5 ms·

> On Facebook, a Trump victory was likely, or a Clinton win was all but assured. And if you were watching the election coverage the night of you could very dis

> On Facebook, a Trump victory was likely, or a Clinton win was all but assured. And if you were watching the election coverage the night of you could very discernibly see the change in the commentators narrative from "yay! Clinton!" to the shock of "Wait, Trump?" to "Those dirty rednecks! (er ... uneducated white folk)" as their reality was changing before them. It wasn't JUST Facebook.

Waterluvian 10y ago
I watched CNN and it was so painful to watch them try to keep it exciting. They didn't want to call Florida for so long even after it became statically impossible for Clinton to make up the difference. The sense I got is the sooner the conclusion is reached, the sooner people stop watching.
- cmrdporcupine 10y ago
  I think since 2000 the networks are super cautious about calling Florida in particular.
- adiabatty 10y ago
  I remember Fox News doing something similar for one of the elections that Obama ended up winning, although I don't think it was Florida-specific. I take this behavior as an example of motivated reasoning in action.
downandout 10y ago
Tom Brokaw was especially insulting to the half of the country that voted for Trump. After several comments about uneducated rednecks causing the downfall of our nation, he summed it up this way: "This election was much more about ‘Duck Dynasty’ than ‘Saturday Night Live’." Hell hath no fury like an elite liberal scorned.
- gdulli 10y ago
  That Trump won in large part due to disproportionate support from voters without a college degree is a plain fact worth being reported. Reading insult into it is discretionary.
  - AcerbicZero 10y ago
    I think the issue is more with the false equivalency presented by some journalists. A college degree or lack there of, does not automatically denote greater or lesser intelligence.
    - gdulli 10y ago
      I don't have a college degree, so I agree. But I have enough knowledge of history to know that giving power to a loud, xenophobic demagogue is worse than giving it to a career politician who's trying to preserve the status quo. And journalists are concerned to see how many people don't.
      - nzp 10y ago
        The problem with this is it's begging the question: it postulates that the status quo she would preserve is at least bearable for everyone. For a lot of people in the US that is simply not the case. Trump actually broke an American political taboo and correctly and vocally identified one factor that is causing these people's miseries: neoliberal globalisation. This is the key factor in his success, he made an issue of a thing that must not be questioned if the ruling class is to peacefully remain ruling (this, not his bigotry and whatnot, is the reason he was so unanimously opposed by the elite — where are all these people when minorities are being literally killed and savagely harassed by the state right now?). Democrats arrogantly refused to acknowledge this problem, and even made sure it was swept under the rug (the case with Sanders). The people recognized this, and now you have the result. Those who accepted that voting is the way to change things and who were persuaded that a third party vote was a waste (both points a cornerstone of mainstream American political ideology) had no other choice but to vote for Trump. The more realistic ones (in my opinion) simply refused to take part in the charade and didn't vote at all thereby refusing to give the corrupt system legitimacy. That Trump has the wrong answers to correct problems is somewhat beside the point when he's the only one left to even acknowledge the problems if you a) have the problem, b) believe one should vote, and c) vote for one of the two major tickets. For a lot of innocent people outside the US, ironically for a lot of Muslims, HRC's status quo was literally lethal. As someone outside the US, who finds Trump's views unacceptable, and is in Europe, and in no direct danger of US induced violence, I can tell you this: he was not the candidate who enjoyed practically unanimous support of the US industry of death (the so called defense industry), and the whole state military and political neocon apparatus, all the while announcing to try real hard to get in an open confrontation with the other nuclear superpower. In that regard, I am somewhat relieved, and despite what the media might be telling you, a lot of other people are.
- bluthru 10y ago
  >half of the country that voted for Trump Nearly half of voters, not the country.
  - downandout 10y ago
    If you are allowed to vote and don't, your opinion is irrelevant.

Waterluvian 10y ago

I watched CNN and it was so painful to watch them try to keep it exciting. They didn't want to call Florida for so long even after it became statically impossible for Clinton to make up the difference. The sense I got is the sooner the conclusion is reached, the sooner people stop watching.

cmrdporcupine 10y ago
I think since 2000 the networks are super cautious about calling Florida in particular.
adiabatty 10y ago
I remember Fox News doing something similar for one of the elections that Obama ended up winning, although I don't think it was Florida-specific. I take this behavior as an example of motivated reasoning in action.

downandout 10y ago

Tom Brokaw was especially insulting to the half of the country that voted for Trump. After several comments about uneducated rednecks causing the downfall of our nation, he summed it up this way: "This election was much more about ‘Duck Dynasty’ than ‘Saturday Night Live’." Hell hath no fury like an elite liberal scorned.

gdulli 10y ago
That Trump won in large part due to disproportionate support from voters without a college degree is a plain fact worth being reported. Reading insult into it is discretionary.
- AcerbicZero 10y ago
  I think the issue is more with the false equivalency presented by some journalists. A college degree or lack there of, does not automatically denote greater or lesser intelligence.
  - gdulli 10y ago
    I don't have a college degree, so I agree. But I have enough knowledge of history to know that giving power to a loud, xenophobic demagogue is worse than giving it to a career politician who's trying to preserve the status quo. And journalists are concerned to see how many people don't.
    - nzp 10y ago
      The problem with this is it's begging the question: it postulates that the status quo she would preserve is at least bearable for everyone. For a lot of people in the US that is simply not the case. Trump actually broke an American political taboo and correctly and vocally identified one factor that is causing these people's miseries: neoliberal globalisation. This is the key factor in his success, he made an issue of a thing that must not be questioned if the ruling class is to peacefully remain ruling (this, not his bigotry and whatnot, is the reason he was so unanimously opposed by the elite — where are all these people when minorities are being literally killed and savagely harassed by the state right now?). Democrats arrogantly refused to acknowledge this problem, and even made sure it was swept under the rug (the case with Sanders). The people recognized this, and now you have the result. Those who accepted that voting is the way to change things and who were persuaded that a third party vote was a waste (both points a cornerstone of mainstream American political ideology) had no other choice but to vote for Trump. The more realistic ones (in my opinion) simply refused to take part in the charade and didn't vote at all thereby refusing to give the corrupt system legitimacy. That Trump has the wrong answers to correct problems is somewhat beside the point when he's the only one left to even acknowledge the problems if you a) have the problem, b) believe one should vote, and c) vote for one of the two major tickets. For a lot of innocent people outside the US, ironically for a lot of Muslims, HRC's status quo was literally lethal. As someone outside the US, who finds Trump's views unacceptable, and is in Europe, and in no direct danger of US induced violence, I can tell you this: he was not the candidate who enjoyed practically unanimous support of the US industry of death (the so called defense industry), and the whole state military and political neocon apparatus, all the while announcing to try real hard to get in an open confrontation with the other nuclear superpower. In that regard, I am somewhat relieved, and despite what the media might be telling you, a lot of other people are.
bluthru 10y ago
>half of the country that voted for Trump Nearly half of voters, not the country.
- downandout 10y ago
  If you are allowed to vote and don't, your opinion is irrelevant.