A very basic point about the manipulation of the less sophisticated

[Flash]

Your claim that they voted for Trump because he "shared their values" proves that they were manipulated. Any semi-intelligent observer could clearly see that the only values Trump shared with anyone was himself. "Shared values" most certainly cannot mean pathological lying and bullying. Race baiting. Misogyny. The voters that bought his BS, especially those few thousand that decided the electoral college, WERE manipulated. Easily. And perhaps by forces independent of Trump's personal campaign of lies. The latter we are aware of. The other factors, it appears, we are just learning about.

Those values or issues many agreed with were not because of his bullying and lying but in spite of it. I think many ignored, accepted, or justified his behavior because the other side was doing it" or he was closest to their views. For example, those who saw problems with illegal immigrants, free trade, or Muslim immigration had no candidates, Democratic or Republican, who advocated their views. They were willing to accept or overlook Trump's behavior to have that advocate. And, since a large percentage of Americans think all politicians are liars he was just like them.

A Trump supporter could just as easily argue those who voted for Hillary were manipulated despite her lies and all their other criticisms of her. People were willing to ignore her email problems to vote for her--was that manipulation or just the lesser of two evils? Liberals obviously chose the liberal evil and conservatives chose the populist evil.

The point of campaigns is manipulation by both sides. It is naive to think one side is worse than the other. They both do anything they can to win even when their candidates are both seen as losers.

Those that "bought" Trump's BS are getting exactly what they wanted (not all of it)--revoking regulations, travel ban, Supreme Court appointee, decline in federal workforce, tax cut, etc. The point is not whether we think these are good policies but that his supporters voted for them and are getting what they voted for.

Here is a good article explaining his support among rural farmers in Iowa.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap...aters-trump/?tid=ss_fb&utm_term=.17934c8d1907

 

[CFM]

It doesn't get much more basic than this, but how many in society would this be news to?

Imagine Joe Q. Public, shown an advertisement of a beer, with a bottle held by a sexy woman, and asked for his reaction to the beer.

He might say, he'd like to have one, sure.

Then imagine he's shown a video of two ad designers talking about the ad.

One says to the others, 'can you believe this stuff still works? the sexy girl takes up almost the whole ad. The readers' brain sees that and reacts positively with attraction and desire. And because our beer is in her hand, his little brain cannot easily separate them, and the emotions rushing through is brain carry over to the bee in her hand as well, and he feels some attraction and desire for it also because it's there, and that is lodged in his memory when he sees it on the shelf.'

Then the man is shown the ad again. Having just been told how he is being manipulated, can he do any better at not being attracted to the beer because a sexy girl holds it? Being told this SHOULD help him do better to counter it. Maybe.

This is about as basic as it gets in advertising and manipulation. Selling candidates and parties and policies similarly is very manipulative in the well-funded advertising. trump knew this with his simplistic 'branding' of opponents with a negative adjective with their name, like 'Crooked Hillary' and 'Pocohantas Warren' and 'Crazy Bernie'. There are massive advertising organizations funded to sell political views that benefit a few. Many seem unable to resist. Would explaining this to them help them resist it?

With what Hillary did, crooked is a characterization. With the lie Warren told about her heritage, the only thing she could be called was Pocahontas. With the socialism Bernie pushed, he has to be crazy.

 

[Flash]

With what Hillary did, crooked is a characterization. With the lie Warren told about her heritage, the only thing she could be called was Pocahontas. With the socialism Bernie pushed, he has to be crazy.

All campaigning and product ads seek to manipulate us. Does that mean we were manipulated into purchasing everything--restaurants, consumer goods, etc.? Some seem to think their choice in purchases or candidates were carefully reasoned decision but others who chose a different candidate were manipulated. Sometimes others know exactly what they are doing although we might not agree with their choices.

 

[CFM]

All campaigning and product ads seek to manipulate us. Does that mean we were manipulated into purchasing everything--restaurants, consumer goods, etc.? Some seem to think their choice in purchases or candidates were carefully reasoned decision but others who chose a different candidate were manipulated. Sometimes others know exactly what they are doing although we might not agree with their choices.

It's not their choices with which I have the problem but their reasoning. Faulty reasoning can't produce anything but a faulty choice no matter how much someone justifies it. You can't make chicken salad from chicken shit no matter how many spices and condiments you add to it.

 

[Nordberg]

Stop the Pocahantas crap. It makes you look like an idiot. Warrens heritage was investigated and found inconclusive. cannot prove it one way or the other. However her family told her she had Indian heritage. Just like your family told you what your nationality is. did you check?She is very bright, very honest and serves the public. Not like Trump.

 

[CFM]

You guess wrong.

The Democrats manipulated you into thinking black skin color on Obama and vagina on Hillary were qualifications. That's no guess. That's fact, boy.

 

[CFM]

Stop the Pocahantas crap. It makes you look like an idiot. Warrens heritage was investigated and found inconclusive. cannot prove it one way or the other. However her family told her she had Indian heritage. Just like your family told you what your nationality is. did you check?She is very bright, very honest and serves the public. Not like Trump.

Warren's heritage claim was investigated and found to be a lie. Seems her family lied to her and she repeated the lie.

As for checking my heritage, yes I did. Interesting thing is what they told me was true. Maybe if Pocahontas Warrant had checked her, she wouldn't have felt the need to lie about it.

What it boils down to is Warren made the claim, it was proven false, and those saying something about her claim are the problem with you.

 

[evince]

In other words you Democrats are jealous of Trump.

what part of russia do you live in?

 

[CFM]

what part of russia do you live in?

What part of Obama's asshole do you stick your nose?

 

[evince]

What part of Obama's asshole do you stick your nose?

you will have to learn how to ass sniff all by your self


I have no idea how your party leaders keep their noses attached to trumpys ass


I dont think they will let someone as creepy as you near him though

 

[CFM]

you will have to learn how to ass sniff all by your self


I have no idea how your party leaders keep their noses attached to trumpys ass


I dont think they will let someone as creepy as you near him though

You're the one sniffing Obama's despite having been out of office almost a year.

Pucker up, NL. It's the only thing you seem to be good at other than making demands that people should do something you know you can't back up.

 

[evince]

the only one talking about Obama is you dickless one

 

[Craig234]

Stop the Pocahantas crap. It makes you look like an idiot. Warrens heritage was investigated and found inconclusive. cannot prove it one way or the other. However her family told her she had Indian heritage. Just like your family told you what your nationality is. did you check?She is very bright, very honest and serves the public. Not like Trump.

Oh by the way - trump has lied about his heritage, and stole a family 'coat of arms'.

As usual guilty of what he attacks someone for wrongly.

 

[Craig234]

No, that "guess" was the logical assumption based on the original post that the "less sophisticated" voters were manipulated. Like you, I don't agree with that assumption. However, unlike you, I don't think there is any evidence to show that Trump's voters were manipulated any more than Clinton's voters. That is based on knee-jerk partisanship.

First, voting studies have well established that most people vote their party affiliation. For most people I know that are fairly political I could have predicted 10-20-30 years ago how they would vote in 2016 because they have never voted for the other party during that time. So, the amount of money spent or any other campaign manipulation did not affect their vote because it was already predetermined.

Many Republicans were not "manipulated" into voting for Trump but did have a harder time justifying their Republican loyalty.

It is much less than 35% because although about a third identify themselves as independents, most of those vote regularly for one party; probably less than 10% are swing voters. Some of those are always manipulated by the candidate promising "change"--Obama, Trump.

Trump won some of those states not because more voters were manipulated into voting for him but because Clinton's voters did not turn out. She had many fewer votes than Obama in urban areas of swing states that are loyal Democratic voters (especially black voters). These voters were not manipulated into not voting but chose not to vote because of the high negative ratings for both candidates.

Trump won about 6% more working class voters than Romney. Most of these were not manipulated into voting for Trump as much as alienated by the Democrats. The often heard description in the media and political forums is that these working class whites are less sophisticated, hicks, bigots, deplorables, uninformed, etc. The point is not whether this is an accurate description but that regular denigration, belittlement, and disparagement is going to alienate a group that had long been a loyal part of the Democratic coalition. A candidate that "shared their values" (the most important factor in choosing a candidate) pulled them away. Most of this denigration came from other Democrats like young professionals who look down upon those who listen to country music, hunt and fish, and are religious. It widened the culture wars.

Flash, you're trying and you're not all wrong, but you are in denial about the reality of the issue of manipulation and advertising.