9 ms·

My takeaway from this is that our strategy of "shaming" people into voting a certain way doesn't work. Exit polls seem to suggest that plenty of people understa

My takeaway from this is that our strategy of "shaming" people into voting a certain way doesn't work. Exit polls seem to suggest that plenty of people understated their support for Trump because they were embarrassed to admit they voted for him. But they still did. In effect, you don't stop people from supporting racism, homophobia, or misogyny by calling attention to it. That only makes them support it quietly. You have to counter it with something. We failed to adequately counter his arguments, content to simply point at them and say that they were racist, sexist, or Islamophobic, because we (naively) assumed that drawing attention to it would be enough.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deadringerr 10y ago
I like your points, I do think this is a big piece of the picture. I almost wish the polls let you vote either "for" a candidate or directly "against" a particular candidate - I think we'd see that many of the Trump voters would have preferred to vote "against" Clinton rather than "for" Trump.
- Nadya 10y ago
  >I think we'd see that many of the Trump voters would have preferred to vote "against" Clinton rather than "for" Trump. That's an odd statement to make because many Clinton voters would have also preferred to vote "against" Clinton rather than "for" Clinton.* They were part of the "Never Trump" crowd. Not pro-Hillary but very anti-Trump. E: Typo, apologies I didn't catch it before my post delay ran out. `"for" Trump` in my post has been corrected to `"for" Clinton`.
  - deadringerr 10y ago
    I think I see what you're saying, though you might have meant that those who voted "for" Clinton would have rather voted "against" Trump. It's true, all variations would see votes and I think that would speak better to who actually had a larger base of people truly voting "for" the message of a candidate.
    - Nadya 10y ago
      Yes, I copy/pasted then forgot to change a variable. When will coders learn, eh? :) I've fixed it and noted the fix. I also agree it would paint a more accurate political picture, less black and white.
      - deadringerr 10y ago
        No problem, I understood what you meant. :)
- eru 10y ago
  You want Range Voting, or at least Approval Voting. http://rangevoting.org/ http://rangevoting.org/
- MattyRad 10y ago
  Stein suggested an interesting solution to this problem: https://youtu.be/py6sPkiQm8E?t=2m45s https://youtu.be/py6sPkiQm8E?t=2m45s. Food for thought.
  - deadringerr 10y ago
    Yes, this is interesting. I'd like to see some version of this (or range voting as referred to in another comment) implemented in a state and the reactions of the population - if voters felt like this more properly reflected their opinion.
pcunite 10y ago
Have you read WikiLeaks?
fivedogit 10y ago
>Exit polls seem to suggest that plenty of people understated their support for Trump This is incorrect. People stated their support. Poll models just underestimated how many of them would vote.
- acbabis 10y ago
  But I thought Hillary was leading in polls. Also, how would you know how many people lied in the polls?
  - chillacy 10y ago
    Pollsters weight responses by demographic and then multiply by the expected turnout of that demographic. They messed up the expected turnout on trump supporters: his supporters were more enthusiastic to vote.
- ohsonice 10y ago
  Yeah from what I've seen, Trump supporters are NOT embarrassed to be Trump supporters. Media and liberals are embarrassed for the Trump supporters but the actual supporters are proud and see the media as condescending
davidf18 10y ago
The issues were not racism -- Trump was against illegal immigrants. Rather the issue was economic uneducated immigrants were displacing Americans working class from their jobs as well depressing wage growth. The same was true of Britain and BrExit.
advantark2 10y ago
>they were racist, sexist, or Islamophobic This is a big issue here, and something that I don't feel that many democrats seem to understand. It wasn't a race issue, it was an immigration issue since many illegal immigrants have taken American jobs. It isn't sexist to acknowledge differences in the genders. It isn't islamophobic to see cultural issues with Islam that would cause integration issues, especially with a large influx of Islamic immigration. Much of the issue here is because of lack of understanding of the perspective of the other side.
- knz 10y ago
  > It wasn't a race issue, it was an immigration issue since many illegal immigrants have taken American jobs. I don't disagree with your point but how many "hard working" Americans want to work the fields and kitchens of the country for low wages? What impact is the removal of cheap labour going to have on the cost of food?
  - advantark2 10y ago
    It looks like food prices would go up by about 16%[0], which I would be happy with if I knew that people were getting a fair wage for the labor. If there's a shortage of workers willing to work at such a low wage, then they need to raise wages. [0]http://www.businessinsider.com/cost-deporting-undocumented-immigrants-study-2016-5 http://www.businessinsider.com/cost-deporting-undocumented-i...
    - knz 10y ago
      Thanks for providing a reference. I agree re the need to pay a fair wage.
    - pc86 10y ago
      And it's better for something to cost $11.60 and you have a minimum wage job than for that thing to cost $10 and you don't have any job. The difference is astronomical.
      - deleted 10y ago
frankc 10y ago
In the same vein, it's also a wonderful validation of secret ballot elections, and why things like "card check" should never fly.
SkyMarshal 10y ago
>In effect, you don't stop people from supporting racism, homophobia, or misogyny by calling attention to it. That only makes them support it quietly. I think you're mischaracterizing the problem. The racists, sexists, and other ist's/phobic's/whatever had no problem being vocal about it since Trump himself legitimized it. Rather it was other people like evangelicals who felt guilty but voted for him anyway b/c they are single-issue voters (Supreme Court). Or people who have lost their livelihoods and are desperate for a government that truly represents their interests and doesn't just pay lip service every election. Effectively there are at least two types of voters in Trump's coalition - ist's/phobic's, and fellow travelers who enable all that bad stuff as a side effect but were voting for other issues entirely. Likely even more complex than that, but the mistake I see the left making is trying to simplify explanations which cannot be simplified. That's just a recipe for losing the next elections too.
bishnu 10y ago
Of course you can. Trump ended up winning fewer votes than Romney and McCain. The shame directed towards those that supported him publicly, I would argue, was very directly reflected in his vote totals. But you need more than that, you need an inspiring alternative. Telling a bunch of destitute, hopeless rust belt voters that free trade was good, their Obamacare premiums were increasing, a $15 minimum wage and free college tuition was bad, and America was already great didn't motivate them to go to the polls nearly enough. Should be unsurprising, in retrospect.
grubles 10y ago
"Superpredators"

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

deadringerr 10y ago

I like your points, I do think this is a big piece of the picture. I almost wish the polls let you vote either "for" a candidate or directly "against" a particular candidate - I think we'd see that many of the Trump voters would have preferred to vote "against" Clinton rather than "for" Trump.

Nadya 10y ago
>I think we'd see that many of the Trump voters would have preferred to vote "against" Clinton rather than "for" Trump. That's an odd statement to make because many Clinton voters would have also preferred to vote "against" Clinton rather than "for" Clinton.* They were part of the "Never Trump" crowd. Not pro-Hillary but very anti-Trump. E: Typo, apologies I didn't catch it before my post delay ran out. `"for" Trump` in my post has been corrected to `"for" Clinton`.
- deadringerr 10y ago
  I think I see what you're saying, though you might have meant that those who voted "for" Clinton would have rather voted "against" Trump. It's true, all variations would see votes and I think that would speak better to who actually had a larger base of people truly voting "for" the message of a candidate.
  - Nadya 10y ago
    Yes, I copy/pasted then forgot to change a variable. When will coders learn, eh? :) I've fixed it and noted the fix. I also agree it would paint a more accurate political picture, less black and white.
    - deadringerr 10y ago
      No problem, I understood what you meant. :)
eru 10y ago
You want Range Voting, or at least Approval Voting. http://rangevoting.org/ http://rangevoting.org/
MattyRad 10y ago
Stein suggested an interesting solution to this problem: https://youtu.be/py6sPkiQm8E?t=2m45s https://youtu.be/py6sPkiQm8E?t=2m45s. Food for thought.
- deadringerr 10y ago
  Yes, this is interesting. I'd like to see some version of this (or range voting as referred to in another comment) implemented in a state and the reactions of the population - if voters felt like this more properly reflected their opinion.

pcunite 10y ago

Have you read WikiLeaks?

fivedogit 10y ago

>Exit polls seem to suggest that plenty of people understated their support for Trump This is incorrect. People stated their support. Poll models just underestimated how many of them would vote.

acbabis 10y ago
But I thought Hillary was leading in polls. Also, how would you know how many people lied in the polls?
- chillacy 10y ago
  Pollsters weight responses by demographic and then multiply by the expected turnout of that demographic. They messed up the expected turnout on trump supporters: his supporters were more enthusiastic to vote.
ohsonice 10y ago
Yeah from what I've seen, Trump supporters are NOT embarrassed to be Trump supporters. Media and liberals are embarrassed for the Trump supporters but the actual supporters are proud and see the media as condescending

davidf18 10y ago

The issues were not racism -- Trump was against illegal immigrants. Rather the issue was economic uneducated immigrants were displacing Americans working class from their jobs as well depressing wage growth. The same was true of Britain and BrExit.

advantark2 10y ago

>they were racist, sexist, or Islamophobic This is a big issue here, and something that I don't feel that many democrats seem to understand. It wasn't a race issue, it was an immigration issue since many illegal immigrants have taken American jobs. It isn't sexist to acknowledge differences in the genders. It isn't islamophobic to see cultural issues with Islam that would cause integration issues, especially with a large influx of Islamic immigration. Much of the issue here is because of lack of understanding of the perspective of the other side.

knz 10y ago
> It wasn't a race issue, it was an immigration issue since many illegal immigrants have taken American jobs. I don't disagree with your point but how many "hard working" Americans want to work the fields and kitchens of the country for low wages? What impact is the removal of cheap labour going to have on the cost of food?
- advantark2 10y ago
  It looks like food prices would go up by about 16%[0], which I would be happy with if I knew that people were getting a fair wage for the labor. If there's a shortage of workers willing to work at such a low wage, then they need to raise wages. [0]http://www.businessinsider.com/cost-deporting-undocumented-immigrants-study-2016-5 http://www.businessinsider.com/cost-deporting-undocumented-i...
  - knz 10y ago
    Thanks for providing a reference. I agree re the need to pay a fair wage.
  - pc86 10y ago
    And it's better for something to cost $11.60 and you have a minimum wage job than for that thing to cost $10 and you don't have any job. The difference is astronomical.
    - deleted 10y ago

frankc 10y ago

In the same vein, it's also a wonderful validation of secret ballot elections, and why things like "card check" should never fly.

SkyMarshal 10y ago

>In effect, you don't stop people from supporting racism, homophobia, or misogyny by calling attention to it. That only makes them support it quietly. I think you're mischaracterizing the problem. The racists, sexists, and other ist's/phobic's/whatever had no problem being vocal about it since Trump himself legitimized it. Rather it was other people like evangelicals who felt guilty but voted for him anyway b/c they are single-issue voters (Supreme Court). Or people who have lost their livelihoods and are desperate for a government that truly represents their interests and doesn't just pay lip service every election. Effectively there are at least two types of voters in Trump's coalition - ist's/phobic's, and fellow travelers who enable all that bad stuff as a side effect but were voting for other issues entirely. Likely even more complex than that, but the mistake I see the left making is trying to simplify explanations which cannot be simplified. That's just a recipe for losing the next elections too.

bishnu 10y ago

Of course you can. Trump ended up winning fewer votes than Romney and McCain. The shame directed towards those that supported him publicly, I would argue, was very directly reflected in his vote totals. But you need more than that, you need an inspiring alternative. Telling a bunch of destitute, hopeless rust belt voters that free trade was good, their Obamacare premiums were increasing, a $15 minimum wage and free college tuition was bad, and America was already great didn't motivate them to go to the polls nearly enough. Should be unsurprising, in retrospect.

grubles 10y ago

"Superpredators"