The Voters Decide(stratechery.com)
stratechery.com
The Voters Decide
https://stratechery.com/2016/the-voters-decide/
41 comments
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"?
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"?
That's precisely his base. If the establishment hates him, he must be doing something right.
Indeed, but isn't the widespread antiestablishmentarianism also nurtured primarily in social media?
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.
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.
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.
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.
The aphorism "There's no such thing as bad press" comes to mind.
Forget about Trump...he's just a scary reminder of how many people will still get riled up by xenophobic fear-mongering and aggression, and yeah he's basically the establishment and has been all over traditional media for years.
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.
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.
I don't think Bernie's campaign is particularly noteworthy, historically. Many campaigns have had hard-fought primaries, and populist vs establishment is hardly a new theme in American politics.
> I'm not going to try to explain Trump's success. No one can, except maybe Trump.
FWIW his success is not really hard to explain, but to do so would likely derail this thread into LEO.
FWIW his success is not really hard to explain, but to do so would likely derail this thread into LEO.
I'd say that the explanation is actually less contentious than it might seem.
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.
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.
Totally fair re tech writers.
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)
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)
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Dumping the antiquated primary system and going to One Member One Vote would save so much money and also tighten party discipline.
I think that's basically true - there just seems to be a wider variety of Republican voters than Democratic voters, so a candidate seeking the support of all Republicans is invariably going to leave a large chunk of them out in the cold when it comes time to make realistic choices.
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.
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.
Well, in a way they already have: Obama was the enti-establishment candidate 8 years ago, with very little (or no) political base. Sanders this year is the same, except with less connection to minority voters -- but he's still making Hillary work hard for what was supposed to be a coronation.
He wasn't that anti-establishment. There were plenty of elected dems who were not that pro Clinton. Also Obama v Clinton race difference is she voted for the Iraq war which a sizable of dems were strongly against and Iraq was still going on. Now 8 years later anger has faded a bit and we don't see troops being killed.
She is also Obama chosen candidate.
She is also Obama chosen candidate.
8 years ago he was very much anti-establishment in message. "Change", "Hope" and "yes we can" were very much anti-establishment slogans in nature. The message changed post-primary, when he cut deals and adopted much of Hillary's platform and personnel, but he certainly defeated Clinton thanks to the combination of his outsider/anti-establishment credentials and his minority status (coupled with powerful oratory skills which are still on a different level). Whether part of the Dem establishment rode on his coat-tails, that's another story - what mattered was the perception of him being the anti-establishment underdog to the veteran Clinton (who, by then, had been extremely visible on the political scene for more than 15 years).
Obama was not anti establishment. He was not upsetting the Democratic party. He was anti-Bush. All of that was a protest against the poor governance by Bush.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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...
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.
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.
[deleted]
By choosing what questions to ask and what topics to debate.
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...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Masonic_Party
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_War
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...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Masonic_Party
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_War
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.
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.
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.
Its easy to buy those. He probably just purchased the likes.
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?
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?
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)
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)
With the exception of Sanders (whose propositions do not make fiscal sense) all of the candidates, are unbelievable or have had a history of being unbelievable. So, it's not as if there is one [viable candidate]* who is immune to lies, exaggerations, distortions, obfuscation, scandal etc.
Kasich and Carson [and O'Malley?] are "too nice" to win anything.
Kasich and Carson [and O'Malley?] are "too nice" to win anything.
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.
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.
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).
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
"users increasingly find all their news [...] via Facebook"
Mind-boggling!
Mind-boggling!
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