Economist: voters re-weight their beliefs to support their candidates

["Dave Farber" <farber () gmail com>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Roger Bohn" <Rbohn () ucsd edu>
> Date: July 4, 2017 at 6:03:18 PM EDT
> To: "Dave Farber" <dave () farber net>
> Subject: Economist: voters re-weight their beliefs to support their candidates
>
> The Economist this week has a special section on “Donald Trump’s America.” It has one of the most persuasive 
> explanations I have seen about rationales for voting. Why, for example, conservative Christians avidly support a man 
> who contradicts every personal characteristic they thought was important a few years ago.
>
> Their basic explanation seems to be a version of fast/slow thinking. First, people decide who to vote for. Then, they 
> rationalize that choice. 
> https://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21724115-observers-donald-trumps-presidency-who-hope-politics-will-eventually-return
>
> Most voters make political choices based largely on what people like them are doing, and rarely change their minds. 
> For example, it is hard to think of two more different candidates, in temperament, style and policy, than Mitt Romney 
> and Donald Trump, yet more than 90% of those who voted for Mr Romney in the presidential election in 2012 also voted 
> for Mr Trump this time, according to the ANES.
>
> …..
>
> This kind of groupthink is so powerful that it shapes the way people see the world around them. Right after the 
> election, and more than two months before Mr Trump took office, Republicans told pollsters that their personal 
> finances were in much better shape than they had been the week before the ballot. Democrats said the opposite. The 
> question had nothing to do with politics, and yet the answers given were somehow conditioned by the election.
>
> Another article in the series:
> https://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21724121-presidents-actions-are-hard-understand-leaving-voters-even-more-reliant
> The power of groupthink: White House windows
> Why support for Mr Trump’s presidency may hold up surprisingly well
> The president’s actions are hard to understand, leaving voters even more reliant on partisan thinking
>
> As a side note, I saw numerous instances of “false equivalence.” There is a research showing that Republicans have 
> changed a lot more in the last 30 years than Democrats. Nonetheless, each time the Economist described seemingly 
> irrational behavior by Trump supporters, they appended a Clinton “equivalent.” For example, right after this sentence:
>
> For example, it is hard to think of two more different candidates, in temperament, style and policy, than Mitt Romney 
> and Donald Trump, yet more than 90% of those who voted for Mr Romney in the presidential election in 2012 also voted 
> for Mr Trump this time, according to the ANES.
>
> The next sentence is:
>
> The same share of Obama voters also backed Hillary Clinton.
>
> But the differences between Obama and Clinton are MUCH smaller than the differences between Trump and Romney. 
> In these long articles, I am sure there were numerous examples of “weak reporting” according to both supporters and 
> opponents of Trump.
>
> Roger



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/18849915-ae8fa580
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-aa268125
Unsubscribe Now: 
https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-32545cb4&post_id=20170704182345:6F89C00E-6107-11E7-BFDE-FE12B182AA9F
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com