Why did the 2016 election look so much like the 2012 election?

[tytlyf]

Part of the problem is that people don't usually vote "for" a candidate or a party. They're mostly voting "against" the other candidate/party. It's the lesser of two evils.

Correct, it's why propaganda is powerful.
This is what GOP media does. Attack 'liberals' and demonize the entire party. This way people will never EVER think of supporting the democratic party. It's why they 'settle' for the GOP elitists.

The GOP media is in bed with their crooked establishment. They're not conservatives, they're playing the 'conservative card' to keep their base happy and supporting the elites. After the election is over, the conservative base learns that their elected officials don't listen to them.
But that should have been known long before the election, just check their policies.

Rush is very good at dividing America. His conspiracy theories trickle down to all the conservative entertainers. He's the head intellectual GOP establishment elitist. Rush's audience is convinced he's on their side, when in reality is fooling them into supporting the republican party and their corporate policies.

It's as simple as that. Rush even calls his show
"Advanced Anti-Leftist Studies" (talk about intentional division)

Which basically means he's smearing democrats 24/7 with the hopes of scaring people. Rush has a way with words, tone, inflection, etc. He's learned over the years. Panic mongering is a very good propaganda technique.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

My view is that people used to be more oriented towards actual benefit to themselves. For example, they might be a Republican, but if the Republican president didn't follow through on their promises, or if that voter was negatively impacted during the presidency, then they were more likely to hold the party accountable, and be open to voting Democrat the next election.

Today, I think people's team identity is a much greater influence than the actual impact a politician or party has on their lives, even if it's negative. This is exacerbated by facts being fluid beyond the point of meaningfulness, and echo-chamber rationalizations allowing people to place blame wherever they want, whether it's true or not.

We'll never completely escape tribalism, but our massive and extreme return to it in contemporary society is rather jarring - and I don't think bodes well for the future.

 

[Nous]

Studies have shown that staunch Democrats and Republicans tend to support a social welfare policy that is exactly contrary to their partisan ideology if they are informed that members of their own party in Congress are for the policy and members of the other party are against it. This is despite the fact that the participants claimed that the factors by which they arrived at their positions were the “details of the proposal” and their own “philosophy of government,” and that the position of their respective parties was inconsequential to their support or opposition. In other words, unwavering partisans are blind to their partisan allegiance and the irrationality that it leads them to.

In a similar vein, partisans demonstrate a blatant willingness to negatively evaluate those outside their party for qualities that they evaluate positively when exhibited by persons of their party. One study asked participants to evaluate the resumes of high school students for the purpose of awarding a college scholarship. The researchers found that, despite what participants were instructed to do, the students’ qualifications were unimportant in the participants’ choices; rather, the single cue under Extracurricular Activities indicating the student’s political party affiliation was determinative of the majority of partisan participants awarding or denying the student a college scholarship: The more partisan the participant, the more influential was the party affiliation of the student.

For partisans, it seems that interest in politics is just a vehicle for expressing bigotry toward the other party.

 

[sun rise]

Studies have shown that staunch Democrats and Republicans tend to support a social welfare policy that is exactly contrary to their partisan ideology if they are informed that members of their own party in Congress are for the policy and members of the other party are against it. This is despite the fact that the participants claimed that the factors by which they arrived at their positions were the “details of the proposal” and their own “philosophy of government,” and that the position of their respective parties was inconsequential to their support or opposition. In other words, unwavering partisans are blind to their partisan allegiance and the irrationality that it leads them to.

In a similar vein, partisans demonstrate a blatant willingness to negatively evaluate those outside their party for qualities that they evaluate positively when exhibited by persons of their party. One study asked participants to evaluate the resumes of high school students for the purpose of awarding a college scholarship. The researchers found that, despite what participants were instructed to do, the students’ qualifications were unimportant in the participants’ choices; rather, the single cue under Extracurricular Activities indicating the student’s political party affiliation was determinative of the majority of partisan participants awarding or denying the student a college scholarship: The more partisan the participant, the more influential was the party affiliation of the student.

For partisans, it seems that interest in politics is just a vehicle for expressing bigotry toward the other party.

We've seen that when people who said moral behavior was key in a politician suddenly don't care if the person (Trump) is immoral. Or those against Russia suddenly become pro-Russia.

 

[Stevicus]

Correct, it's why propaganda is powerful.
This is what GOP media does. Attack 'liberals' and demonize the entire party. This way people will never EVER think of supporting the democratic party. It's why they 'settle' for the GOP elitists.

The GOP media is in bed with their crooked establishment. They're not conservatives, they're playing the 'conservative card' to keep their base happy and supporting the elites. After the election is over, the conservative base learns that their elected officials don't listen to them.
But that should have been known long before the election, just check their policies.

Rush is very good at dividing America. His conspiracy theories trickle down to all the conservative entertainers. He's the head intellectual GOP establishment elitist. Rush's audience is convinced he's on their side, when in reality is fooling them into supporting the republican party and their corporate policies.

It's as simple as that. Rush even calls his show
"Advanced Anti-Leftist Studies" (talk about intentional division)

Which basically means he's smearing democrats 24/7 with the hopes of scaring people. Rush has a way with words, tone, inflection, etc. He's learned over the years. Panic mongering is a very good propaganda technique.

I agree. Fear is a powerful weapon used by propagandists for their own ends, although I think both sides play the same game and use rhetoric designed to play on the fears of their assumed voting blocs.

 

[Nous]

We've seen that when people who said moral behavior was key in a politician suddenly don't care if the person (Trump) is immoral. Or those against Russia suddenly become pro-Russia.

Two excellent and stunning examples.

I'm certain plenty of examples can be found among Democrats also.