do so issued during the election campaign.

Trump is first and foremost a showman and impresario rather than a policy wonk. Much of what he said on the campaign trail was intended to mobilise support rather than provide a detailed programme for government.

The media "never takes (Trump) seriously but it always takes him literally. I think a lot of voters who vote for Trump take Trump seriously but not literally," as technology billionaire Peter Thiel observed in October.

The prospect of an import ban on Saudi crude is one of those things he said that should not be taken seriously but was meant to galvanise support from oil workers hit by the downturn.

COMPENSATION DEMAND

Trump warned that he would be prepared to stop buying oil from Saudi Arabia unless the kingdom provided ground troops to fight Islamic State.

He also insisted the kingdom and other Gulf oil producers should compensate the United States for the enormous cost of providing them with military protection.

In fact he seemed preoccupied by compensation for U.S. military protection rather than ground troops.

"We are not being reimbursed for the our protection of many of the countries … including Saudi Arabia," Trump complained in an interview ("Donald Trump expounds his foreign policy views", New York Times, March 26).

"We protect countries, and take tremendous monetary hits protecting countries," Trump said. "We lose, monetarily, everywhere. And yet, without us, Saudi Arabia wouldn’t exist for very long."

Trump said the United States "desperately needed" oil from the Gulf a few years ago but now was on the verge of achieving energy independence thanks to the shale revolution.

The United States had found oil in places "we never thought had oil" with the result there is a glut with "ships out at sea that are loaded up and they don’t even know where to dump it".

"They’re closing wells all over the place," Trump said, presumably referring to marginally economic U.S. oil and gas wells being shut in owing to the slump in prices.

Trump has been supported by Continental Resources CLR.N Chief Executive Harold Hamm, who acted as one of the campaign’s principal advisers and has been tipped as a possible choice as energy secretary.

Hamm has in turn been critical about Saudi Arabia’s and OPEC’s role in the 1973 oil embargo and an evangelist for developing domestic oil and gas resources to provide energy independence ("How a North Dakota oil billionaire is helping shape Trump’s views on energy", Washington Post, June 6).

CARTEL, DUMPER OR BOTH?

The United States has always had a complicated relationship with Saudi Arabia and other members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries.

The complexity stems from the fact that United States is simultaneously one of the world’s largest oil producers as well as its largest consumer and a large net importer.

At times, U.S. policymakers have accused OPEC of being a cartel which has sought to keep prices artificially high to the detriment of U.S. motorists and other consumers.

But at other times the United States has accused Saudi Arabia and other OPEC members of flooding the market, dumping oil, and predatory pricing designed to put U.S. oil producers out of business.

The foundation of OPEC in 1960 was strongly criticised by the U.S. media for "interference with the principle of free enterprise" and the formation of an "international cartel".

Public hostility towards OPEC intensified following the Arab oil embargo in 1973/74 and the steep increases in the price of crude during the rest of the 1970s.

But OPEC was also criticised for flooding the global market during the price crisis of 1985/86 which resulted in widespread bankruptcies in oil-producing areas of the United States.

Vice-President George H W Bush was even sent to Riyadh to plead with Saudi Arabia to push up prices to save Texas producers.

More recently, OPEC has been blamed by some in the U.S. oil industry for price slumps in 1998/99 and again since 2014, provoking a new round of complaints about predatory pricing.

U.S. OIL INDEPENDENTS

Saudi Arabia and other OPEC members have always had a particularly fraught relationship with small and medium-sized "independent" oil producers of the United States.

U.S. independent oil producers have always been among the most vulnerable to price swings and therefore the most closely concerned with OPEC.

The major international oil companies have integrated operations which means they produce some oil within the United States but also import foreign crude to feed their refineries.

The integrated companies have always been strong supporters of free trade in both crude and refined products since it allows them to optimise their refinery production ("Oil, gas and government," Bradley, 1996).

But the independent oil producers have often favoured protectionist policies to blunt competition from cheap imported crudes.

During the 1950s and 1960s, rising production from the supergiant oilfields of the Middle East squeezed U.S. independents particularly hard.

The independents fought to restrict the amount of foreign crude that could be imported into the United States ("Energy policy in America since 1945", Vietor, 1984).

Pressure from the independents resulted in the introduction of quotas under the voluntary oil import program which became the mandatory oil import program in 1959 and lasted until 1973.

The Texas Independent Producers and Royalty Owners Association (TIPRO) openly supported the creation of OPEC in 1960 in the hope it would restrict foreign oil production and imports ("OPEC: the inside history", Terzian, 1985).

But as Middle East producers added millions of barrels per day of extra output in the 1960s, the Texas Railroad Commission imposed increasingly tough restrictions on domestic producers in a bid to stabilise prices.

U.S. independent producers were therefore big beneficiaries of the oil shocks of the 1970s and again from the rise in oil prices between 2004 and 2014.

But they have been at the forefront of complaints about dumping and predatory pricing by OPEC during the busts of the mid-1980s and again in the 1990s and since 2014.

U.S. oil producers have complained bitterly that foreign crude imports have continued and even increased since 2014 even as domestic oil drilling and output have fallen.

TRUMP’S OIL POLICY?

Given that independent oil and gas producers have been among Trump’s strongest supporters and advisers on energy issues, it is no surprise that his campaign views reflect their perspective and concerns.

Like most other aspects of Trump’s programme, the details of his energy policy have yet to be worked out.

But a future Trump administration is very unlikely to try to restrict oil imports for practical as well as political reasons.

The markets for crude and refined fuels are fundamentally global so it makes no sense to talk about achieving energy independence.

The United States has never relied on crude from the Middle East but its partners in Europe and Asia have been much bigger importers.

And the law of one price ensures that oil price shocks in Europe and Asia affect consumers in the United States.

Furthermore, the United States remains far from self-sufficient in crude. Even at the height of shale drilling boom, the country still needed to import more than 7 million barrels a day of crude to feed its refineries (http://tmsnrt.rs/2fYs2Kl).

Most refineries require a blend of light and heavy crudes to operate efficiently. While domestic shale oil is mostly very light, imported foreign crudes, especially from Saudi Arabia, are heavier, and needed for blending.

If a Trump administration banned oil imports from Saudi Arabia, the shortfall of medium and heavy crudes would have to come from other producers: Iraq? Iran? Russia? Venezuela?

The major oil companies, including Exxon and Chevron, which have significant political influence, will resist any efforts to restrict the choice of crudes available for their refineries.

Independent refiners, many of which are also politically connected, will also fiercely oppose any measures that restrict their crude selection and drive up input costs.

The United States cannot easily discriminate against imports from Saudi Arabia because both countries are members of the World Trade Organization and bound to extend each other most-favoured-nation treatment.

Thanks to the shale revolution, the United States has emerged as a major exporter of refined products including gasoline and distillate, so it has a strong interest in upholding free trade in oil and fuels.

Independent producers, led by Hamm’s own Continental, lobbied hard for Congress to lift the ban on domestic crude exports, citing the importance of free trade, so it would be inconsistent to ban imports.

Finally, the mandatory oil import programme was an administrative nightmare which failed to work properly and spawned a huge number of distortions, and no one wants to repeat that unhappy experience.

John Kemp

Senior Market Analyst

Reuters

******************************

West-Texas: Permian Oil Riches Rise as U.S. Sees Reserves Worth $900 billion

In a troubled oil world, the Permian basin is the gift that keeps on giving.

One portion, known as the Wolfcamp formation, was found to hold 20 Bbbl of oil trapped in four layers of shale beneath the desert in West Texas, the U.S. Geological Survey said in a report on Tuesday. That’s almost three times larger than North Dakota’s Bakken play and the single largest U.S. unconventional crude accumulation ever assessed. At current prices, that oil is worth almost $900 billion.

The estimate lends credence to Pioneer Natural Resources Co. CEO Scott Sheffield’s assertion that the Permian’s shale endowment could hold as much as 75 Bbbl, making it second only to Saudi Arabia’s Ghawar field. Pioneer has been increasing its production targets all year as drilling in the Wolfcamp produced bigger gushers than the Irving, Texas-based company’s engineers and geologists forecast.

“The fact that this is the largest assessment of continuous oil we have ever done just goes to show that, even in areas that have produced billions of barrels of oil, there is still the potential to find billions more,” Walter Guidroz, coordinator for the geological survey’s energy resources program, said in the statement.

Oil explorers have been flocking to the Permian basin in West Texas and New Mexico to tap deposits so rich that they generate profits despite the 2 1/2-year slump in crude prices. A race to grab land in the Permian has been the main driver of a surge of deals in the energy patch and the industry’s main source of good news.

Although the Permian has been gushing crude since the 1920s, its multiple layers of oil-soaked shale remained largely untapped until the last several years, when intensive drilling and fracturing techniques perfected in other U.S. shale regions were adopted. The Wolfcamp, which is as much as a mile (1.6 km) thick in some places, has been one of the primary targets of shale drillers.

ConocoPhillips, the world’s largest independent oil producer by market value, increased its estimate for the size of its Wolfcamp holdings on Nov. 10 to 1.8 Bbbl from 1 Bbbl last year. A day earlier, Concho Resources Inc. CEO Timothy Leach told investors and analysts on a conference call that two recent wells it drilled in the Wolfcamp were pumping an average of 2,000 bopd each.

Diamondback Energy Inc. disclosed last week that it has been drilling 10,000-foot horizontal wells in the Wolfcamp. Production from the wells has been as high as 85% crude, according to the Midland, Texas-based explorer.

For Apache Corp., a slice of the Wolfcamp and another Permian layer known as the Bone Spring are major components of the 3 Bbbl Alpine High discovery that the company announced in September. CEO John Christmann called Alpine High “a world class resource” during a Sept. 7 presentation at a Barclays Plc conference in New York.

The Wolfcamp shale also holds 16 Tcf of natural gas and 1.6 Bbbl of gas liquids, the geological survey said in a statement on Tuesday.

Source: www.worldoil.com

*********************************************************************************************************************

*Massenbach’s Recommendation*

Experts from Russia, Germany, Sweden and China Discuss Safety of Large-Scale Development Projects in Eurasia

20 october 2016 … held an international seminar “The Silk Road Economic Belt: In Search of EU’s and China’s Common Interests in the Field of Security.” This workshop is the fourth in a series of international events, aimed at analyzing various security challenges in Central and South Asia that can threaten carrying out major infrastructure, transport and logistics projects in Eurasia. On the other hand, the project involves identifying opportunities to minimize the risks and threats to security through implementing large-scale development projects …

http://russiancouncil.ru/en/inner/?id_4=8255#top-content

SIPRI – Projektseite.

The Silk Road Economic Belt and EU-China Security Cooperation

The Belt and Road Initiative—a development framework first introduced by the Chinese government in 2013—is expected to increase economic cooperation and connectivity in Eurasia. This will require a reconsideration of the overlapping security interests of the two economic powerhouses on each end of the Eurasian landmass: the EU and China. The objective of this project is to explore whether the Silk Road Economic Belt can facilitate security cooperation between the EU and China in Eurasian regions of common interest to both, Central and South Asia. The project will conduct research, regional track 1.5 workshops and a series of meetings with relevant experts in pivotal states, resulting in a SIPRI Policy Brief. This project is supported by and carried out in cooperation with the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES) …

https://www.sipri.org/research/peace-and-develoment/private-sector-and-peace/eu-china-cooperation-silk-road-economic-belt

Gallup:Half of Americans More Confident in Trump Since Election

by Art Swift

Story Highlights

· 51% in U.S. say they are "more confident" in Trump’s ability to serve

· Similar to post-election confidence in Bill Clinton, George W. Bush

· 19% of Hillary Clinton supporters more confident in Trump since election

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Fifty-one percent of U.S. adults say they are "more confident" in President-elect Donald Trump’s ability to serve as president based on his statements and actions over the past few days. The percentage "more confident" in Trump a few days after his election is similar to ratings when Bill Clinton and George W. Bush won their respective elections in 1992 and 2000.

U.S. Adults‘ Post-Election Confidence in President-Elect

More confident Less confident No difference/No opinion
% % %
Donald Trump 51 40 9
George W. Bush 54 28 18
Bill Clinton 53 26 21
Gallup; Nov 9-13, 2016; Dec 15-17, 2000; Nov 10-11, 1992

The fact that similar percentages of Americans say they have more confidence in Trump in the days after his election as did so for Bush and Clinton is notable, given that Trump is much less popular as president-elect than they were. Trump’s favorable rating measured 42% in the Nov. 9-13 survey, compared with Bush’s 59% and Clinton’s 58% after they were elected.

The difference between the 1992 and 2000 situations and today’s is that a higher percentage of Americans say Trump’s statements and actions over the past few days have made them "less confident" in his ability to serve as president than in those previous elections. Forty percent of Americans say they are "less confident" in Trump, as opposed to 28% for Bush in 2000 and 26% for Clinton in 1992. Fewer Americans say they have "no opinion" or say Trump’s actions and statements make "no difference" than was the case for the two former presidents.

Sharp Differences Between Trump, Clinton Voters on Trump Confidence

Trump and Hillary Clinton voters differ significantly in their confidence in Trump’s ability to serve as president since the election. While 95% of Trump voters say they are "more confident" in the president-elect, 19% of Clinton voters say the same. Only 2% of Trump voters say they are "less confident" in Trump, but 75% of Clinton voters express less confidence.

Post-Election Confidence in President-Elect, by Candidate Preference

More confident Less confident No difference/No opinion
% % %
Donald Trump
Trump voters 95 2 3
Clinton voters 19 75 7
George W. Bush
Bush voters 85 3 12
Gore voters 29 49 22
Bill Clinton
G.H.W. Bush voters 23 53 23
Bill Clinton voters 84 1 16
Perot voters 37 36 27
Gallup; Nov 9-13, 2016; Dec 15-17, 2000; Nov 10-11, 1992

After the contested 2000 election, which took five weeks and a Supreme Court decision to resolve, Americans were somewhat less polarized about their confidence in President-elect Bush than they are about Trump. In 2000, 85% of Bush voters were "more confident" in their candidate after the election’s resolution, compared with 29% of Gore voters.

In the 1992 three-way election, 23% of George H.W. Bush voters were "more confident" in Bill Clinton in the days after he was elected, while 84% of Clinton voters said the same. Ross Perot’s voters were evenly divided, with 37% saying they were "more confident" in Clinton and 36% saying they were "less confident."

More Men, Whites Have Confidence in Trump Post-Election

Trump’s campaign was embroiled in controversy over remarks he made about women and minorities. In the days after the election, 60% of men said they were "more confident" in Trump’s ability to serve as president, while 42% of women held the same opinion. Similarly, 61% of whites expressed more confidence in Trump, compared with 27% of nonwhites.

Post-Election Confidence in Donald Trump, by Gender and Race

More confident Less confident No difference/No opinion
% % %
Male 60 30 9
Female 42 50 9
White 61 30 9
Nonwhite 27 63 9
Gallup, Nov 9-13, 2016

Bottom Line

Trump’s victory has triggered a wave of protests across the U.S., with calls to abolish the Electoral College and denunciations of the president-elect’s policies. At the same time, many Trump supporters are excited to see their candidate take the country in a new direction. As it stands now, the overwhelming majority of Trump supporters remain confident in their candidate in the days after the election, while Trump has yet to win over Hillary Clinton’s supporters.

Overall, roughly the same percentage of Americans are "more confident" in Trump’s ability to serve as president based on his recent statements and actions, as was the case with Bush and Bill Clinton after they were elected. Trump’s similar results on this measure to Clinton’s and Bush’s are notable given Trump’s much lower favorability rating, which may portend a low approval rating once Trump assumes the presidency two months from now. At the very least, the higher percentage of Americans who express less confidence in Trump than they did in Bush and Clinton at similar junctures likely suggests that Trump may be more polarizing overall.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/197519/half-americans-confident-trump-election.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication

****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

*****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

see our letter on:

*Herausgegeben von Udo von Massenbach, Bärbel Freudenberg-Pilster, Joerg Barandat*

*****************************************************************************************************************************************

UdovonMassenbachMailJoergBarandat

Advertisements