|
Post by Christine on Nov 30, 2016 21:24:47 GMT -5
Trump won because he appealed to emotions, and too many people vote based on their emotions. In other words, we're all doomed.
ETA: to expound (now that I have my wifi back), my opinion is that most people who "swing" from party to party don't think critically about candidates or policies. They vote for what "sounds good" or "sounds like change." It's emotional. Obama capitalized on this in 2008, and he defeated Romney in 2012 because Romney was basically a kindergarten stick figure with a lot of money. Now, in 2016, most people had heard all the ZOMG Hillary Emails Benghazi spiel. Then comes Trump with "change" again (and fear, and all his incoherent/nebulous solutions, "believe me") and hammering home what a "nasty woman" Hillary was. It was a no-brainer for people who don't make a habit of engaging their brains anyway.
All those people didn't vote for Trump because they're white. They voted for Trump because they're emotional. Angry, pissed off, desperate, hopeful, excited, whatever. No intellect needed. Same way I'll wager a lot of those white people voted for Obama. Just because Obama happened to be a good president doesn't mean they made an intelligent choice in voting for him. It was still an emotional appeal, and an emotional vote, for a great many people then, as now. And forever shall be, God help us all.
For those who focus on policy, and who discuss and debate politics year round, on and off season, it's different, obviously. But I think we're in the minority. JMO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2016 21:49:35 GMT -5
Trump won because he appealed to emotions, and too many people vote based on their emotions. In other words, we're all doomed. You spelled DOOOOOOOMMMMMED wrong, Christine.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Nov 30, 2016 21:56:34 GMT -5
I heard it that way in my head. :greenie
|
|
|
Post by CG Admin on Nov 30, 2016 22:08:46 GMT -5
So, here's the way it is:
Most of the people here know each other from another message board. And many have histories with each other. Nothing to be done for that. It is what it is.
But that stuff IS NOT going to be dredged up here on public posts. End of story. Can't control yourself? Go away until you can.
I've deleted ohio49er's post that went down this road and Cass' post that correctly pointed out that this isn't allowed.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Dec 1, 2016 5:07:46 GMT -5
Trump won because he appealed to emotions, and too many people vote based on their emotions. In other words, we're all doomed. ETA: to expound (now that I have my wifi back), my opinion is that most people who "swing" from party to party don't think critically about candidates or policies. They vote for what "sounds good" or "sounds like change." It's emotional. Obama capitalized on this in 2008, and he defeated Romney in 2012 because Romney was basically a kindergarten stick figure with a lot of money. Now, in 2016, most people had heard all the ZOMG Hillary Emails Benghazi spiel. Then comes Trump with "change" again (and fear, and all his incoherent/nebulous solutions, "believe me") and hammering home what a "nasty woman" Hillary was. It was a no-brainer for people who don't make a habit of engaging their brains anyway. All those people didn't vote for Trump because they're white. They voted for Trump because they're emotional. Angry, pissed off, desperate, hopeful, excited, whatever. No intellect needed. Same way I'll wager a lot of those white people voted for Obama. Just because Obama happened to be a good president doesn't mean they made an intelligent choice in voting for him. It was still an emotional appeal, and an emotional vote, for a great many people then, as now. And forever shall be, God help us all. For those who focus on policy, and who discuss and debate politics year round, on and off season, it's different, obviously. But I think we're in the minority. JMO. Yes, those who focus on policy, and who discuss and debate politics year round, are a tiny minority. While you argue that voters are for the most part emotional, not rational in their decision-making, I think "superfically rational" is a much better way of looking at it. They vote for what they perceive are their short-term interests based on almost no accurate information regarding policies or their impacts. What I find most interesting about this post is that you are echoing, almost precisely, the thesis of Bryan Caplan in The Myth of the Rational Voter. This is also an argument straight out of the Public Choice playbook. I think you understand it, but don't yet believe it in your gut. I understand people who "want the state to work." I understand people who "think politics shouldn't be a battle for power." I understand that people want to "reject the idea that all the pols are out to trick us and government is inherently evil and the people will always lose." AAMOF, I used to be one of those people. I also understand that those views are mostly romantic, not realistic, and based on belief rather than sober analysis. And I understand that it takes a while for sober analysis to supplant emotional responses. Then I see posts like yours and it gives me hope for the long term.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Dec 1, 2016 8:08:28 GMT -5
Don't get your hopes up, Don.
Your view isn't realistic, either. In fact it comes across as belief as much as anything else. (Especially with the One Ring/Mordor references and especially when I'm all but proselytized every time I give my opinion on something, and especially with the metaphorical there-there pat on the head and the "it takes a while for sober analysis to supplant emotional responses.")
Some libertarians have an almost religious belief in "the individual" and "freedom" and in the certainty that things would all work just fine and dandy without organization and leadership and structure. They have all kinds of faith in people, right up until the point those people go to work in government, then they suddenly become orcs.
Yes, our system needs fixing, a major overhaul, even, and the most realistic thing a person can do is to work with what currently is, toward that goal. The most unrealistic thing a person can do is go on and on about how it's all rigged and evil state is out to get us and lol stupid people.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Dec 1, 2016 9:09:22 GMT -5
It's also typical libertarian strawmanning. "All you stupid people think it's just fine when the government does X." Well, no, more often than not, we don't think it's fine, we just are not convinced that your proposed solution will be an improvement. "All you stupid people have not yet realized that (terrible truth that only libertarians comprehend, because if you truly grasp it you would have no choice but to become a libertarian)." Or, maybe the world is complicated and actually, most people do realize that every form of government is going to be corrupt and screwed up on some level, including any hypothetical libertarian government.
Don, you never actually use the word "sheeple," but don't think it isn't obvious that the sentiment is there. You are not the sole sober thinker out there in a sea of emotional irrational voters. Nor on this board.
|
|
|
Post by CG Admin on Dec 1, 2016 9:41:06 GMT -5
Re the last three posts: I don't object to this discussion, or at least the angle of it, at all. In fact, I love it. But let's try to frame it around non-specific people, even if some of us fit the specifics very well. I use "sheeple" all the time, for instance. And Amadan's admonitions can be applied fairly to me, as well. And again, there are references to past statements/discussions not on this board. Cut it out. Don is still free to respond, I just want to avoid a "no but you" style back and forth. FWIW, I don't think that was going to necessarily happen here, but if we want new voices, we have to leave room for them.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Dec 1, 2016 15:27:22 GMT -5
Not only will the system need an overhaul if it's ever expected to work, so will the voters. Unfortunately, most of them have more critical things to deal with, so I'm not expecting any improvements soon. And I'm still waiting for that seminal work that will destroy my understanding of the political system as described by Public Choice Theory, or even some evidence that the preponderance of government activities fail to fall under that theory. In the years since I've become aware of Public Choice, I've never seen a believable rebuttal. I've changed my mind innumerable times in my life, but it takes evidence to do so, not simply claims to the contrary. When I was very young, I was even a fan of Marx... before I read Mises' rebuttal.
|
|