Does prospect theory explain Trump and Brexit votes?(cognitionandculture.net)
cognitionandculture.net
Does prospect theory explain Trump and Brexit votes?
http://cognitionandculture.net/blog/christophe-heintzs-blog/does-prospect-theory-explain-trump-and-brexit-votes
7 comments
Where in the article does the author "push the point that people simply have a misguided perception of reality"? I don't see any such point being made anywhere. The author stated that people perceive that they have lost something. Whether or not this perception is rational, is something the author does not take any stand on.
The author is implying that the rationality of voting for Trump was, for his supporters, strongly dependent on the subtleties of their perception of the distributions of outcomes for electing each candidate. An alternative would be that Trump offered an objectively superior outcome for those constituents, in which case only highly delusional perspectives on the outcome would suggest an alternate course.
Pundits who were 99.9 percent sure Clinton was going to win, are making new predictions and analyses with equal confidence.
One of my favorite cases happened on NBC on the election night.
After crying and being distraught for an hour or two, a glimmer of hope arose - after-hours and international stock market was down. And suddenly their demeanor changed, there was a chance again of a tiny victory. They were predicting disaster with the same certainty as they predicted Hillary winning. There was talk of everyone's accounts being wiped out, a lot of "we told you" and so on.
And of course next day stocks went right up and nothing happened.
I just liked it because right after talking how they mispredicted the election so badly, they turned around and predicted something else, which again was quickly shown to be false.
So I do recommend watching the popular news channels, they are a pretty good source of entertainment. Read Manufacturing Consent by Herman and Chomsky and it becomes even funnier.
After crying and being distraught for an hour or two, a glimmer of hope arose - after-hours and international stock market was down. And suddenly their demeanor changed, there was a chance again of a tiny victory. They were predicting disaster with the same certainty as they predicted Hillary winning. There was talk of everyone's accounts being wiped out, a lot of "we told you" and so on.
And of course next day stocks went right up and nothing happened.
I just liked it because right after talking how they mispredicted the election so badly, they turned around and predicted something else, which again was quickly shown to be false.
So I do recommend watching the popular news channels, they are a pretty good source of entertainment. Read Manufacturing Consent by Herman and Chomsky and it becomes even funnier.
It felt like they weren't just predicting disaster, but hoping for it. Like being right about Trump's election victory having dire consequences is somehow preferable to everything turning out ok despite their candidate losing.
Did the author give a 99.9% chance to Clinton? If not, I fail to see how that is relevant.
Also, Nate Silvers gave Trump a 30% chance of winning. There were plenty of pundits who saw Trump as a possibility.
Also, Nate Silvers gave Trump a 30% chance of winning. There were plenty of pundits who saw Trump as a possibility.
The worst part about all this, is that the same party that claims to be about Tolerance is so intolerant that you can't even explain to them why this (Trump & Brexit) happened.
No I'm not saying a word and I advise the HN members who "know what I'm talking about" to STAY quiet as well. I know it's tempting but I've tried it before on HN. I tried explaining, I'd type up these long posts with links to video evidence, scientific papers, psychology today articles and still the you-know-what-leaning downvote brigade got me. I don't mind downvotes but when you see how these people attack and censor and get you fired from work it's just not worth it. I deleted all my comments before the deletion time limit hit and vowed to just stop.
I know some of you are curious but honestly, this is your punishment. Your punishment is not Trump and Brexit, your punishment is never truely knowing why Trump and Brexit happened.
This is your hell. You made it.
No I'm not saying a word and I advise the HN members who "know what I'm talking about" to STAY quiet as well. I know it's tempting but I've tried it before on HN. I tried explaining, I'd type up these long posts with links to video evidence, scientific papers, psychology today articles and still the you-know-what-leaning downvote brigade got me. I don't mind downvotes but when you see how these people attack and censor and get you fired from work it's just not worth it. I deleted all my comments before the deletion time limit hit and vowed to just stop.
I know some of you are curious but honestly, this is your punishment. Your punishment is not Trump and Brexit, your punishment is never truely knowing why Trump and Brexit happened.
This is your hell. You made it.
Your comment implies it's obvious why they happened. Is it? I've read many nuanced, data driven, and mutually exclusive articles about why Trump won.
What is so obvious that all this complexity is unnecessary? And if it doesn't seem obvious to so many people, why should I (or anyone else) update their beliefs and say ah yes of course; all those careful investigations were just missing the point?
I hope this doesn't come across as derogatory - it's not meant that way. I really am curious about the epistemology; when many people say complicated and some say obvious, what evidence should cause me to believe the latter?
What is so obvious that all this complexity is unnecessary? And if it doesn't seem obvious to so many people, why should I (or anyone else) update their beliefs and say ah yes of course; all those careful investigations were just missing the point?
I hope this doesn't come across as derogatory - it's not meant that way. I really am curious about the epistemology; when many people say complicated and some say obvious, what evidence should cause me to believe the latter?
Charts don't measure what they don't ask. Graphs and numbers don't measure emotions. The "data" on why Trump / Brexit won is hilarious. Correlation does not equal causation. By the way I just got downvoted again, and someone went through my username linked threads and downvoted them too. Welcome to the new HN, it wasn't like this 5 years ago. You can't talk anymore. You have to use code-words.
Specifically?
I could take a stab.
Polls were specifically rigged to show a Democrat victory.
I suspect that's what he's referring to.
There are only a few owners of American media, and they have their agenda. This election cycle was a bit odd in that the normal right-leaning media companies were aligned with the left-leaning ones, so you got bad-mouthing of Trump all-around.
Once the right-leaning media realised they were about to put Hillary into the White House, they did an about face and started doing their normal biased reporting.
Meanwhile, the left-leaning media kept their bias strong from the start.
This seems to be playing out similarly in Great Britain, with their media taking sides, and at the moment, the left-leaning market forces are stronger. I suspect this is due to the huge benefits globalism brings to the media owners and their financial friends.
The problem is, the population at large doesn't benefit from globalism as directly and obviously as the media owners, so they're not playing along with the game anymore.
Just a guess, mind you. GP might be on about something else.
Polls were specifically rigged to show a Democrat victory.
I suspect that's what he's referring to.
There are only a few owners of American media, and they have their agenda. This election cycle was a bit odd in that the normal right-leaning media companies were aligned with the left-leaning ones, so you got bad-mouthing of Trump all-around.
Once the right-leaning media realised they were about to put Hillary into the White House, they did an about face and started doing their normal biased reporting.
Meanwhile, the left-leaning media kept their bias strong from the start.
This seems to be playing out similarly in Great Britain, with their media taking sides, and at the moment, the left-leaning market forces are stronger. I suspect this is due to the huge benefits globalism brings to the media owners and their financial friends.
The problem is, the population at large doesn't benefit from globalism as directly and obviously as the media owners, so they're not playing along with the game anymore.
Just a guess, mind you. GP might be on about something else.
> This seems to be playing out similarly in Great Britain, with their media taking sides, and at the moment, the left-leaning market forces are stronger. I suspect this is due to the huge benefits globalism brings to the media owners and their financial friends.
I don't think anybody even casually familiar with British media would argue that "left-leaning market forces are stronger" or that the British media is anything other than rabidly hostile (both on the Brexit right and anti-"neoliberalism" left) to globalism.
I don't think anybody even casually familiar with British media would argue that "left-leaning market forces are stronger" or that the British media is anything other than rabidly hostile (both on the Brexit right and anti-"neoliberalism" left) to globalism.
Downvote me all you like, but the circulation of individual right-wing nationals like the Sun and Mail exceeds the circulation of all the left leaning newspapers (basically only the Guardian, the Mirror and the i since the Independent folded its offline operation due to lack of sales...) put together. It's hard to argue that "left leaning market forces are stronger" when the right leaning press has more outlets and the individually dominant news source in every category.
It's also pretty hard to argue that the left-wing, Remain-backing Guardian's doesn't publish a lot more commentary criticising the shortcomings of globalisation and berating international capital than pieces extolling its virtues.
It's also pretty hard to argue that the left-wing, Remain-backing Guardian's doesn't publish a lot more commentary criticising the shortcomings of globalisation and berating international capital than pieces extolling its virtues.
Why do you think it happened? I'm asking in good faith because I am in a liberal bubble, and I feel strongly that more empathy and willingness to listen is needed from my cohort.
It really depends on the state / region. He promised a lot of things. If I had to pick one of the biggest ones, it would be:
Automation, globalization, and anti-unionization have been pushing down wages for 30+ years. Government policies by both parties seem to do nothing but speed up the process, particularly in globalization. The only thing the Dems had to offer was social safety net, but most people would rather have better paying jobs. The Republicans only offered rhetoric and an extra helping of anti-unionization.
Also, I don't think a vote for Trump is for the GOP or their policies. The GOP was the platform Trump used to get elected (as he slashed and burned their policies). I think the vote was anti-establishment (anti-GOP and anti-Dem). It could be a sign of just how economically desperate many people in the red areas are.
Also, it's very difficult / rare for a party to get a third term in recent history.
Automation, globalization, and anti-unionization have been pushing down wages for 30+ years. Government policies by both parties seem to do nothing but speed up the process, particularly in globalization. The only thing the Dems had to offer was social safety net, but most people would rather have better paying jobs. The Republicans only offered rhetoric and an extra helping of anti-unionization.
Also, I don't think a vote for Trump is for the GOP or their policies. The GOP was the platform Trump used to get elected (as he slashed and burned their policies). I think the vote was anti-establishment (anti-GOP and anti-Dem). It could be a sign of just how economically desperate many people in the red areas are.
Also, it's very difficult / rare for a party to get a third term in recent history.
> The only thing the Dems had to offer was social safety net, but most people would rather have better paying jobs.
I'm not from one of the "Brexit States", but my family is spread across much of the rural Midwest and that sentence expresses their feelings quite succinctly. One family member, during a conversation about tech, volunteered that he thinks self-driving trucks will destroy much of what's left of the patchwork of small towns remaining near where he lives. No more relatively predictable income from truckers at diners and gas stations when the battery powered robots never have to stop for food or gas.
I'm not from one of the "Brexit States", but my family is spread across much of the rural Midwest and that sentence expresses their feelings quite succinctly. One family member, during a conversation about tech, volunteered that he thinks self-driving trucks will destroy much of what's left of the patchwork of small towns remaining near where he lives. No more relatively predictable income from truckers at diners and gas stations when the battery powered robots never have to stop for food or gas.
Hypocrisy. At least here in India, the hypocrisy of what is labeled the "liberal left" is nauseating.
- I clamor for women's rights but when a certain religion is guilty of trampling over women's rights, I go quiet
- I clamor for equality before law but when a certain religion asks for different laws for different religions, I go quiet
People don't take too lightly to their sense of fairness being trampled over, and this feeling of unfairness seems to be a cause for growing discontent.
- I clamor for women's rights but when a certain religion is guilty of trampling over women's rights, I go quiet
- I clamor for equality before law but when a certain religion asks for different laws for different religions, I go quiet
People don't take too lightly to their sense of fairness being trampled over, and this feeling of unfairness seems to be a cause for growing discontent.
I think that's because people don't want to get killed. That 'certain religion' is known for mindlessly killing people. No, I'm not talking about Buddhism.
Sounds like a pretty good strategy for achieving the goal made utterly clear by the source writings. I trust the latter expression is sufficiently euphemistic.
perhaps they framed it as people "perceiving that they have lost something" because perception is the relevant point, and where they have, appropriately, refrained from saying anything about a disputed and irrelevant reality, (perception, again, being the relevant point), you've filled in that bit about people living in an opaque bubble.
"There are too many people living in opaque bubbles blogging about 'what REALLY happened!'"
"There are too many people living in opaque bubbles blogging about 'what REALLY happened!'"
I would love to have the EPA show up at the author's house and explain how the backyard is now part of a wetland.
Sadly, at least for Trump, i think it came down to
1 party loyalty
2 identity politics
3 active voter suppression in key states
4 The Electoral College, which was designed to prevent this exact thing (demagoguery)
#1 & #2 are discussed in "Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government (Princeton Studies in Political Behavior)" https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691169446
#2 also discussed in "The Politics of Resentment: Rural Consciousness in Wisconsin and the Rise of Scott Walker (Chicago Studies in American Politics)" https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/022634911X
#3 and other dirty tricks discussed in "Ratfked: The True Story Behind the Secret Plan to Steal America's Democracy" https://www.amazon.com/Ratf-ked-Behind-Americas-Democracy/dp...
and
"The Great Suppression: Voting Rights, Corporate Cash, and the Conservative Assault on Democracy" https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/110190576X
1 party loyalty
2 identity politics
3 active voter suppression in key states
4 The Electoral College, which was designed to prevent this exact thing (demagoguery)
#1 & #2 are discussed in "Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government (Princeton Studies in Political Behavior)" https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691169446
#2 also discussed in "The Politics of Resentment: Rural Consciousness in Wisconsin and the Rise of Scott Walker (Chicago Studies in American Politics)" https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/022634911X
#3 and other dirty tricks discussed in "Ratfked: The True Story Behind the Secret Plan to Steal America's Democracy" https://www.amazon.com/Ratf-ked-Behind-Americas-Democracy/dp...
and
"The Great Suppression: Voting Rights, Corporate Cash, and the Conservative Assault on Democracy" https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/110190576X
Yeah, it probably didn't have much to do with the economically left-behind working class that constitutes the majority of the country and wasn't appealed to at all by the Democratic campaign.
Lets remember, at this point Hillary is 1.7 million popular votes ahead of Trump.
None of those votes do anything to change the result in Pennsylvania, which until recently was part of a "Blue Firewall" that made a Trump victory impossible.
I don't think these are contradictory statements.
If we didn't have an electoral college the numbers would be very different. Who would, obviously I don't now, but people understand the concept of the electoral college and candidates campaign accordingly.
[deleted]
Note to moderators: the typo in "Brexit" is really distracting. When I saw "Brezit", I thought it was about a possible Breton (Breizh) secession from France!
Interesting essay. But it starts with: The quantity of votes in favor of the Brexit and in favor of Trump surprised most of us.
It's only "most of us" if you live in a liberal echo chamber. E.g. the NY Times has done some recent naval gazing, but it would be fascinating to find out what percent of their employees voted for Trump. Fewer than 10%? Fewer than 1%? So, certainly, the result "surprised" them.
Meanwhile in the real world the popular vote breakdown was:
It's only "most of us" if you live in a liberal echo chamber. E.g. the NY Times has done some recent naval gazing, but it would be fascinating to find out what percent of their employees voted for Trump. Fewer than 10%? Fewer than 1%? So, certainly, the result "surprised" them.
Meanwhile in the real world the popular vote breakdown was:
Clinton 63,515,588
Trump 61,917,320
This has nothing to do with "liberal echo chamber". Most opinion polls indicated that Clinton would win, and most people believed so. That's all there is to it.
> That's about a 1% difference. I don't see how that translates to "surprised most of us"!
You can't use the result of the elections to claim that the result was "expected"!
The stock market expected a Clinton win, and so did betting markets outside the US:
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/07/betting-sites-see-record-wage...
Arguably, at some point even Trump indicated that he believed Clinton would win, when he claimed the elections were "rigged".
> That's about a 1% difference. I don't see how that translates to "surprised most of us"!
You can't use the result of the elections to claim that the result was "expected"!
The stock market expected a Clinton win, and so did betting markets outside the US:
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/07/betting-sites-see-record-wage...
Arguably, at some point even Trump indicated that he believed Clinton would win, when he claimed the elections were "rigged".
You don't think maybe the elections really were rigged?
Here's a video where a computer programmer who worked on voting systems is questioned under oath, and he makes some pretty good arguments that elections are rigged. At least the ones where electronic voting machines are used.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcxGGnmRQAs&t=92s
I'll admit, I didn't bother researching, but I'd understood a lot of electronic voting machines were used in the election we just underwent.
The results of the election only slightly surprised me, but I've gone to great lengths to avoid ingesting media from mainstream sources. Outside the mainstream, Trump's popularity was quite a bit more obvious.
Here's a video where a computer programmer who worked on voting systems is questioned under oath, and he makes some pretty good arguments that elections are rigged. At least the ones where electronic voting machines are used.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcxGGnmRQAs&t=92s
I'll admit, I didn't bother researching, but I'd understood a lot of electronic voting machines were used in the election we just underwent.
The results of the election only slightly surprised me, but I've gone to great lengths to avoid ingesting media from mainstream sources. Outside the mainstream, Trump's popularity was quite a bit more obvious.
To be honest, I have no opinion on the rigging claim. I'm not a US citizen or resident and I don't know much about how y'all go about actually voting.
My point is that candidate B claimed the election would be rigged against him; it's not a stretch to assume he thought candidate A would probably win at that point.
My point is that candidate B claimed the election would be rigged against him; it's not a stretch to assume he thought candidate A would probably win at that point.
Yes, the final election result wasn't terribly surprising given polling. Trump was reported to have a very nonzero chance of winning the electoral college all along (although there weren't many reports of him having a > 50% chance), and all polls had the popular vote being very close.
But what was surprising, all along, to people from all sorts of echo chambers (including, I think, Trump himself) was that Trump had this support in the first place. He was the goofball candidate in the primaries. Mitt Romney, the previous Republican nominee, called him a "phony" and a "fraud," and said, "He's playing the American public for suckers." Imagine McCain saying that about Romney, or Kerry about Obama! He dominated the news cycle for months with indiscretions and mistakes. He lost the debates, by any metric in which you care about actual policy discussed at the debates. Republicans were quite worried about him dooming the party. It was clear months before November that he was a realistic candidate who would win about half of the popular vote, but the fact that we got to that point was surprising.
But what was surprising, all along, to people from all sorts of echo chambers (including, I think, Trump himself) was that Trump had this support in the first place. He was the goofball candidate in the primaries. Mitt Romney, the previous Republican nominee, called him a "phony" and a "fraud," and said, "He's playing the American public for suckers." Imagine McCain saying that about Romney, or Kerry about Obama! He dominated the news cycle for months with indiscretions and mistakes. He lost the debates, by any metric in which you care about actual policy discussed at the debates. Republicans were quite worried about him dooming the party. It was clear months before November that he was a realistic candidate who would win about half of the popular vote, but the fact that we got to that point was surprising.
It's entirely possibly that most people might be planning on voting for a candidate, but incorrectly believe that most other people were planning on voting for their opponent.
That's certainly quite possible.
But in the final weeks the US election had close polling. Clinton was leading Trump by less than 5% in most polls and was actually behind in a few of them (Matt Drudge always managed to find those polls to link to).
So it's hard to understand why people might have those beliefs in a relatively close election. Easier to understand if the election was predicted to be a blowout.
But blowouts don't happen that often. The most recent true blowout I experienced was Reagan vs Mondale in 1984. An electoral blowout, only Minnesota and DC voted for Mondale. But the popular vote was closer, roughly 59%/41%.
But in the final weeks the US election had close polling. Clinton was leading Trump by less than 5% in most polls and was actually behind in a few of them (Matt Drudge always managed to find those polls to link to).
So it's hard to understand why people might have those beliefs in a relatively close election. Easier to understand if the election was predicted to be a blowout.
But blowouts don't happen that often. The most recent true blowout I experienced was Reagan vs Mondale in 1984. An electoral blowout, only Minnesota and DC voted for Mondale. But the popular vote was closer, roughly 59%/41%.
Why isn't anyone considering that within the margin of error, the polls were correct? Isn't the confidence interval +/- a few percentage points anyways??
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Because most polls showed Hillary winning or winning by a landslide.
This assumes many people voting knew beforehand that their chosen candidate would win/lose.
Since they don't it's safe to say that all results are a surprise.
As pointed out, trump himself didn't expect to win.
As pointed out, trump himself didn't expect to win.
Even Trump and his staff were surprised. They didn't expect to win, because of the poll results!
That echo chamber thing cuts both ways.
That echo chamber thing cuts both ways.
the people who voted for trump had no better idea what the result would be than anyone else.
Trump won because people got sick of liberalism, and to make matters worse we (I'm a liberal) created an environment where they couldn't express that in a shared public area without being berated or shamed.
That's it, honestly.
We on the left need to dial it back a bit and have a discussion, and move forward with consensus rather than trying to drag everyone kicking-and-screaming along with our agenda regardless of if we feel it's "right" or not.
You don't win the tolerance argument with a stick, you win it with a carrot.
That's it, honestly.
We on the left need to dial it back a bit and have a discussion, and move forward with consensus rather than trying to drag everyone kicking-and-screaming along with our agenda regardless of if we feel it's "right" or not.
You don't win the tolerance argument with a stick, you win it with a carrot.
I disagree. (Edited this for tone)
I'm not American and I've watched American politics for fun and profit for a long time now.
Firstly - "you" have already tried cooperation.
The day Obama won, the republicans regrouped from a devastating loss and promised to make him a one term president. They've converted the routine and boring debt ceiling increase into political theater, grinding America to a halt.
Iirc they've fought Medicare tooth and nail, even though it's modeled on a republican program.
Many things have aligned to create this situation. As i recall working with people on the other side is considered bad form.
This isn't simply because of a liberal agenda or because people haven't been listening. It's because people have actively been injecting narrative and false data in order to move voting populations in specific directions.
I'm not American and I've watched American politics for fun and profit for a long time now.
Firstly - "you" have already tried cooperation.
The day Obama won, the republicans regrouped from a devastating loss and promised to make him a one term president. They've converted the routine and boring debt ceiling increase into political theater, grinding America to a halt.
Iirc they've fought Medicare tooth and nail, even though it's modeled on a republican program.
Many things have aligned to create this situation. As i recall working with people on the other side is considered bad form.
This isn't simply because of a liberal agenda or because people haven't been listening. It's because people have actively been injecting narrative and false data in order to move voting populations in specific directions.
I don't think your understanding of American politics is very accurate. For example:
> Iirc they've fought Medicare tooth and nail, even though it's modeled on a republican program.
First, you're thinking of Obamacare, not Medicare (actually, the Affordable Care Act); the narrative you're reaching for is that the ACA is modeled on Republican ideas, therefore the GOP isn't allowed to object to it. Medicare is something completely different, a health insurance entitlement aimed at seniors that's existed for decades.
And even then, neither half of the story is really true, because the GOP is not a monolith. Yes, the Heritage Foundation proposed something vaguely similar in the '90s, and Mitt Romney -- a liberal Republican governing one of our most liberal states -- pushed a vaguely similar plan as well many years ago, but the majority of Republicans disagreed with both on the idea. And even if it was based entirely on an old GOP idea, there's no logical way to therefore decide the GOP can't have problems with this implementation of it, or not believe the Obama administration would be competent to execute it.
Think of it this way. Bill Clinton supported military action against Iraq during his term, and even carried it out. Does that mean no Democrats were allowed to object to George W. Bush's Iraq war, because it was "based on a Democratic idea"? Of course not; the very idea is absurd. Same deal here.
> Iirc they've fought Medicare tooth and nail, even though it's modeled on a republican program.
First, you're thinking of Obamacare, not Medicare (actually, the Affordable Care Act); the narrative you're reaching for is that the ACA is modeled on Republican ideas, therefore the GOP isn't allowed to object to it. Medicare is something completely different, a health insurance entitlement aimed at seniors that's existed for decades.
And even then, neither half of the story is really true, because the GOP is not a monolith. Yes, the Heritage Foundation proposed something vaguely similar in the '90s, and Mitt Romney -- a liberal Republican governing one of our most liberal states -- pushed a vaguely similar plan as well many years ago, but the majority of Republicans disagreed with both on the idea. And even if it was based entirely on an old GOP idea, there's no logical way to therefore decide the GOP can't have problems with this implementation of it, or not believe the Obama administration would be competent to execute it.
Think of it this way. Bill Clinton supported military action against Iraq during his term, and even carried it out. Does that mean no Democrats were allowed to object to George W. Bush's Iraq war, because it was "based on a Democratic idea"? Of course not; the very idea is absurd. Same deal here.
Thanks, It helps to understand it better. I thought Obamacare was a pejorative term for medicare, but I see it is a pejorative term for the ACA.
But as I just checked, it seems that all the republicans voted against it and that support for ACA was considered toxic, and that this negatively affected Mitt Romney's standing in the party. I am of course happy to understand more.
Do note, that I have been watching and learning more about American politics and history since 1990, since before the Gulf War. Theres a distinct trend towards partisanship, which got enhanced during the era of Fox news, and has now resulted in hyper-partisanship.
(Do note that America is not particular alone in dealing with this trend)
But as I just checked, it seems that all the republicans voted against it and that support for ACA was considered toxic, and that this negatively affected Mitt Romney's standing in the party. I am of course happy to understand more.
Do note, that I have been watching and learning more about American politics and history since 1990, since before the Gulf War. Theres a distinct trend towards partisanship, which got enhanced during the era of Fox news, and has now resulted in hyper-partisanship.
(Do note that America is not particular alone in dealing with this trend)
As an extreme social liberal (as I am) I do find the current "liberal" atmosphere rather stifling. It doesn't help that I'm a white male, either. I'm told I'm part of the problem.
To that, I say: "Well, then. I guess I'll just bow out and let you guys handle that Trump fellow on your own. I'm not about to lend a helping hand anymore." It's actually rather liberating to know I don't need to put any effort into the political arena. I can just sit back, relax, and laugh at the spectacle.
To that, I say: "Well, then. I guess I'll just bow out and let you guys handle that Trump fellow on your own. I'm not about to lend a helping hand anymore." It's actually rather liberating to know I don't need to put any effort into the political arena. I can just sit back, relax, and laugh at the spectacle.
Consider for a second a hypothetical fiscal liberal, social conservative antinatalist.
If they do not self-censor themselves, they can expect to easily be a social pariah in most urban areas of living, with all the negative economic connotations that ensues.
If they do not self-censor themselves, they can expect to easily be a social pariah in most urban areas of living, with all the negative economic connotations that ensues.
There's no point for someone who voted for Hillary to guess why another person voted for Trump. What is the point of prospect theory when you can just ask the people and get it straight from the horses mouth.
If you voted for Trump... Why did you vote for him over Hillary?
If you voted for Trump... Why did you vote for him over Hillary?
Some would argue that voting for the opposing candidate leads the other party to produce better candidates in the next election cycle.
In other words, it takes a swing to the other side in order to radicalize the other side and swing the pendulum of discussion back in their favor.
Maybe the ACA repeal will lead us to actually have single payer with the next cycle?
In other words, it takes a swing to the other side in order to radicalize the other side and swing the pendulum of discussion back in their favor.
Maybe the ACA repeal will lead us to actually have single payer with the next cycle?
People not voting are as important in this equation as those who voted. At least in the instance of the Trump situation.
I love how throughout the post the author keeps on pushing the point that people simply have a misguided perception of reality, under no circumstance it is considered that these people are directly or indirectly affected by current policy.
There are too many people living in opaque bubbles blogging about "what REALLY happened!".