
Dear Democrats, Read This If You Do Not Understand Why Trump Won - J0rdanVa1dez
https://medium.com/@trentlapinski/dear-democrats-read-this-if-you-do-not-understand-why-trump-won-5a0cdb13c597#.jhhanptn7
======
qznc
> This is the problem with America today, the technology that was supposed to
> bring us together actually isolated us into echo chambers and drove us
> further apart.

Everybody knows where the other echo chamber is. As a democrat, you are free
to watch Fox or read Breitbart. The hard thing is to read it open minded. The
average democrat HN visitor probably looks there and stops after two
sentences. Then leaves ranting about the bullshit there.

The crux is that this the same in reverse. If a Trump supporter watches CNN,
he stops after two sentences. Then leaves ranting about the bullshit there.

I have no idea how to fix this.

~~~
drusepth
>I have no idea how to fix this.

I don't either, but I'd love to get some brainstorming started.

Some naive solutions (and, please, feel free to point out why each of them
won't work -- any maybe what you'd change to get closer to a solution!):

1\. News "aggregator" sites that pull from both sides of the spectrum --
though people would probably just pick and choose which articles they read and
which they raged over (assuming they didn't just revert back to CNN/Fox
immediately)

2\. Some neutralizing layer on top of all news sites that pulls out glittering
generalities, biased phrasing, etc -- though you'd still have the issue of
which stories are being reported on, and those "neutered" articles could
easily be less interesting to read (and of course this would be difficult to
get right, but I don't think difficulty to implement should be a barrier to
trying something)

3\. Some gamification of understanding and debate, that rewards people for
taking the time to read posts from the other side and thoughtfully sharing
their opinions on _why_ they agree/disagree, or pairs people up with someone
in private to have a discussion over it (just saw something on HN the other
day for this), or something else to facilitate seeing things from someone
else's POV

4\. A more traditional game (as in, actually a game) that mirrors the real
world (in the same way the Stock Market Game mirrors stock market prices) in
which you play as someone with a different point of view (e.g. you're given a
fictional character and role-play as them) and try to make compromises with
other players to achieve peace in an evolving fictional world

One other question is this: how do we get people to _want_ to escape their
echo chambers? Many people enjoy or are just fine being surrounded by people
that agree with them. Lots of people actually go out of their way to remove
those who disagree with them (as is popular on e.g. Facebook and G+ right
now). How do we convince people that, yes, sometimes it's good to hear
dissenting ideas?

I see so many people upset right now, and it's clear there's a myriad of deep-
set problems at work that can't be fixed with a simple bandaid solution. It's
frustrating when you see a problem like this and have no idea how to fix it.

~~~
donw
> 1\. News "aggregator" sites that pull from both sides of the spectrum --
> though people would probably just pick and choose which articles they read
> and which they raged over (assuming they didn't just revert back to CNN/Fox
> immediately)

The million-dollar questions are: How do you combat the addictive effects of
anger (it is a _very_ addictive emotion), and the human predisposition towards
tribal conflict (e.g., the us vs them dynamic)?

If we had a good answer to those questions, then we could craft a media
environment that, while still biased, presented a good sampling of
viewpoints[1].

After which, we would need to figure out how can that be made economically
sustainable?

I would be _very_ interested to tackle those problems, but fear the economics.

[1] Right now, most media outlets present "the other side" solely as a
strawman/weakman argument to be knocked down.

------
ilolu
When Hillary lost to one of the worst candidates ever in Trump, then its her
fault. But from what I seen in social media, Hillary's supporters are just
blaming everyone else for the loss rather than finding fault in their
candidate.

I have even seen tweets claiming all Trump's voters (60 million people) are
sexist, racist etc. It could just be a simple fact that people value other
things more than just sexism and racism.

Trump just sold people a better future to this voters than Hillary did.
Whether he is going to solve any issues of his voters, is a different thing.

~~~
allengeorge
While I'm sure that sexism and racism does play a role for _some_ voters, I
believe (anecdotally, without data-based evidence) that its influence is
overstated. Commentators who simply point to those factors are demonizing the
"other" and perversely, are making it even harder to achieve consensus on
issues. After all, how can you respect your opponent if they're sexist or
racist?

That aside, broadly, Hillary lost because she:

\- Represented the establishment

\- Was uninspiring

\- Was followed by the aura of 'scandal' (Benghazi and the email server are
the two I've heard the most)

I think people were simply tired of establishment politicians who they felt
never listened to them and never worked for their interests anyways - and just
wanted someone radically different. It also helped that Trump's message "Make
America Great Again" _is_ trivially inspiring and broadly resonates. People
feel that there's something wrong - that the social contract is gone, and they
want to be part of a future where that greatness and their part in it exists
again.

~~~
ilolu
I am from India and I have seen middle class people talking about sexism,
racism as major points while discussing candidates.

But when people are worried about leading a respectful life and make the
future of their children safer, you cannot expect them to vote on sexism and
racism as major topics in an election. You need to sell them a future.

And Trump sold them a future with "Make America Great Again". And Bernie was
also selling people a future where corporations don't decide ur life. Hillary
was basically telling America is great already. Think of people who are
anxious economically hearing that.

------
LeanderK
I immediately stop reading when i see sentences like "The Media Lied To Us
About EVERYTHING". This is stupid and i don't trust the author anymore. It's a
huge red flag. Did the NYTimes ever openly lie (That's not publishing false
information)? I only read it for american/international news, but they always
seemed very trustworthy and many trustworthy people declared it trustworthy
(the guardian and my favourite newspaper, the german sueddeutsche Zeitung are
all working with it).

I know about the emails and the investigation, that's nothing new. Please
don't write articles about how everybody forgot about wikileaks and how much
leaked emails you were posting in social media, because i don't care. These
are not facts, they don't help me understand how trump won.

Also it was a very, very close race. Especially in Florida, i was glued to the
screen.

EDIT: i read the whole article. Its clickbait. It never even starts trying to
explain how hillary lost. It just states things not supported by facts like
"Bernie Sanders Would Have Beat Trump". I would like to see Bernie beating
Trump, but it is 100% opinion. No facts supported this claim. A third of the
article is a positive outlook for the trump-presidency, which has nothing to
do with the headline and what i expected to read. Also the first third is all
about the leaked wikileaks emails, but no facts are presented that support the
conclusion that they were even that important. I doubt it, of course it's a
scandal, but the candidates were too different to let the emails be the
decisive factor.

I want to understand how hillary lost, but i want facts, polls, interviews,
data and experts analysing the data. Not somebody rambling about how he knew
it all along.

~~~
crispyambulance
Yep, hindsight is 20/20, and now people are going to come out of the woodwork
explain how "inevitable" a Trump victory was.

The fact is there was always a margin for error and probabilities involved
here. Clinton having an 89% chance of winning did _not_ predict a victory.
Also, we obviously don't have a model for how many democrats are going to sit
on their asses and not vote in any given election.

Looking back, the thing that signaled something weird was going on was the
fact that Trump could say literally any offensive dumb-ass idea, roil the
media and all his opponents, and come out unscathed or even stronger. He did
this a dozen times or more throughout the campaign. I suspect that really
understanding that dynamic will explain how Trump won.

~~~
DefaultUserHN
Okay. As a Trump supporter, I'll help you to understand. Which part were you
confused about?

>...the fact that Trump could say literally any offensive dumb-ass idea...

Okay. You're gonna have to be more specific than that. Which idea did you
thought was dumb?

~~~
crispyambulance
I think you'll find out soon enough.

------
moyta
I was in Michigan just after caucusing for Bernie at home, and the sheer
amount of people for Bernie or bust among the White, Asian & Black communities
was palpable. 10 million less people turned out to vote compared to 2008, and
those were nearly exclusively 10 million Obama voters.

Voters like this African American gal I met in eastern Michigan who did not
vote after Bernie lost, or that of this great group of young Asian Americans
who also supported Bernie but switched or did not vote after his loss due to
extended family & friends (from the west coast nonetheless) telling them Trump
was the only option.

~~~
drusepth
>10 million less people turned out to vote compared to 2008, and those were
nearly exclusively 10 million Obama voters.

This is crazy. Neither Hillary nor Trump even received as many votes as John
McCain did back in 2008 (60M) [1], who _still_ lost to Obama by another 10
million votes. It's crazy to actually see how many fewer people voted this
election compared to the past two, for whatever reasons.

[1]
[https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/npA9xOL8_g_akHquHjzBBFn1RS...](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/npA9xOL8_g_akHquHjzBBFn1RSfBl6i6vduPavkf3JBMOB_12tWcdsBGNdP_TMCo9pB2DIlfOMs=w1920-h1080-rw-
no)

~~~
yolesaber
Given two of the worst presidential candidates in recent history compared to
2008 when you had two great candidates (and I say this as a hardcore leftist),
it's not that surprising people stayed home.

~~~
moyta
Damn straight, if I could have the choice I would have thrown my vote away on
John McCain this election, I might not agree with most of his positions, but
you can definitely respect him. His enduring fight to end and prevent our use
of torture is quite heartening, even as a bleeding heart, housing first
progressive.

------
baldfat
A) People thought it was in the bag. I live in PA and it was a 6 to 8 point
lead.

B) Seriously heard and had emails saying that there would be Trump supporters
watching our polls (I live int he third largest city in PA)

C) Very little enthusiasm for Hillary compared to the Super Star Status of
Trump.

D) People don't understand that the Democrats had little national power
besides the White House and didn't take the election seriously

E) Facts and truth was thrown out the door so there was little to no dialog
between the parties. The demonizing of Democrats was unreal. People really
believe Hillary is a Satan Worshiper and that Obama is secretly helping ISIS.

~~~
smoyer
I live in the third largest city in PA (when there's a home Penn State
football game) and I agree whole-heartedly with your points. Since State
College is surrounded by rural areas, it was clear that the excited voters (as
a potential measure of which people will head to the polls) were for Trump.

I find it a bit ironic that there are protests against Trump in the cities as
for years, the cities in PA have determined how the state voted. In an
election where the rural constituent was finally mobilized, it's like they're
throwing tantrums because they didn't get their way.

As a US citizen, I have to trust the system and believe that, while I didn't
vote for Trump, he's exactly what the people want. I don't like his rhetoric
but I do understand the anger of the "common man", who's watched policy driven
by the self-appointed elites drives them from the middle class.

Until now they haven't stood a chance - corporate money buys policy and
ensures increasing corporate profits while making the former middle class
poorer. I won't say that there's not a race war going on, but I believe that
part of the problem is that there's an underlying class war simmering out-of-
sight.

~~~
baldfat
YOUR THE 4th size city still :) The Penn State community boasts that during
home games at State College the stadium is the 4th largest city by
"population" in the state. It follows Philadelphia (1,517,550), Pittsburgh
(334,563), Allentown (118,032),
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_Stadium](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_Stadium)

I worked the polls for 5 hours. I asked everyone going in to the gym to play
basketball if they voted. I got two responses from the players. A) "Of course
I voted" B) F __* that B __ __

The majority of the white voters were for Trump and would vocalize there
displeasure with Hillary.

~~~
smoyer
Yes ... the stadium itself is the 4th largest city. State College Borough
itself has around 40k residents and there's obviously overlap between those
residents and those sitting in the stadium. I've heard estimates that there
are 15k people that show up just to tailgate on nice days (that seems high to
me). In any case, it's an interesting statistic.

Note that Allentown is relatively safe from State College ever passing it as
the Borough itself is small and mostly developed. There are 5 surrounding
townships that actually contain most of the area's population.

------
Joeboy
I don't expect this to be popular, but maybe one route out of this meme-
driven, post-truth, clickbaity echo chamber political dystopia is that we get
over the idea that it's terrible to pay (or charge) for news. Twenty years ago
it seemed great that the net was disrupting traditional news outlets. Now
we've played that out a bit, it seems like we miss the kind of work you can do
if you have revenue that isn't coming from advertisers or lobbyists.

~~~
cholantesh
>Now we've played that out a bit, it seems like we miss the kind of work you
can do if you have revenue that isn't coming from advertisers or lobbyists.

Isn't a lot of the print outlets' revenue generated through advertising,
though?

------
acranox
Uh, does this guy not care about the candidates policies? People who went from
sanders to trump don't make sense to me when you consider their positions on
many major policies.

~~~
rahoulb
I'm not in America, but I am English and have watched similar events happen
with Brexit and the impression I get is this is about rejecting the status
quo, not about what comes in its place.

Sanders said "Take power from the 1%". Trump said "Make America great again".
Hillary said "America is already great".

Which of those statements will _resonate_ with the people who have been
struggling for years and can't see much hope for their children? Which of
those statements gives the impression that the candidate doesn't understand
that so many people are actually struggling?

~~~
dev360
bingo

------
lordnacho
The bit about corporate news being biased towards Hillary makes little sense.
In so far as corporates are profit-seeking, Trump is a much better circus to
cover. He gets attention, and attention is advertisement dollars. So if you're
going to favour someone, it should be Trump. Heck he'll now provide
interesting soundbites for years.

Also you cannot dismiss EVERYTHING as being lies. It's just not how lying
works. A lie is a slightly modified truth, not a complete fiction. It's also
pretty much the same as the hysteria that is being written about, to claim
that everything is a lie.

The real story of why he won is a lot less exciting than everyone makes it out
to be. He basically said he'll fix everything that's wrong, somehow.
Especially whatever is wrong about the job market at the lower end. Economics
seems to have gotten buried amid all the name-calling during the campaign, but
not in the ballot box. And economics has been the major topic in every
election, and every election an establishment candidate has been elected and
turned out not to fix the issues.

Hillary wanted to talk about all sorts of things that aren't economics: racial
equality, gender issues, foreign policy, experience in government, Trump being
himself, and so on. Well, she got Trumped because people didn't care that his
style is a bit narcissistic, didn't care that he has zero experience, and
didn't care that he has no actual plan. People took a punt on Trump because
why buy more of the same thing that doesn't work?

On Bernie, I agree with the article. He talked about a real economic
alternative, and would have had a chance.

------
notacoward
Dear Sanders supporters (like the author and BTW like me as well). He also
lost. You also need to get off your high horse, talk _with_ people who are
unlike you instead of talking down to them, and learn something from what
happened. That's what Sanders himself is doing. "I told you so" looks no
better on you than it does on the Trump supporters. In fact, it looks the
same.

------
billy8988
This notion, Bernie would have definitely beaten Trump is just a ludicrous
assumption. 66% americans view socialism very negatively and Trump would have
the same message against Bernie that he hadn't done anything in the last 40
years of public service. Only thing that would be going for Bernie would be
his "trustworthiness".

------
williamle8300
The DNC is an organization that's rotten from the inside out. Don't forget
about Wasserman being the fall man for all of their shenanigans.

------
aplomb
If there is one thing made clear - there is no such thing as journalistic
objectivity. It's just a feel good myth we all tell ourselves as we consume
our value affirming sources in a feed back loop.

------
thecity2
This guy should have just sent this letter directly to Thiel. Would have been
a much faster way to ask for a job.

------
Wellshit
That's exactly the problem. It's uncivil if I do it, but justified if they
enforce it. Double standards much?

To be clear: I don't give a flying f __* about what you do with your body, but
don 't fire me if I happen to use a personal pronoun that doesn't match your
feeling.

You had no problem in disregarding my opinion, and felt the need to protect
their views.

Please take the time to view this video

[https://youtu.be/kasiov0ytEc](https://youtu.be/kasiov0ytEc)

And don't you dare cut me off of my right to free speech because you don't
agree with me.

I won't be offended if you ignore me.

