Dear Democrats, Read This If You Do Not Understand Why Trump Won (opens in new tab)

Brilliant. Thank you for that excellent summation, and no, I'm not being the least bit sarcastic. That's awesome.

> I have no idea how to fix this.

Neither do I, really, but let's not jump to the solution before we're done with the diagnosis. Here's an idea: critical thinking is overtaught. Yes, over. I know the common belief is that there's not enough critical thinking out there. I've said it myself many times, but it's a bit of a "little knowledge is dangerous" kind of thing. I see a lot of people, especially in tech, who know just enough critical thinking to pick apart someone else's argument, find its logical flaws, name its fallacies, then dismiss the whole thing. What they never did - what they've never been taught to do - is listen. Yes, it's a skill, and thus learnable. Very little of what people say is completely right or completely wrong. None of it comes without context. Take the OP, for example. There's sure a lot of Bernie butthurt there, but it's there for a reason and there are other nuggets of truth to be gleaned from it as well. Even the most deplorable Trump supporter has something to teach us, though perhaps unintentionally. Critical thinking is awesome, but sometimes we need to put off the critique of falsehood until we've looked for some truth.

I think this is the responsibility of "the media". They should be the ones looking at the "truth" from all sides and presenting a equidistant picture.

It's just that we don't have "media" anymore, they're all just tools for delivering advertising.

Media has moved to the Internet - "social media" which doesn't yet have a clearly defined role/goal in society.

It has an impact allright, but not necessarily intended, it just kind of happened by itself.

Now the responsibility is on these Internet companies to implement the proper information dissemination algorithms, otherwise we might end up with civil wars all over the world.

For example, if you follow a "democrat" leader, Facebook should force you to follow a "republican" leader too.

In general, whenever there's something divisive, these tools should "push" opposing views to you as well, in order to avoid the formation of "echo chambers".

"And so I pretend not to hear her. And go out to get an envelope because I'm going to have a hell of a good time in the process of buying one envelope. I meet a lot of people. And, see some great looking babes. And a fire engine goes by. And I give them the thumbs up. And, and ask a woman what kind of dog that is. And, and I don't know. The moral of the story is, is we're here on Earth to fart around. And, of course, the computers will do us out of that. And, what the computer people don't realize, or they don't care, is we're dancing animals. You know, we love to move around. And, we're not supposed to dance at all anymore."

- Kurt Vonnegut

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.

The technology is just a tool. Tools that we choose how and when to use.

If an echo chamber exists, it's only because we, as individuals, create it. We like and comments on posts on Facebook that agree with our existing opinions and we unfollow the people who have different opinions. Our own actions create the echo chamber.

We also get our news from one or two sources, and we avoid the sources that lean the other way. Not all media has a liberal bias - there are many media outlets with conservative views, we just choose not to read them.

The tools aren't to blame - we are. The result we see and the America we live in are direct consequences of our actions. To rid ourselves of the echo chamber, we have to change our own actions. We have to specifically search out information that challenges our beliefs. We have to interact with people who have different values.

I do not listen/watch/read Breitbart, Alex Jones, Fox News, Drudge. I don't consider Fox to be a "conservative news outlet" either; I put them in the establishment propaganda bucket.

The way to fix it is to force anyone that broadcasts a video signal over cable or the airwaves or the internet to have a few hours a night of commercial free news. If they publish something that's patently not true then the government should revoke their license to broadcast on every medium. The only problem with that is that it would be very easy to get state run media in that situation.

Their tech news are also really good - you end up reading lots of stories that will be on the front page of HN throughout the day.

If you can not understand somebody, if you can not speak and understand their language, if you can not use words they way they do, then you have no chance of communicating with them.

It's super easy to be open minded about it once you realize it's all bullshit everywhere.

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.

I think the point is, that most people have a rather extreme picture of being a sexist or racist.

No you don't have to run around and rape women to be a sexist

No you don't have to shave your head and batter blacks to be a racist.

It is enough if you simply accept people being that way.

And if you voted for Trump you didn't just accept that he is sexist or racist, you even approved for it by giving him something despite him acting like that.

The simple fact is, now people think it's okay to propagate hate if you get enough out of it.

Really I found what he sold was doom and gloom. Death of America if he wasn't elected.

Seriously asking because I guess I am blind but what future is he selling besides we all would cease to exist as a country and a democracy if he lost?

>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.

I see a campaign that ran on hate and anger for the 'other'. A campaign that white nationalists have called a blessing. A candidate endorsed by the KKK. A candidate that tweeted out a picture of Hillary Clinton with a Star of David affixed to her.

Trump relied upon a lot of economic anxiety as well but much of that was codified in racial terms: that Obama was serving the interests of black folks more, that white people were being marginalized in the culture, that brown rapists are coming for their jobs and their daughters. How can a vote for Trump not be seen as sexist, racist, and xenophobic? I'm sick of this shit saying we need to understand the other side and find out why they are so angry. I think it's pretty clear why Trump supporters are so angry. I've been to Trump rallies, I've talked to supporters, and you know what most of it comes down to? They want 'their' America back. They say they want to end corruption and take down the political establishment, but they voted for a candidate who is stacking the whitehouse with slimeball careerists like Pence, Gingrich, and Christie. But that seems to be okay with them, because it's 'their' side i.e. white revanchists.

In a country with such charged racial history as the US, is it really unbelievable that millions have regressive views regarding race? Look at how awful Obama is treated by some of these people - that he's a muslim, he secretly hates America and funds ISIS. And even if the voters themselves aren't racist, they are complicit in voting for a man who undoubtedly is. Where does that leave them?

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.

Just another sore loser who's own echo chambre prevents him from realising most democrats voted for clinton, and no preference the DNC staffers had changed that.

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...

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.

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

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?

“Donald Trump tapped into the anger of a declining middle class that is sick and tired of establishment economics, establishment politics and the establishment media. People are tired of working longer hours for lower wages, of seeing decent paying jobs go to China and other low-wage countries, of billionaires not paying any federal income taxes and of not being able to afford a college education for their kids - all while the very rich become much richer."

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sander...