**** Elections thread *****

[OngBonga]

As for the rigging of actual elections, well this has happened in recent American history. Do you suppose Bush won fairly vs Gore?

[Poopadoop]

As for the rigging of actual elections, well this has happened in recent American history. Do you suppose Bush won fairly vs Gore?

It seems to happen in every POTUS election to a greater or lesser extent. Part of the problem is letting each state run its own voting process, which seems to multiply the chance of corruption by 50x relative to just having one centrally-run system.

[Poopadoop]

I read somewhere (can't find the link, but if I do I'll post it) that the reason for Trump's popularity has to do with the widespread cultural notion in the US of American Exceptionalism, which is the idea that their country is somehow special and 'should' be on top of the world and remain there forever. The alternate view, that they're destined to go up and down like every other country, shouldn't apply to them (in their minds). There's a conflict between this idea and the evidence suggesting that the country is in decline internationally. Its foreign policy adventures since WWII have been unrewarding. The economies in places like China are rising fast and the US seems stagnant in comparison.

Put the idea that America has to stay on top forever with the evidence that it's slipping down in the world and you get a huge amount of cognitive dissonance. As a result people look for scapegoats, and external threats like terrorists and immigration, and internal threats (the government) all become targets. So they believe these things need to be cleaned up in order to make America great again. Along comes Trump and promises to do just that, and it strikes a chord.

This article makes a comparison between present-day America and places like 1920s and 30s Germany, where the people largely felt their country didn't have its rightful place in the world and the scapegoats were Versailles (treaty at end of WW1) and the jews.

Obviously comparing present-day America to pre-Nazi Germany is a bit of a stretch, and things are more complicated than the article suggests, but it was an interesting explanation for Trump's popularity.

[wufwugy]

I read somewhere (can't find the link, but if I do I'll post it) that the reason for Trump's popularity has to do with the widespread cultural notion in the US of American Exceptionalism, which is the idea that their country is somehow special and 'should' be on top of the world and remain there forever. The alternate view, that they're destined to go up and down like every other country, shouldn't apply to them (in their minds). There's a conflict between this idea and the evidence suggesting that the country is in decline internationally. Its foreign policy adventures since WWII have been unrewarding. The economies in places like China are rising fast and the US seems stagnant in comparison.

Put the idea that America has to stay on top forever with the evidence that it's slipping down in the world and you get a huge amount of cognitive dissonance. As a result people look for scapegoats, and external threats like terrorists and immigration, and internal threats (the government) all become targets. So they believe these things need to be cleaned up in order to make America great again. Along comes Trump and promises to do just that, and it strikes a chord.

This article makes a comparison between present-day America and places like 1920s and 30s Germany, where the people largely felt their country didn't have its rightful place in the world and the scapegoats were Versailles (treaty at end of WW1) and the jews.

Obviously comparing present-day America to pre-Nazi Germany is a bit of a stretch, and things are more complicated than the article suggests, but it was an interesting explanation for Trump's popularity.

It is an interesting explanation indeed, but also exemplifies what I think is the biggest drawback in literary analysis: you can make any case you want as long as you can show patterns or similarities with a handful of elements.

As somebody who was once outside of Trump Town and now inside it, I think this misses the mark big time. Obama and the Democrats and the left are bad for business of ordinary citizens. It really is that simple. They raise taxes, intrude with wasteful regulations, make places less safe, and all sorts of other nasty stuff. Many millions of voters have consistently voted against these things all their lives. Trump is better at getting the word out than other candidates have been.

Most Americans don't really care about the rest of the world. The idea that a subset of Americans are angry over being marginalized by "progress" has been bandied about for years. It's a popular argument wielded by the elites and wannabe elites who believe in the very things that screw things up for everybody else.

[OngBonga]

It seems to happen in every POTUS election to a greater or lesser extent. Part of the problem is letting each state run its own voting process, which seems to multiply the chance of corruption by 50x relative to just having one centrally-run system.

Right. So if the probability of corruption is increased fifty fold, then why would you assume the polls are reliable? Why would the polls not be rigged, while the election probably will be?

It's hard to know what goes on in the mind of a wishy-washing undecided, but I'm inclined to agree with Wuf on this that the polls can influence people's choices.

I think this is probably more true of America than it is UK, simply because Americans are so motivated by being the "winningest", which it's worth noting is a stupid American word. But I still think that the volume of people whose political lean is influenced by who is "winning" is not very high. I'm sure there are plenty of people on the fence, but I doubt the majority of them will vote for the candidate that leads the polls. It could also be argued that the polls lure some people into a false sense of security, that Clinton supporters might become complacent, while Trump supporters are motivated. Of course, this is just another flaw with polls. We're left guessing what the impact of the polls are, and how it influences the election. It can influence the result either way, or not at all. Thus, it's unreliable, even when it's sincere.

[Poopadoop]

Right. So if the probability of corruption is increased fifty fold, then why would you assume the polls are reliable? Why would the polls not be rigged, while the election probably will be?

I'm open to the idea the polls are rigged, but haven't seen direct evidence.

In contrast, I've seen direct evidence the election has been 'rigged' inasmuch as voter's rights are being manipulated.

[wufwugy]

It seems to happen in every POTUS election to a greater or lesser extent. Part of the problem is letting each state run its own voting process, which seems to multiply the chance of corruption by 50x relative to just having one centrally-run system.

Oh man a centrally run system would be so damn easy to rig. Decentralization is so important here.