I’m going to write more and more articles on Trump and the reaction in the aftermath of the election. I think, like many others, I’m still going back and forth through the Kubler-Ross stages of grief. As of this writing, Hillary won the popular vote by around a million (looking to increase these numbers) and one can only be so conciliatory to the President-elect, as some democrats are sounding. [1] Any talk of a Republican mandate should be met head on. I know I will, for I remember the real mandate Obama had, which the republicans so willingly sabotaged. [2]

As it was so shall it be, but let me focus on the “what went wrong?” part. There have been a few articles on this. Crookedtimber has a stream of comments that can help you gain some insight into what a section of people are thinking. Worthwhile, IMO. Naked Capitalist, meanwhile, has another point about the myths that the neoliberals seem too quick to point to (and even with the recent hate crimes, it helps to debunk race as a major/singular factor). They are valid. But, like so many things, and especially so many complicated things, it seems that people are simply looking for something to reinforce their previous views and narratives. So let’s parse that for a second.

I, for one, think that the media certainly had a part to play in all this. They seemed all too willing to allow Trump to slide, and to spend too much time on HRC, even if they had nothing of substance (not that I saw, and certainly not for the time spent on them). The few times they did act outraged, they seemed to be more obsessed with decorum than anything else. This annoyed even me, and certainly played into Trump’s act of being one to #draintheswamp and bring corruption to a heel in Washington. [3]

But it was more than just the conventional media. It was also the new media unfurling its full powers. Even Google, I’m afraid, was not up to the task. Just a few days ago, I googled popular vote counts and one of the first things that popped up was a site that said Trump won the popular vote. Not. True. So why is it up there? It’s no surprise that people optimize their pages to fit Google’s algorithm. But it’s now come to a full head. I do hope that Google’s algorithms manage to change this, but I’m not holding my breath. That Google was never good for complex searches or subjects, never surprised me, that it has now failed at a simple fact is more than worrying. It probably speaks to my own prejudices that the fact that these multi-billion dollar companies don’t seem willing to spend enough to counter these issues only speaks to what they truly care about (not any “truth”, though to be frank, they’ve never said outright that they did).

There is also the fact that the internet, more than ever, seems primed to create self contained bubbles of belief. This means that people are even harder to convince otherwise. I’m not sure how big of an issue this is, even if it is problematic. It certainly feeds bias-confirmation, but it would seem that Trump’s team managed to circumvent some aspects of this.

Before I get into that, let me mention that it now looks like voter suppression was two fold: the one that the Republicans engaged in purposefully, and the one that Trump’s team managed to carry out via Facebook ads. [4] It is probably part of my middle class upbringing that I see the former as worse, but I do sense that the latter type points to a new era, one where social media is much more important than previously thought. It also means a few things: that HRC was not wrong when she ran negative ads in the last few weeks, but rather in how she did them. In the future, covering one’s tracks and slowly trying to bring people who won’t vote for you to be less than enthusiastic while doing the opposite for those who are for you through emotions, [5] seems to be the way forward. In other words, I don’t see how this gets better.

As for the Democratic party, I hope that this teaches them a lesson. One thing that Sanders should have taught them was that they needed to reach out more (and not to potential Republicans angry with Trump) to the downtrodden. Instead those in the center mocked others on their way to defeat. Never had I heard such tone-deaf talk. And in the face of an electorate that wanted some change, that wanted anyone to at least say, yes, your pain is valid, all we got was that the economy was fine, and we’ll have more of the same, but maybe with more war. [6] That they’re trying to blame everyone to the left of them, doesn’t bode well for those in the center left of our nation. That they felt no need to do anything but talk down was endemic. Hopefully they learn to better reach out and try to build a coalition with the future. Because this election was still between two baby boomers (and had many of the trappings of that generation’s worst). Time to move on to the next generation.

This analysis is incomplete, and I’ll add a lot more to it in the coming days, but for now, it’s all I have. What are your thoughts?

[1] My anger stage says that these types are a bit too willing to work with someone who is nothing short of authoritarian. Part of me believes that neoliberals are really closet Reagan admirers—HRC’s convention pointed to this glaring weakness—and more than willing to bend the knee when need be. Only Bernie seems to have the right tone. And this angers me to some level, because it would seem that working class voters (assuming they did vote against HRC) understood that the democrats would not fight for them (as Obama did not seem to) and decided to roll the die with Trump. That being said, Obama is smart and it’s more than likely that he senses that this is the best way forward, rather than looking for revenge.

[2] And therein lies the crux: most on the center left keep reaching out, hoping to see something, and the right cares not a wit for even overwhelming losses at the voting booth. At the heart of this lies the truth that conservatives represent most structured powers and hierarchies and look to reinforce them as a matter of faith, while the left (the real left, not neoliberals) look to evidence to improve the lot in a utilitarian way. When this manifests itself in the neoliberal form, it means trying to tweak laws bit by bit and making deals—really nothing wrong with that. But it also means that they look to make deals with anyone (see Bill in the 90s)

[3] Though I enjoyed John Oliver’s latest on Trump, I think of it as a case of too little too late. When he first came out with the Drumpf thing, I was certain Trump would win (then the debate and polls made me think otherwise). How can one react in such a childish manner? How was that supposed to sway anyone? No, it was only meant to get chuckles out of the choir. Look where that got us.

[4] Seriously, read this article in the link, it’s nothing short of great, even if it’s disheartening. It shows that Trump’s team knew quite a bit about the voters they were trying to get and to suppress (psychologically speaking) and they seem to have done just that. Question is why did HRC, with more money, not manage a better campaign? The funny thing, is that I wrote about this ability to present to whomever you want, a certain reality through the internet (sad to see it become a reality that a conman can use). What it means is that the post debate spikes in popularity HRC had were immediately met with headwinds/propaganda from elsewhere, and this ended up hurting her.

[5] Read a book on how to sell anything (or read up on basic human psychology) . Do you see anyone trying to make rational arguments? No. WIIFM is the main thing you have to think about (with regard to the customer) and to get them to react, you must appeal to their basic emotions (safety of self/family, fear, etc etc) and claim that you can assuage that negative emotion or increase the positive emotion. That’s it. There’s no getting around this basic human emotion. Evidence? We can look for that later as we perform bias confirmation, and with the internet, this seems easier and therfore more likely than ever. How do we circumvent this?

[6] This was not lost on me. I heard people with HRC mock Trump when he spoke out against banks. Really?! I heard them claim, not that the economy was weak and needed a proper stimulus as well as a way to deal with iniquities and that the republicans had stopped this, but that it was fine, everything was fine.