8 ms·

"I'm #deletingUber to show how anti-Trump I am!" uses Peter Thiel backed Lyft instead funny thing is, Trump supporters are now deleting Lyft in favor of uber.

by kkhire 10y ago

"I'm #deletingUber to show how anti-Trump I am!" uses Peter Thiel backed Lyft instead funny thing is, Trump supporters are now deleting Lyft in favor of uber. nobody does an ounce of research anymore.

xenadu02 10y ago
> funny thing is, Trump supporters are now deleting Lyft in favor of uber. Then it would appear there are far fewer Trump supporters than people who oppose Trump.
- ntumlin 10y ago
  To be fair, many Trump supporters are in areas where ride sharing services aren't nearly as popular as the generally left-leaning cities.
  - skyrw 10y ago
    Or they can afford private drivers
    - prodigal_erik 10y ago
      If you're rich, you probably benefited from free trade and mass immigration. Trump's base are the people who suffered the most from these trends.
- zhemao 10y ago
  Or there are fewer Trump supporters in the urban areas where ridesharing apps tend to operate.
- KirinDave 10y ago
  What matters is who lives in what swing state counties now. That's basically what the US voting system has been designed to measure. Quite surprising when you start to do the math.
  - kkhire 10y ago
    Yea. Whoever runs for the dem nomination and wants to beat trump or pence (if he gets impeached) shouldn't even bother visiting blue states. Spend the entire campaign talking to voters in the rust belt.
  - StevePerkins 10y ago
    What matters is TURNOUT. Always has. Trump received almost the exact same number of popular votes as Romney in '12, and McCain in '08. The difference is that 10 million Obama voters stayed home for Hillary: http://i.imgur.com/AT0kqVz.jpg http://i.imgur.com/AT0kqVz.jpg Whether due to disappointment that Bernie Sanders wasn't nominated, or belief that voting wasn't important since Trump wasn't projected to win, or "OMG Russian hacker!!" conspiracy theories, etc. The bottom line is that Democratic turnout has dropped 15% over the past couple of cycles. Like the shore in low tide, "swing" locations shift and move out when this happens. I hear advice that future nominees should just ignore blue states and focus entirely on swing locations. That's exactly what the Clinton campaign did! It's a recipe for failure in the modern day. Because once again, turnout is what matters. The rising tide pushed back the "swing" coastline. This new era of U.S. politics scares me... because I've grown accustomed to Democrats having the luxury of sounding reasonable and centrist, while the Republicans have been forced to pander to extremists in their base. But I think the old conventional wisdom of "run to the edge in the primaries and then pivot back to the center for the general" is breaking down. In the new rules, candidates have to LIVE out on the edge in order to keep their bases energized and draw turnout. I think we're going to see extreme left candidates facing extreme right candidates (or whatever Trump is), with a goal of get-out-the-vote operations rather than winning over swing moderates. As a swing moderate myself, this sounds disastrous no matter who wins.
    - jaynos 10y ago
      >Trump received almost the exact same number of popular votes as Romney in '12, and McCain in '08. The difference is that 10 million Obama voters stayed home for Hillary: http://i.imgur.com/AT0kqVz.jpg http://i.imgur.com/AT0kqVz.jpg Your data is from very soon after the election. Once all the votes were counted, Clinton had the same vote total as Obama '12 [1]. Perhaps an argument can be made that due to population growth she'd need 1% more (or some number) to truly match Obama '12. That said, I agree with your general message about turnout. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...
- jonny_eh 10y ago
  Or that Uber had more to lose, and Lyft more to gain.
hueving 10y ago
>nobody does an ounce of research anymore This is true of the vast majority of activists in any political cause. Most join as social signaling to their community that they are "one of them". Case in point, almost nobody interviewed for occupy Wallstreet could even agree on what the goal of the group was. Particularly in this case, showing support is literally as simple as installing an app that does almost the exact same thing as another app. "sure, I'll do that and post to Facebook about it to show how forward thinking I am"
- mozumder 10y ago
  I'm curious how far we can go in terms of inducing economic anxiety. Are the people willing to go for a general strike? How about a Hartal? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartal
- kentor 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling
  - grzm 10y ago
    Do you have something substantive to add besides posting the Wikipedia link? One could uncharitably interpret your comment as virtue signaling in and of itself.
    - phy6 10y ago
      I found it useful, I forgot what the term was and wanted to look it up.
    - tommorris 10y ago
      Meta-virtue signalling: signalling that you are smarter and better informed by everyone else by dismissing anything anybody else does, however well intentioned, as mere virtue signalling.
      - 10y ago
dongslol 10y ago
If anything, I think people assign too much weight to "sending a message" or "taking a stance." Thiel backed both Trump and Lyft! Down with Lyft! Uber wouldn't go along with some strike! Disavow! YC works with a Trump supporter! Fire him! Apparently the latest outrage on Twitter is over Elon Musk's condemnation of Trump's order not being tough enough. They're mad at him for trying to convince Trump to modify his proposal, because "making compromises with the opponent validates them," and he's being "morally cowardly." Well, ok. But at this point the order is (unless the ACLU wins) a reality, and the pragmatic thing to do is to work within the bounds of reality to make things better. Would these people rather he not do that, just to show that he's "standing with them"? I have an increasing suspicion that the word "solidarity" is becoming a word the means less and less. As far as I can tell, when applied to public figures, it mostly means sending the message that you care. I wish we'd care less about messaging, and more about what works.
- Chyzwar 10y ago
  There is real risk when business mingle with politics. Both Musk and Uber should consider this before working with Trump. Thiel will be forever marked as Trump supporter and he saw it coming. As for your suggestion to work with bounds of reality it should apply to Trump. If he want to change immigration policy he can work with Congress to pass laws and regulations. His flashy actions are just for his silly supporters and not for the benefit of US. Trump plan is to govern through the crisis. He will make flashy stupid actions to get everyone attention while Republicans and Lobbyist disassemble what has been achieved in last 8 years.
  - dmos62 10y ago
    I'm experiencing dissonance. Business and politics are both social actions, but are some of us starting to conceive business as a space beyond social responsibility?
  - wfo 10y ago
    Business is politics. Lobbying is rampant and everywhere. When you set wages or try to destroy organized labor that's political. Everything you do when you exercise the power you have as a businessman is a political action.
foobar_yc00 10y ago
that makes The divided states of America (D.S.A.)
reddytowns 10y ago
You can tell the difference between this and actually really caring, because the latter actually costs the person something. Using Lyft instead of Uber? Walking out at Google knowing full well it won't affect their job security at all (if not improve it by brown nosing)? Or what about a lawyer who is on her way out anyway, deciding to burn that bridge, knowing she'll have a cushioned landing (again, maybe even improving her career). This is ridiculous bullshit doing nothing. Thousands of people doing something that would risk their job, or land them in jail (and I'm not talking about a couple of out-of-work stragglers while the rest high tail it home when the police come out) might change something. But this? Just a big circle jerk which if Trump has a brain in his head, will just ignore.
yread 10y ago
It's true, Founders Fund backed Lyft in Series B (lead, 15M), C (60M) and D (250M). They also have Geoff Lewis on board. https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/lyft/investors https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/lyft/investors

by kkhire 10y ago

xenadu02 10y ago

> funny thing is, Trump supporters are now deleting Lyft in favor of uber. Then it would appear there are far fewer Trump supporters than people who oppose Trump.

ntumlin 10y ago
To be fair, many Trump supporters are in areas where ride sharing services aren't nearly as popular as the generally left-leaning cities.
- skyrw 10y ago
  Or they can afford private drivers
  - prodigal_erik 10y ago
    If you're rich, you probably benefited from free trade and mass immigration. Trump's base are the people who suffered the most from these trends.
zhemao 10y ago
Or there are fewer Trump supporters in the urban areas where ridesharing apps tend to operate.
KirinDave 10y ago
What matters is who lives in what swing state counties now. That's basically what the US voting system has been designed to measure. Quite surprising when you start to do the math.
- kkhire 10y ago
  Yea. Whoever runs for the dem nomination and wants to beat trump or pence (if he gets impeached) shouldn't even bother visiting blue states. Spend the entire campaign talking to voters in the rust belt.
- StevePerkins 10y ago
  What matters is TURNOUT. Always has. Trump received almost the exact same number of popular votes as Romney in '12, and McCain in '08. The difference is that 10 million Obama voters stayed home for Hillary: http://i.imgur.com/AT0kqVz.jpg http://i.imgur.com/AT0kqVz.jpg Whether due to disappointment that Bernie Sanders wasn't nominated, or belief that voting wasn't important since Trump wasn't projected to win, or "OMG Russian hacker!!" conspiracy theories, etc. The bottom line is that Democratic turnout has dropped 15% over the past couple of cycles. Like the shore in low tide, "swing" locations shift and move out when this happens. I hear advice that future nominees should just ignore blue states and focus entirely on swing locations. That's exactly what the Clinton campaign did! It's a recipe for failure in the modern day. Because once again, turnout is what matters. The rising tide pushed back the "swing" coastline. This new era of U.S. politics scares me... because I've grown accustomed to Democrats having the luxury of sounding reasonable and centrist, while the Republicans have been forced to pander to extremists in their base. But I think the old conventional wisdom of "run to the edge in the primaries and then pivot back to the center for the general" is breaking down. In the new rules, candidates have to LIVE out on the edge in order to keep their bases energized and draw turnout. I think we're going to see extreme left candidates facing extreme right candidates (or whatever Trump is), with a goal of get-out-the-vote operations rather than winning over swing moderates. As a swing moderate myself, this sounds disastrous no matter who wins.
  - jaynos 10y ago
    >Trump received almost the exact same number of popular votes as Romney in '12, and McCain in '08. The difference is that 10 million Obama voters stayed home for Hillary: http://i.imgur.com/AT0kqVz.jpg http://i.imgur.com/AT0kqVz.jpg Your data is from very soon after the election. Once all the votes were counted, Clinton had the same vote total as Obama '12 [1]. Perhaps an argument can be made that due to population growth she'd need 1% more (or some number) to truly match Obama '12. That said, I agree with your general message about turnout. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...
jonny_eh 10y ago
Or that Uber had more to lose, and Lyft more to gain.

hueving 10y ago

>nobody does an ounce of research anymore This is true of the vast majority of activists in any political cause. Most join as social signaling to their community that they are "one of them". Case in point, almost nobody interviewed for occupy Wallstreet could even agree on what the goal of the group was. Particularly in this case, showing support is literally as simple as installing an app that does almost the exact same thing as another app. "sure, I'll do that and post to Facebook about it to show how forward thinking I am"

mozumder 10y ago
I'm curious how far we can go in terms of inducing economic anxiety. Are the people willing to go for a general strike? How about a Hartal? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartal
kentor 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling
- grzm 10y ago
  Do you have something substantive to add besides posting the Wikipedia link? One could uncharitably interpret your comment as virtue signaling in and of itself.
  - phy6 10y ago
    I found it useful, I forgot what the term was and wanted to look it up.
  - tommorris 10y ago
    Meta-virtue signalling: signalling that you are smarter and better informed by everyone else by dismissing anything anybody else does, however well intentioned, as mere virtue signalling.
    - 10y ago

dongslol 10y ago

If anything, I think people assign too much weight to "sending a message" or "taking a stance." Thiel backed both Trump and Lyft! Down with Lyft! Uber wouldn't go along with some strike! Disavow! YC works with a Trump supporter! Fire him! Apparently the latest outrage on Twitter is over Elon Musk's condemnation of Trump's order not being tough enough. They're mad at him for trying to convince Trump to modify his proposal, because "making compromises with the opponent validates them," and he's being "morally cowardly." Well, ok. But at this point the order is (unless the ACLU wins) a reality, and the pragmatic thing to do is to work within the bounds of reality to make things better. Would these people rather he not do that, just to show that he's "standing with them"? I have an increasing suspicion that the word "solidarity" is becoming a word the means less and less. As far as I can tell, when applied to public figures, it mostly means sending the message that you care. I wish we'd care less about messaging, and more about what works.

Chyzwar 10y ago
There is real risk when business mingle with politics. Both Musk and Uber should consider this before working with Trump. Thiel will be forever marked as Trump supporter and he saw it coming. As for your suggestion to work with bounds of reality it should apply to Trump. If he want to change immigration policy he can work with Congress to pass laws and regulations. His flashy actions are just for his silly supporters and not for the benefit of US. Trump plan is to govern through the crisis. He will make flashy stupid actions to get everyone attention while Republicans and Lobbyist disassemble what has been achieved in last 8 years.
- dmos62 10y ago
  I'm experiencing dissonance. Business and politics are both social actions, but are some of us starting to conceive business as a space beyond social responsibility?
- wfo 10y ago
  Business is politics. Lobbying is rampant and everywhere. When you set wages or try to destroy organized labor that's political. Everything you do when you exercise the power you have as a businessman is a political action.

foobar_yc00 10y ago

that makes The divided states of America (D.S.A.)

reddytowns 10y ago

You can tell the difference between this and actually really caring, because the latter actually costs the person something. Using Lyft instead of Uber? Walking out at Google knowing full well it won't affect their job security at all (if not improve it by brown nosing)? Or what about a lawyer who is on her way out anyway, deciding to burn that bridge, knowing she'll have a cushioned landing (again, maybe even improving her career). This is ridiculous bullshit doing nothing. Thousands of people doing something that would risk their job, or land them in jail (and I'm not talking about a couple of out-of-work stragglers while the rest high tail it home when the police come out) might change something. But this? Just a big circle jerk which if Trump has a brain in his head, will just ignore.

yread 10y ago

It's true, Founders Fund backed Lyft in Series B (lead, 15M), C (60M) and D (250M). They also have Geoff Lewis on board. https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/lyft/investors https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/lyft/investors