For a certain percentage of the population such black/white concepts, alas, play well; despite the fact that by most indicators our lives are improving.
For your analysis to hold, it's necessary that the "certain percentage of the population" that embraced Trump is itself characterized by improvement. Did the you miss the news about declining life expectancy among a section of the population - just that section that was crucial for Trump?
Wrong. Were you too lazy to read the articles, which link to other sources? Or to do internet searches to verify their claims? Or to fact check Trump, who's notorious for lying and having so many ignoramuses believe his lies?http://www.politifact.com/p...
WTH are you even doing on this website? Taking a break from spinning lazy, data-poor theories about the inferiority of females? Bet you're too lazy to even read Otto Weininger's similar theories. See also experiments on "low-effort thought" (AKA cognitive laziness, cognitive conservatism, low-data theorizing): http://m.psp.sagepub.com/co...
Interestingly, one fake news company, Disinfomedia, was founded by someone trying to expose alt-right gullibility: http://www.npr.org/sections...Speaking of that penchant for delusional theories that make losers feel superior or self-righteous: http://www.newsweek.com/201...In both those articles, we have persons warning about the risks of informational/psychological abuses in America, which reminds me of when people were trying to get media to warn the public about Catholic sex abuses. Civil suits made a dent in the latter problem, but what can be done about disinformation or BS propaganda? Not even the Disinfomedia founder knows what. He merely says consumers have to become better at identifying false content and calls people "media-illiterate", as if that's all that's wrong with unscientific thinkers who seem to have arrested development of vmPFC (ventromedial prefrontal cortex).
I guess that's true. I didn't realize you had a psychological model of people who are inclined to follow the tried and true path and others who are inclined to explore many variants.
I guess that seems plausible. Willingness to try new variants in one aspect isn't independent of willingness to try it in others.
Not Peter Thiel, the person's political views still matter.
Warren Buffet has always been popular with Democrats and would probably be a strong candidate if he had run. John Podesta included several billionaires as options for Hillary Clinton's VP choice.
Mark Zuckerberg is fairly popular and if he transitioned to politics in 10-20 years could probably do quite well.
There is another facet to the issue where they push back against someone like Trump or Perot saying "I'm a successful businessman therefore I'm qualified and entitled to run for President".
Being a successful businessperson suggests a certain competency (though Trump seems to be evidence to the contrary), but that doesn't mean you'd be a good politician. Businessmen claiming they can slide across at that level suggests a certain contempt for the role government actually plays, and that contempt doesn't play well with the left.
When an innovator finds a new coalition to represent, that coalition will be less attracted to this politician’s personal features and more to the fact that someone is offering to represent them.
Why should they believe that someone who is fishing around contradictory positions would in fact represent them? One reason Clinton lost is that she was exposed by WikiLeaks for doing just that. Most voters expect a candidate to stand for something personally. They don't trust someone who arrives at positions because they allow the assembly of a winning coalition.
The objection to heredity money like Trump, Romney, and even Bush isn't that they had business success, it's that their success was being attributed to their talents rather than their obvious family connections.
A self-made billionaire would be better? Maybe Peter Thiel?
Innovation requires more variation. Yes you can vary behind the scenes, but even those who vary in public can also vary behind the scenes. So you can do more variation if you also vary in public.
Don't be pedantic. If you take that statement fully literally electing anyone not actually suffering from crippling mental illness wouldn't be a "complete disregard of competency."
The obvious meaning is that people choose someone who is surprisingly less competent that the alternatives and past office holders.
"They will more often work their crowds on the fly to explore their reactions, relative to sticking to prepared speeches."
Why, a priori it seems just as plausible innovators would need more rehearsed content as they are unable to rely on well worn conventions and must test each variant for the first time. Also this seems to assume that crowd appeal is a good indicator of electability. Innovation seems just as possible focused at the people who don't come to rallies.
I think you've described what VISIBLE innovators do. The people who do all their innovation BEFORE they gain momentum on the campaign trail (even Trump spent a lot of time experimenting with his political positions/strategy before this years race). Those who fail or whose innovations are worked out before the campaign or behind the scenes probably just don't get seen as innovators. New coalitions can be mapped out in other ways.
In other words the content here is really....Trump is like those people who share descriptive traits with Trump...one of which is that he innovated.
The main obstacle to political innovation in American politics compared to other countries is our two-party system and plurality-based elections that ensure it.
The question, however, isn't necessarily "what were the obstacles to smaller past innovations in Trump’s new direction?" Trump is a product of the limitations on innovation, but if innovation could proceed more freely, it might well take a different direction. Trump broke through a stifling establishment because he's very rich and famous. Without his resources he couldn't have done it. The kind of innovation on offer from someone like Trump isn't a good indicator of the direction of innovation if we had a multi-party system.
I like your characterization of Trump's innovation, Robin.
I'm used to describing most politicians using the two-dimensions (economic liberty vs personal liberty) popularized by the Advocates, and it usually works well, even though there are a few issues (pro-life, and war/military, e.g.) that many people feel strongly about, but which seem uncorrelated with the two major axes. But I haven't been able to figure out what Trump espoused during the campaign, or what his followers had in common in order to tell whether they fit in a well defined place on those axes, or whether we need a different chart in order to say who voted which way in this past election. (Notice that Trump picked up minority voters and lost white voters compared to recent R presidential candidates, so it's not the racial divide that the media seems to think it is.)
Citing an article on "fake news" published by Buzzfeed is more hilariously ironic today than it ever has been
The 100 generals who supported him weren't part of the elite?
Really? Hillary Clinton was a libertarian?
Both candidates used these tactics extensively. Earlier debates were much more civil.
To call Trump's complete snubbing of elite support as uninnovative is false.
For a certain percentage of the population such black/white concepts, alas, play well; despite the fact that by most indicators our lives are improving.
For your analysis to hold, it's necessary that the "certain percentage of the population" that embraced Trump is itself characterized by improvement. Did the you miss the news about declining life expectancy among a section of the population - just that section that was crucial for Trump?
Wrong. Were you too lazy to read the articles, which link to other sources? Or to do internet searches to verify their claims? Or to fact check Trump, who's notorious for lying and having so many ignoramuses believe his lies?http://www.politifact.com/p...
WTH are you even doing on this website? Taking a break from spinning lazy, data-poor theories about the inferiority of females? Bet you're too lazy to even read Otto Weininger's similar theories. See also experiments on "low-effort thought" (AKA cognitive laziness, cognitive conservatism, low-data theorizing): http://m.psp.sagepub.com/co...
Interestingly, one fake news company, Disinfomedia, was founded by someone trying to expose alt-right gullibility: http://www.npr.org/sections...Speaking of that penchant for delusional theories that make losers feel superior or self-righteous: http://www.newsweek.com/201...In both those articles, we have persons warning about the risks of informational/psychological abuses in America, which reminds me of when people were trying to get media to warn the public about Catholic sex abuses. Civil suits made a dent in the latter problem, but what can be done about disinformation or BS propaganda? Not even the Disinfomedia founder knows what. He merely says consumers have to become better at identifying false content and calls people "media-illiterate", as if that's all that's wrong with unscientific thinkers who seem to have arrested development of vmPFC (ventromedial prefrontal cortex).
I guess that's true. I didn't realize you had a psychological model of people who are inclined to follow the tried and true path and others who are inclined to explore many variants.
I guess that seems plausible. Willingness to try new variants in one aspect isn't independent of willingness to try it in others.
What was innovative was the industry of fake news for Trump supporters: https://www.buzzfeed.com/cr...
Do you wanna reduce obstacles to the spread of misinformation among people who disregard epistemic rationality: http://www.salon.com/2016/0...
Not Peter Thiel, the person's political views still matter.
Warren Buffet has always been popular with Democrats and would probably be a strong candidate if he had run. John Podesta included several billionaires as options for Hillary Clinton's VP choice.
Mark Zuckerberg is fairly popular and if he transitioned to politics in 10-20 years could probably do quite well.
There is another facet to the issue where they push back against someone like Trump or Perot saying "I'm a successful businessman therefore I'm qualified and entitled to run for President".
Being a successful businessperson suggests a certain competency (though Trump seems to be evidence to the contrary), but that doesn't mean you'd be a good politician. Businessmen claiming they can slide across at that level suggests a certain contempt for the role government actually plays, and that contempt doesn't play well with the left.
When an innovator finds a new coalition to represent, that coalition will be less attracted to this politician’s personal features and more to the fact that someone is offering to represent them.
Why should they believe that someone who is fishing around contradictory positions would in fact represent them? One reason Clinton lost is that she was exposed by WikiLeaks for doing just that. Most voters expect a candidate to stand for something personally. They don't trust someone who arrives at positions because they allow the assembly of a winning coalition.
The objection to heredity money like Trump, Romney, and even Bush isn't that they had business success, it's that their success was being attributed to their talents rather than their obvious family connections.
A self-made billionaire would be better? Maybe Peter Thiel?
Innovation requires more variation. Yes you can vary behind the scenes, but even those who vary in public can also vary behind the scenes. So you can do more variation if you also vary in public.
Don't be pedantic. If you take that statement fully literally electing anyone not actually suffering from crippling mental illness wouldn't be a "complete disregard of competency."
The obvious meaning is that people choose someone who is surprisingly less competent that the alternatives and past office holders.
"They will more often work their crowds on the fly to explore their reactions, relative to sticking to prepared speeches."
Why, a priori it seems just as plausible innovators would need more rehearsed content as they are unable to rely on well worn conventions and must test each variant for the first time. Also this seems to assume that crowd appeal is a good indicator of electability. Innovation seems just as possible focused at the people who don't come to rallies.
I think you've described what VISIBLE innovators do. The people who do all their innovation BEFORE they gain momentum on the campaign trail (even Trump spent a lot of time experimenting with his political positions/strategy before this years race). Those who fail or whose innovations are worked out before the campaign or behind the scenes probably just don't get seen as innovators. New coalitions can be mapped out in other ways.
In other words the content here is really....Trump is like those people who share descriptive traits with Trump...one of which is that he innovated.
The main obstacle to political innovation in American politics compared to other countries is our two-party system and plurality-based elections that ensure it.
The question, however, isn't necessarily "what were the obstacles to smaller past innovations in Trump’s new direction?" Trump is a product of the limitations on innovation, but if innovation could proceed more freely, it might well take a different direction. Trump broke through a stifling establishment because he's very rich and famous. Without his resources he couldn't have done it. The kind of innovation on offer from someone like Trump isn't a good indicator of the direction of innovation if we had a multi-party system.
I like your characterization of Trump's innovation, Robin.
I'm used to describing most politicians using the two-dimensions (economic liberty vs personal liberty) popularized by the Advocates, and it usually works well, even though there are a few issues (pro-life, and war/military, e.g.) that many people feel strongly about, but which seem uncorrelated with the two major axes. But I haven't been able to figure out what Trump espoused during the campaign, or what his followers had in common in order to tell whether they fit in a well defined place on those axes, or whether we need a different chart in order to say who voted which way in this past election. (Notice that Trump picked up minority voters and lost white voters compared to recent R presidential candidates, so it's not the racial divide that the media seems to think it is.)