The Voters Decide
stratechery.com
stratechery.com
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
FWIW his success is not really hard to explain, but to do so would likely derail this thread into LEO.
He has mastered the art of going viral. Right now, even the people that hate him are promoting him by giving attention to the controversies he manufactures.
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"?
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.
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.
Bernie, though, I'm pretty sure is a candidate that doesn't get as far as he has without the kind of grassroots campaign only possible in the Internet era. Ron Paul was this candidate in the last election. The Internet definitely has reduced the ability of a centralized minority to control the message, and that will continue as the percentage of internet-savvy people increases.
To be clear, I was not at all trying to suggest that tech was the only factor. It's a small one.
Moreover, where tech matters is in how it has devalued what the party offered, clearing the space for Trump (i.e. the effect of aggregation of the media is to neuter the party, not necessarily to elevate trump)
The social media landscape is significantly different than in 2012.
http://www.ibtimes.com/facebook-gets-older-demographic-repor...
From Jan 2011 to Jan 2014, Facebook saw big increases in users aged 25-55 and massive increases in users aged 55+.
- Who votes the most?
- Where have they increasingly been turning as their primary consumption point for media?
Thompson's idea is that aggregator services have replaced distributor services as the channel for media to get to consumers, and that these aggregator services present new consumer-targeting opportunities for media, and new media-consuming opportunities for consumers.
When consumers define part of their consumption channel by the consumption preferences of other consumers, we start to see constructive interference in the "neutral" flow of media to any one individual consumer. It's that "echo chamber" effect folks like talking about.
Thompson says in the article, "[it's not] that Donald Trump or anyone else is an aggregator." Rather, the nature of the aggregator as a much more malleable media delivery system presents a new effect in that political landscape: any particular piece of media might end up in one of these broad-reaching, customized consumption webs and produce a large effect on those consumers.
Before, the distribution services were shaped by a relative handful of editors. Today, the aggregator services are shaped by the entire population.
The parties can't influence the entire population in the way they could a handful of editorial boards, and so these aggregators are a greater facilitating influence on the opinions of voters than the parties are.
Trump's messaging has been well-targeted at viewpoints that people will talk about. And it's been delivered in a way that people will resonate with. So:
- His message has surfaced much more frequently, and more broadly, across these consumer-shaped aggregator networks.
- It's surfacing with a huge portion of the folks most likely to vote.
Pair that with the effects of group psychology and you get an idea of how folks who liked him for being ridiculous last summer now ideologically support him today.
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.
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.
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.
Dumping the antiquated primary system and going to One Member One Vote would save so much money and also tighten party discipline.
She is also Obama chosen candidate.
Trump is anti establishment. He's not using the traditional method to nomination. He thumbs his nose at the Republican organs apparatchiks and nomenklatura.
Trump is also not only anti-Obama but anti-career politicians and additionally is channeling middle class anger the way the BLM movement channel poor blacks anger. It's people who don't care much about religion or social conservatism but have been ignored and taken for granted for decades by both sides.
He's basically the anti-"The Man" and before you day he's "the man" any successful movement requires support from a sympathetic part of the ruling or monied class who see their peers as being out of touch.
This is also true for Democrats (isolationist vs interventionist is a big one) but there don't seem to be as many areas of huge cultural disagreement.
Bingo. I'm just old enough to remember hearing about Nixon's "silent majority" a few years after he used it; per Wikipedia:
The term was popularized by United States President Richard Nixon in a November 3, 1969, speech in which he said, "And so tonight—to you, the great silent majority of my fellow Americans—I ask for your support." In this usage it referred to those Americans who did not join in the large demonstrations against the Vietnam War at the time, who did not join in the counterculture, and who did not participate in public discourse. Nixon along with many others saw this group of Middle Americans as being overshadowed in the media by the more vocal minority.
And his record was very mixed: got us out of Vietnam ("Peace with honor", later betrayed, of course), detente with the Soviet Union was the best he could achieve there, which a lot of us groked, and the masterful opening with China, which was probably a necessary part of winning the Cold War.
Economically, though, ugh, although he was dealt a terrible hand. Closing the gold window (although that allowed Ford to allow us to own gold again), his wage and price controls with authoritarianism we hadn't seen since FDR and their inevitable distortions and nil accomplishments, establishing the EPA, OSHA etc. (which ran out of control not much later), heck, trucking and airline deregulation was a Carter thing. But we felt he was largely on our side, even if not so competent about it domestically. Ditto Ford, and Reagan of course 100%.
But since then ... do I need to, for this audience, detail the records of Bush father and son? McCain hates us with a burning passion, and have you ever heard of anyone calling himself a "severe" conservative aside from Romney ? Not I in 45 years of self-aware "conservatism" (scare quotes because of how that word has been degraded to the point of uselessness; I like the "Militant Right" nowadays).
You can reduce a lot of Trump's appeal to what one Iowa caucus put on his ballot: "Donald Trump, because fuck you". Or
You "conservative" "pundits" still don't get it: Trump isn't our candidate. He's our murder weapon. And the GOP is our victim.
We good, now?
(https://twitter.com/empireofjeff/status/632271934907138048) That's the GOP establishment, of course, which after way too many betrayals we have every intention of terminating with extreme prejudice, with Trump being just one instrumentality.
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...
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...
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.
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?
Kasich and Carson [and O'Malley?] are "too nice" to win anything.
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)
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.
Mind-boggling!