Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 16 submissions in the queue.
Politics
posted by janrinok on Thursday December 07 2017, @01:05AM   Printer-friendly
from the and-a-polite-discussion-ensued... dept.

Recently published in Journal of Social and Political Psychology by Thomas F. Pettigrew seeks to understand the psychological profile of Trump supporters:

The Trump movement is not singular within the United States (the Know Nothing movement in the 1850s, the Wallace movement in the 1960s, and the more recent Tea Party Movement). Moreover, other democracies have seen similar movements (e.g., Austria's Freedom Party, Belgium's Vlaams Blok, France's National Front, Germany's Alternative for Germany Party (AfD), and Britain's U.K. Independence Party (UKIP).

In virtually all these cases, the tinder especially involved male nativists and populists who were less educated than the general population. But this core was joined by other types of voters as well. Five highly interrelated characteristics stand out that are central to a social psychological analysis – authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, outgroup prejudice, the absence of intergroup contact and relative deprivation.No one factor describes Trump's supporters. But an array of factors – many of them reflecting five major social psychological phenomena can help to account for this extraordinary political event: authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, prejudice, relative deprivation, and intergroup contact.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Thursday December 07 2017, @02:56AM (6 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 07 2017, @02:56AM (#606587) Journal

    That "most of us" is merely an interpretation of the numbers that you prefer. Neither candidate won a majority of the vote. The turnout was only about 55% or eligible voters. It's really hard to say that one or the other had a clear "majority" of the vote.

    But, all of that aside, the electoral college is the very same system used to put every president in office. It worked well for your side when Obama was elected, it didn't work so well for your side when Bush was elected, but it worked beautifully for your side when the other Clinton was elected. As you work your way back, chronologically, it goes your way, then it goes against you.

    Your attitude, as posted, is just so much sour grapes. If you really don't like the electoral college, then maybe you should be lobbying that elected officials win a clear majority. That is, to be elected, a minimum of 55% of eligible voters actually vote, and that the "winner" actually wins a majority - minimum 51%, and I would go along with a higher number than that.

    We have had disgraceful elections in the past where total turnout was less than 30% of eligible voters. Should we have discarded those results, and polled voters again? Maybe send armed officers around to chase people out into the streets, and herd them toward the polling places?

    Sour grapes. Your people didn't turn out in enough force to ensure the election - nor did the other side. The majority* have actually been disillussioned, and didn't want anything to do with EITHER candidate.

    *Note that despite 55% of "eligible voters" turning out, far less than 55% of "Americans" voted. There are those who have been disenfranchised, even more who have never registered to vote, all of whom SHOULD have a voice, but don't. We might extrapolate that ~20% of Americans voted for Clinton, and ~20% of Americans voted for Trump. If ALL Americans over the age of 18 had voted, none of us can say who might have won.

    --
    On the plus side, I am completely immune to flash-bang grenades. - Helen Keller
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   0  
       Troll=2, Insightful=1, Informative=2, Overrated=1, Total=6
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Whoever on Thursday December 07 2017, @05:15AM (5 children)

    by Whoever (4524) on Thursday December 07 2017, @05:15AM (#606653) Journal

    But, all of that aside, the electoral college is the very same system used to put every president in office. It worked well for your side when Obama was elected, it didn't work so well for your side when Bush was elected, but it worked beautifully for your side when the other Clinton was elected. As you work your way back, chronologically, it goes your way, then it goes against you.

    That's a load of bullshit and you know it. In recent years, there have only been two occasions when the winner of the popular vote did NOT win the election and in both cases, the Republican candidate won.

    It's ridiculous to claim that "but it worked beautifully for your side when the other Clinton was elected." when Bill Clinton won the popular vote.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday December 07 2017, @05:28AM (2 children)

      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 07 2017, @05:28AM (#606658) Journal

      Don't confuse Runaway with facts. His mind, such as it is, is made up. Ironically, he's a perfect example of the very thing TFA is speaking about. Anosognosia with regards to this condition seems to be part and parcel of it, unfortunately.

      --
      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @06:34AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @06:34AM (#606676)

        His mind, such as it is, is made up.

        Spot on. The only mystery that persists around, like a thick, sticky fog: made up of exactly what?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @06:19PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @06:19PM (#606917)

          Vodka. Must have an impressive spell checker (Russian's are good coders dah?) to keep him legible with that much potato running through him!

    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday December 07 2017, @03:33PM (1 child)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 07 2017, @03:33PM (#606820) Journal

      You're slowly catching on. The popular vote never did guarantee the election. We don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic. The republic has set things up so that it can trump the popular vote if and when it decides to. But, that's all beside the point. Hillary wasn't the popular choice, any more than Trump was. MOST PEOPLE COULDN'T BE BOTHERED TO VOTE!! Only a tiny bit more than half the eligible voters cared enough to vote. Do you call that "popular"?

      Let's try one more approach. Two losers had a race, and you don't like the fact that one loser won over the other loser. WHAT DOES IT MATTER???? IT WAS TWO LOSERS!!! Get a grip.

      When you're ready to express outrage that Bernie was bent over a barrel and raped hard, let me know.

      --
      On the plus side, I am completely immune to flash-bang grenades. - Helen Keller
      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @06:39PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @06:39PM (#606932)

        So your initial point was clearly shot down along with the #fakenews factoids you tried to slip in and what? You move the goal posts and throw in some stupidity? It matters to many people how the country decided to put that idiot in charge. At the very least HRC would have been a politically competent sleaze bag, it is clear at this point that Trump is all about the swamp and in no way desires draining it.

        It is really weird seeing supposedly intelligent people suck their own thumbs when their ideologies are impacted. So many of the prolific conservative posters here have repeatedly been shown to be intellectually bankrupt, thanks for the reminder that your opinions should be handled with a hazmat suit.