Can science explain how a guy like Trump get elected president?

can science explain how a guy like Trump get elected president?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)
cnn.com/2016/11/11/politics/popular-vote-turnout-2016/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Probably

yes, psychometrics & IQ

Yes. People voted and he won according to the rules in the democratic system of the USA.

He got the votes because he was not a corrupted nearly universally disliked neo-liberal.

Science is merely asking reasonable questions to test your hypothesis

If you could reduce human decision-making and emotions to a basic universal level, you might predict some sort of predilection for people under circumstances of anger, resentment, hopelessness to lash out against those it views as responsible for its ailments. Maybe you could expand the study to how humans feel in-general about governments and other foreign bodies dictating the rules by "force" instead of obvious display of expertise to, in a sense, earn deference.

Sounds like it'd be very Psychology and Anthropology, but maybe you can also include some Neurobiology and Evolutionary Biology in there.

Yes. Here you go: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)

>Identity communism is cancer.
>Shillary embraced it.
>Shillary lost.

QED.

Meme magic and the absolute power of /pol/

>took 4 dollars from the waiter
kek

Can you please can do math?

All it takes is common sense. The native born citizens of the U.S. didn't want to cede sovereignty to foreigners. You have to have the mindset of an actual cuckold to actually want people from other countries to decide how your country is run

still took $4 from the waiter

>He got the votes because he lied out the ass every time he opened his pontificating mouth and Hillary was utter shit.

ftfy

>hillary didnt win WAAAAAHHHH

The Republican party hit rock bottom and couldn't come up with a "real" republican candidate.

Meanwhile the DNC thought they'd take advantage of the situation and easily sneak in a candidate that wasn't very well liked because all she had to do was be better than Trump.

DNC got caught red handed rigging their primary, their chair resigned, and the old chair got immediately hired by Hillary, and the new chair was promptly caught red handed doing the same shady shit the last chair got in trouble for. The new chair tried to lie to everyone even though there was 100% proof she gave debate questions to Hillary's people.

Still, Trump barely won.

He talked about muslims and mexicans and a lot of dumb people voted for him.

To be fair a lot of dumb people voted for Hillary too.

>Trump barely won.
he flipped like 3 states that never go republican

in no way is that "barely winning" Hillary and the Democrats got BTFO like the never expected hahahaha

>only dumb people want to not get exploded and raped by immigrants

this is why you lost. the total disregard for open-mindedness. you people won't dare examine your opposition honestly.

>lost the popular vote
>flip the right 82k votes and shillary wins

it was pretty close desu

>maybe if I namedrop science in the OP people won't realize this thread belongs only on

She lost a race to a literal retard. It wasn't close.

>talks about open mindedness
>all Muslims and Mexicans are bad

Kek you're always so entertaining pol

which three states are you referring to and how much did he win them by?

If it's any of the states I'm thinking of, he barely won them.

>implying politics has no effects on research funding

>muh popular vote!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why do you think we have an electoral college.

MAYBE it's because straight popular vote is a stupid way to decide how to run the country? Because everyone lives on the coasts? Does that make any sense? Or do you think New York and California should just run the country forever?
>immediately assuming I'm a Nazi because of a fuggin joke

that's why you lost bitch
I literally fell asleep reading this. jk, but shut up.

Like I said, Trump barely won.

>Trump flipped several blue states but ONLY A LITTLE BIT

Next round we're taking even more, prepare yourself.

look dude that's great but all I ever said was that he barely won those states and that's a fact and all you keep doing is getting upset because I made observations

Your observation is stupid and meaningless though. He barely flipped blue states?

How much was he supposed to win blue states by? A lot? No, of course not.

>He barely flipped blue states?
I think you're getting it now.

It was a really simple point that you still seem to be throwing a tantrum about

I keep forgetting how vapid the people on this board are

my bad. i shouldn't expect you to grasp concepts.

So would the restaurant actually honor that?

>Universally disliked
>Still won the popular vote
Do you know what universally means?

He send out a message of honest, never prepared his speeches and simply said or claimed to say exactly what he thought, regardless of whether it was socially acceptable to say it or not. He was literally breaking the corrupt, puppet politician stereotype, what did you expect?

I find it funny that people want to bash Trump as a low IQ retard, yet he's shown to be very capable of doing complex tasks and being extremely resilient to stress.

I offered a synopsis of the 2016 election which included the fact that Trump barely won.

You picked on that point over and over despite the fact that it's correct. I am right and you are wrong and you are mad.

Just stop, it's silly now

He didn't call everybody who wasn't voting for him a "racist, disgusting, deplorable"

No, he instead called them drug smugglers and rapists.

...

There are drug smugglers and rapists that cross our border on a regular basis.

Those were the drug smugglers and rapists he was referring to. Obviously.

>He got the votes because he was not a corrupted nearly universally disliked neo-liberal.
Welll....
He IS corrupted (apparently far more than "crooked" Hillary).
And he must be more disliked than Hillary, since she got 3 million more votes than him.
Also don't forget about 40% of registered voters stayed home after being told "if you don't vote, hillary will surely win!".
And yeah, he's not a "neo-liberal", but since more people vote liberal than conservative, I can't help but think this didn't really help him.

Personally, I think the Dems threw the race.
If they had nominated Bernie, he probably would have won, but then alienated much of the political middle ground since he's so far left.
Instead, they may have helped drive more people into their camp by letting a cartoon-character semi-illiterate buffoon take the white house for one term (or maybe less, the way things are going).

Which candidate are you talking about?

there was a record turnout
Dems definitely threw, they had such an easy race lmao but they just needed to be as crooked as possible

>>hillary didnt win WAAAAAHHHH

Nobody's sad Hillary lost.
But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out Trump's already a disaster for America.

Also: why do people say "rocket scientist" when I'm pretty sure they mean "rocket engineer"?

>>Trump barely won.
>he flipped like 3 states that never go republican
Even ignoring the popular vote, his electoral college victory ranks 46th of 58 historically.

>Or do you think New York and California should just run the country forever?
If you're going to defend the EC, get a better argument.
Under a popular vote system, EVERY SINGLE VOTE in California, New York, Texas and Florida (which would never happen) still isn't a win.
Let's add the next four biggest states? Still nope, every single vote in California, New York, Texas, Florida, Illinois, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Ohio STILL isn't a majority.

But take a closer look at the EC.
Because all you need is 51% of a state to get all its votes, 51% of voters in 12 states can win against 49% of the voters in the same 12 states, plus every single vote in the 38 other states combined.

>there was a record turnout
No.
cnn.com/2016/11/11/politics/popular-vote-turnout-2016/

2016 was a twenty-year low.

There's a guy who has consistently predicted the presidential elections. His theory is that if the sitting president doesn't do something a lot of people like or something great, then the opposing party will win the next election.

Obama didnt really do anything spectacular at the end of his presidency. Although that was thanks to republican majority literally stalling the government.

-________-

>popular meaning amongst the population
>population meaning among humans
>implying beans or negroids are humans

???

Quite a theory you got there

>implying beans or negroids are humans
You know how close your genome would match with a bean or a negroid right?

Simple. Democracy was never a good system of governance. Just the least bad one.

Literally not an argument when human genome is remarkably similar to every other animal's.

>remarkably similar to every other animal's
you mean mammals and the only thing that has a strong similarity is the genes not the entire genome

Is Veeky Forums being fucking raided?
I keep seeing retarded posts like this that are obviously not related to anything that could be considered science and math recently.

He won the majority of college-educated whites.

It is possible to study rocketry as a science. My father had a physics degree and worked as a rocket scientist for JPL after the space race ended.

Considering Obama carried Michigan by 17 fucking points, Trump did fantastic in the rust belt. He didn't win those states by much, but considering the deficit he had to overcome it was literally amazing.

No he didn't.
Where'd you get that info?

Not that guy, but CNN backs up his claim based on the exit poll data

dumb & wrong joke image. trump didn't take up politics 18 months ago. he's been considering running for office since the late 80s and ran a campaign in 2000.

the image is clearly a joke, no need to get so butthurt, and honestly it's kinda funny

trump is not and never was a politician, so the image is probably giving trump more than he's worth anyway

Damn I love Veeky Forums

only just barely

>some states of the country are struggling with unemployment
>person 1 notices this, visits them regularly
>promises a return to old days where people had jobs and prosperity
>person 2 is retarded and just assumes that those states will vote for them and hence doesn't visit as often
>person 1 flips the states, wins

It's still pretty impressive considering the indoctrination and peer pressure in these social circles

>He IS corrupted (apparently far more than "crooked" Hillary).
name one thing that makes him more corrupt than hillary or even any corrupt at all.

Trump is not the best choice to run the country but you know, between trump and hillary trump is still 100 times better and under the circumstances he won harder than anyone could have imagined.

Sure, the electoral college. In particular, the electoral college's de facto function is a vote multiplier for rural states, and his rhetoric pandered to rural resentment. Second, he managed to flip upper Midwest states with concerns about jobs by promising a protectionist tariff to bring back high-paying factory jobs.

I think people read too much into this whole thing, the only question of interest is how he was able to flip the upper Midwest, to which the answer is obviously "muh tariffs".

Enough people were fed up of the typical career politician who will say everything and change nothing, that they were even willing to take a punt on TRUMP

That's how desperate for change people were. It shouldn't have been Trump, it should have been someone smarter and less extreme, but definitely towards the Trump direction.

If Hillary is -10 on the scale, Trump is +10 on the scale

What America needed was probably someone who was +6, instead they went full retard and went +10 with Trump.

It's a nice experiment, if it works that's fantastic. If it doesn't work then lessons will be learned and it wont happen again. I suspect the next president will be -10 in the scale, really boring, extremely politically correct, mr nice guy who tries to be everyone's friend.

We always hear how he got elected purely because of dumb redneck morons. If he "just barely" won the college educated white vote it completely destroys that narrative.

Trump is really not that unpopular among ordinary Americans.

Imagine if you only counted the votes of people who have been US citizens since 1998. The popular vote would be significant closer; Trump would probably even win it. The Democratic Party gets a ton of their votes from immigration.

This is how most elections will go in the next decades. The natural population will mostly vote for the more right wing, nationalist parties that want to curb immigration, while the immigrants will vote for the parties that want to expand immigration.

It was a combination of things:
1. He had a really weak opponent
2. Hackers helped him by hacking only the DNC and not the RNC
3. The Alt-Right was campaigning hard for him because they hate the fact america is demographically changing
4. He was spewing lies and bullshit non-stop but he was rarely corrected in the media
5. Electroal college

Both Trump and Hillary are terrible, but Trump is definitely worse than Hillary.

Hillary wouldn't demolish the US healthcare system even further and threaten to take millions out of health insurance

Hillary wouldn't hire Garry Cohn (the president of goldman sachs) to be the director of the national economic council

Hillary wouldn't remove net-neutrality like what trump is doing right now

Hillary wouldn't remove internet privacy protections (every single democrat in the senate voted against this, every single republican voted in FAVOR of removing internet privacy protections)

Hillary wouldn't cut the EPA by 30, cut government programs to help homeless people, cut "meals on wheels" to help old poor people have food, cut the labor department and cut the education department while increasing funds for the defense department (aka more intervention in the middle east, yay!)

Hillary wouldn't put Betsy Devos, a christian fundamentalist school privatizer, as the secretary of education

Hillary wouldn't try to to crack down even harder on marijuana like what Jeff Session is doing right now

The only good thing Trump did that Hillary would have likely done is stopping TPP. literally the only positive thing Trump has ever done for the country

Nope, we can only provide conjecture on why he won.

The best that can made out of it is that,

1.There wasn't a better candidate on either the Republican or Democratic side.

2. A number of people became aware and got tired of the stereotypical corruption in traditional politics but weren't aware enough of the shady shit in business that Trump participated in.

3. A number of people in truth were actually voting for Trump's father, Fred Trump. Since Fred is the true business tycoon and Trump merely inherited it and managed it.

4. Supporters in attempt to rattle the cage of politics didn't foresee that it would actually be rattling the cage of national security.

5. Supporters liked the idea of trade policies favoring the U.S. more in terms of jobs but fail to realize that the current policies being replaced right now existed to prevent China from growing and developing their shit beyond our sight. A global economy means you usually get to see most of the cards your opponent has without resorting to espionage.

6. Citizens obliviously got tired of immigration, trade and international donating policies but fail to realize it's a double edge sword. Yeah you'll block the Hispanics and Muslims out and stop giving money and supplies to African nations, but the "good will" created by this will disappear as other countries such as China will take over this role and get more support.

7. Supporters didn't think the president would make the U.S. look foolish in international eyes. At least not this bad.

In short, voters gambled on the "dark horse" but didn't completely think through on the ramifications and are now witnessing the consequences.

>5. Supporters liked the idea of trade policies favoring the U.S. more in terms of jobs but fail to realize that the current policies being replaced right now existed to prevent China from growing and developing their shit beyond our sight. A global economy means you usually get to see most of the cards your opponent has without resorting to espionage.
this is why things like TPP exist. it sacrifices manual labor jobs, to be sure, but the alternative may be worse in the long term.

cuck

Fear makes people do irrational things. Like run from a bear.

You can't run from a bear but you do it anyway because you're afraid.

The least trustworthy candidate will always be the one who plays the most on people's fears, because it's the one with the most problems to make less notable.

I don't remember if Hillary was a big fearmonger though, politics are like baby gibberish where I'm am.

Karma