
The Voters Decide - ghosh
https://stratechery.com/2016/the-voters-decide/
======
snowwrestler
IMO it can be rough when tech writers try to tackle politics. They tend to
over-rely on technology as an explanatory factor, and under-rely on candidate,
cultural, and political factors.

For example Ben is relying on his "aggregator theory" to explain Trump, but I
don't see how it applies. Trump is not spending resources on any of the big
tech aggregators, and he is not trying to go around the media. In fact he is
by far the most media-reliant candidate in the race. People find information
about Trump on Facebook not because Trump is working Facebook's levers, but
because so many news stories are written about him! He is infiltrating tech
platforms via the media.

Yes he is a heavy user of Twitter. But we've seen countless articles here on
HN about the stagnant state of Twitter as a social network. But guess who
still loves Twitter and uses it heavily: the media. Trump is on Twitter
because that's where the reporters are.

I'm not going to try to explain Trump's success. No one can, except maybe
Trump. But I do know that the Internet / media structure today is not a
sufficient explanation. Why? Because a) all the candidates exist in the same
tech/media environment, and b) the tech/media environment in 2016 is not
substantially different from 2012, when the GOP went establishment yet again.

Now maybe Ben would say that Trump has seized the opportunity much better than
the other candidates. But that is functionally the same as saying that Trump
is an extraordinary candidate--which, while unsatisfying as an explanation, is
right.

Edit: for clarity

~~~
leereeves
Clearly, Trump has mastered traditional media, but would the way he's done so
be possible without social media?

The traditional media coverage of Trump is generally negative, and his
signature "Say something outrageous and spark a conversation" style relies on
social media, where the conversation happens.

Without that, would he just be "that rich guy the media always makes fun of"?

~~~
manachar
That's precisely his base. If the establishment hates him, he must be doing
something right.

~~~
leereeves
Indeed, but isn't the widespread antiestablishmentarianism also nurtured
primarily in social media?

~~~
manachar
It's been the recurring thread in American politics since the "Turn on, tune
in, drop out" and "state's rights" of the 60s.

Social media might be nurturing more extreme views by fostering more isolation
from challenging beliefs, but one could also argue that it's exposing people
to more of other people's views than ever before.

~~~
leereeves
Long before the 60s, actually.

Social media isn't required for revolution, obviously, but it feeds
antiestablishment movements more effectively than underground printing presses
and independent radio did.

At least for the moment. Perhaps a new establishment will arise that's learned
to control the Internet as well as previous establishments controlled other
media.

------
tunesmith
Well... this is liable to easily fall into political arguments so I'll engage
in some tortured phrasing here to keep this uncontroversial. My thought is
that the Republicans have long (since 1968 or so) sought political support
from a large section of the population that they haven't had much interest in
actually representing. And then this group has later felt betrayed by the lack
of representation, over and over again. So their passion has increased.

So I think that's part of why technology has had such a huge effect - this
group has always been there, but for the "first" time (speaking broadly)
they've got the ability to have a direct relationship with a candidate who is
truly representing them (or, may only be appearing to representing them, but
doing such a convincing job at it that he's freaking out other Republicans).

As for how to define this population, it's tricky - I read a few essays a
while back that called them "The Borderers" \- but at any rate it's definitely
more nuanced than calling them evangelicals or culturally conservative or
isolationists, etc.

~~~
mc32
But, then the question is, why isn't this happening so much on the Democratic
side? Is it that a greater number of Republican voters feel disenfranchised by
their party [or government] and are thus taking things into their own hands,
so to speak?

~~~
secabeen
I think it's that Sanders is still part of the establishment in a way that
Trump is not. Either Sanders or Clinton will graciously accept a loss and
campaign for their opponent in a way that Trump may not.

~~~
deciplex
Progressives should be worried about what will happen to the Democratic party
after this election, though. It's probably going to become the new home of
neoconservatives by the end of this decade (if not already), and who knows
what other factions will flock to the Democrats if Trump actually does remake
the Republican party into a right-wing nationalist one.

If you're a reliable Democrat (like myself) you might gloat for a while over
the implosion of the imposing party, but a one-party state will _really_ suck.
I honestly hope the GOP can get their shit together sooner rather than later.

~~~
adt2bt
Great point bringing up the myopia of the modern political horse race. For
progressives, a fracturing GOP may grant them another White House term. Though
when the dust settles, they may be the ones left politically homeless as their
party moves more to the right to grab more unsettled conservatives.

It makes me wonder if both parties will continue rocketing away from each
other in the left-right spectrum or if a Trump nomination will resettle the
status quo.

~~~
spacecowboy_lon
It might make both parties modernize and become less like the 18th century
model of lose collations.

Dumping the antiquated primary system and going to One Member One Vote would
save so much money and also tighten party discipline.

------
adt2bt
Fascinating. I agree with the analysis that the Internet is giving more power
to 'voters' because the content that gets talked about the most (and thus
voted on) is the one they consume the most. However, I think there's some
nuance needed with that model.

The collective group of US megamedia companies have the means to focus public
attention on topics they want, even if the population normally wouldn't be
amenable. I don't think it's as cut and dry as 'I, a rational person with
wholly my own thoughts and feelings, consume and internalize the media I want
rather than what's shown to me.' Rather, the media I am exposed to plays a
part in shaping my beliefs, even if it's subconscious, and media companies
have strategies to get their stuff in my face.

As a population, the Internet has both given us a wealth of information and
taught us to rely more and more on intuition as the sheer quantity of
knowledge is far too much to handle.

As a side note, Facebook has already admitted to toying with its users
emotions. I would not be very surprised if they have some 'variables' they can
'tweak' to bias their users. The authors benevolent assumption could just very
well be wrong.

[http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/technology/facebook-
tin...](http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/technology/facebook-tinkers-with-
users-emotions-in-news-feed-experiment-stirring-outcry.html?referer=&_r=0)

~~~
ec109685
If someone consumes their news via Facebook/Snapchat and either doesn't have
cable or has cable and a dvr, how do megamedia companies have the ability to
focus attention? You can easily opt out of pretty much all media advertising
if you want these days.

~~~
adt2bt
Agreed that it's possible to opt out at the individual level (I do so,
myself). However, the people I interact with talk about the topics covered by
the media with me. In a way they are acting as a 2nd order part of the
megamedia companies by refocusing my attention, both IRL and online. This is
obviously a weaker link than directly watching cable, but still there
nonetheless.

------
poof131
Well written but disagree. I don’t see the internet playing a significantly
larger role in 2016 than in the last couple of elections. The real distinction
is the trajectory of the economy and people’s belief in the future. Sanders
and Trump both represent populism, just on different sides of the political
spectrum. Populism is the defining factor of this election cycle, not the
Internet. I love tech, but sometimes it isn’t the center of the universe.

Perhaps the Internet has made insurgency candidacies easier, but I bet history
would dispute this. A quick google search of underdog candidates shows that
Lincoln may have been one.[1] I wasn’t alive then so can’t say for sure, but
American politics seems to be a battle of insurgencies and their absorption by
one party or the other to gain the upper hand. A strong vein of populism can
even create a whole party dedicated to bringing down a single perceived elite
institution.[2] Even while one of their main targets, Andrew Jackson, was
trying to take down the elite bankers himself.[3] Populism is the undercurrent
here, not a change in technology.

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/Lincoln-President-Underdogs-
Republican...](http://www.amazon.com/Lincoln-President-Underdogs-Republican-
Nomination/dp/0786439572)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-
Masonic_Party](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Masonic_Party)

[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_War)

------
dcw303
Old media has always been in the business of printing stories that sell
newspapers, or airing news stories that attract viewers. Facebook (new media)
is in the business of getting eyeballs for advertising. These are basically
the same business model.

What is different is that the owners of the press/ tv networks have
traditionally used their editorial control to push a political view, whereas
Facebook does not (so far, anyway). This is a tricky proposition for a social
media platform that is formed with no political leanings, but it's not
inconceivable that a future platform could be started with an agenda.

Social media (this site included)/upvotes/karma/imaginary internet points all
encourage populist viewpoints. It's no surprise that a politician with a
populist agenda is getting the most attention, it's actually the inevitable
conclusion.

------
kibwen
I would be wary of any theory that links Trump's success to the influence of
Facebook, seeing as how the presidential candidate with more Facebook likes
than any other is Ben Carson, which has translated into zilch at the polls.

~~~
crucialfelix
Its easy to buy those. He probably just purchased the likes.

------
dfabulich
When you get all your news from social media, and you and your friends think a
candidate "tells it like it is," but there is contradictory evidence, you and
your friends will tend to reject that evidence.

More generally, when your Bayesian prior belief in a candidate gets too high,
anyone who disagrees just makes _themselves_ seem disreputable in your eyes;
their disagreement _strengthens_ your belief in the candidate.

What could count as direct evidence that the candidate is wrong, when you and
your friends have filtered all of your news?

~~~
wbillingsley
Most people don't actually get their news from social media.

The people who do spend an inordinate amount of focus social media, and who've
gone lurching off into a little bubble, are the journalists. They've spent the
last year being shocked that the public keeps disagreeing with them and their
circle of friends. Surely tomorrow the public will see how stupid it is to
vote for that nasty Mr Trump that Twitter keeps condemning and that Mr Rubio
is the only nice shiny acceptable candidate. No? Oh well, next week then.
Still not, goodness why can't these people get with the Twitter vibe. Surely
next month then...

Sanders and Trump are quite different. Sanders has picked up votes from the
social bubble moving leftwards into his territory. Trump has picked up votes
from the people outside the bubble staring in incredulity as the bubble gets
more inward looking and spends more and more of its time raging about what
candidates can and cannot say. (Which is why every controversy helps Trump --
he's essentially made rebellion against that his campaign... the candidate who
will not be cowed)

------
crucialfelix
For a large demographic this election looks like its being fought with memes.
Not proposed policy, speeches, ads or debates but these simplistic images that
you can read in a second.

Neither Sanders nor Clinton is generating this content. I think this is
significant. The ability for candidates to control their own narrative is
waning.

Of course this is only for a segment of the population but its by no means
small. Bernie Sanders wouldn't still be in the running if this was
insignificant.

Some of it is well put together, but lots of it is simplistic and vicious. The
anti-Hillary stuff is out of hand and will cause huge problems if she is the
nominee. Many Bernie heads will be unable to pull the lever for Hillary
because the primary is overblown.

The anti-Trump content (hitler memes) is the most extreme I think we've ever
seen.

Its a very stupid, emotional election.

------
vannevar
It's worth bearing in mind that, in every Republican primary held so far, the
majority has voted against Trump. If "the voters" are indeed deciding, they
are deciding against Trump, not for him. I think his success so far has less
to do with a new political paradigm than it does with the simple mathematics
of an unusually large field of candidates. The Republicans had hoped that
having a large field would a) give them a lot more publicity during the
primary season (they were right), and b) split the opposition to Jeb Bush and
give him a greater aura of legitimacy when he emerged victorious, compared to
Clinton's relative coronation (they were wrong).

------
lifeisstillgood
One thing worth noting is that if he is right, and Facebook (and lesser extent
Google and Twitter) represent the new gatekeeper / aggregator for political
news, then there is a crying need for their algorithms to be public, and there
is a whole industry of political SEO

------
Gupie
"users increasingly find all their news [...] via Facebook"

Mind-boggling!

