Good points - and I think 1# and 2# can get hopelessly tangled.
Johnny’s parents may believe it is best for him to be an engineer - high pay, benefits, well-regarded profession, etc. But Johnny wants to be a painter - he hates math and physics, loves art, hates working in a corporate environment, etc.
So Johnny and his parents both are right and wrong at the same time.
If I had known that someone was going to start playing ridiculous word games I might have consulted several lawyers to provide the appropriate legalistic wording. Obviously I wasn’t talking about the vagaries of the stock market but about whether anyone seriously believes Trump is going to address any of the specific actionable items for which his supporters elected him. Will their health care improve, providing better services at lower costs? Will he enact policies to strengthen weak housing markets and make them more stable and robust? Will parents now be able to afford to send their kids to good colleges? Will prescription drugs costs be controlled? Those were all expressed concerns. Which of those things is he doing? Are you going to give me a list of accomplishments to date, or are you sticking with the silly fantasy?
I’m already retired and content, but I’m not crediting Trump with it. As a matter of fact, most of the things that made it possible, including a robust housing market supported by a highly regulated financial system, and guaranteed health care at no cost, are regulatory/socialist things that I imagine you always vote against.
I’m not trying to give either one of them credit. I’m just making the observation that wolfpup’s claim is false.
wolfpup, sorry you feel that it was “ridiculous word games”. At the big picture, you’re probably right that Trump will do little to address liberal concerns. He’s focused more on addressing conservative concerns. With Obama, it was the reverse.
First, 4chan? Really? Second, if all some people need to know is that one is Obama and the other is Trump, so they’re for repeal, who is to say that doesn’t give them the greatest utility? It doesn’t matter what is typical. What you’ve identified is people voting for reasons you disagree with. If a person gets more utility out of generating liberal tears than they do from the ACA, I wouldn’t say that’s not in their interests. The whole point is it is by definition their interests.
I scanned the links you offered but can’t see how they’re relevant. If there’s something of interest that is actually on point, feel free to quote it. It seems like more non sequitur to me - i.e. not supporting the idea of voting based on a lie.
Of course it’s claiming to know better about what’s good for them. Saying that a person is voting against their interests assumes an understanding of the other person’s interests and if they knew what you knew, they would do something differently. Have you considered that there are people that just don’t care about the same things you do, in the same magnitude you do?
The problem is that when it comes to public policy it is impossible to know what your best interests are. The policy decisions are so complex and there are so many of them. Take Obamacare one person could be looking at it and says it forces coverage of my preexisting condition in the individual market which is good, but it raises prices so I have to give up something else which is bad, but it mandates maternal care which I need so that is good, but it forces insurance companies to narrow networks and my doctor is now out of network which is bad. How is that person supposed to know if Obamacare is a good deal or not. Prices have certainly gone up and choice has gone down, but is that because of Obamacare or would it have happened anyway?
That is just one issue what if you could know Obamacare was a good deal for you and Hillary would have kept it but you would have lost your job because of higher electricity prices? Would it have been in your interests to vote Hillary? No way to know what would have happened if Hillary had been elected.
No one who voted for Obama could have known that his failure to reach a deal with the Iraqi government and his failure to handle the civil war in Syria would produce ISIS and inspire a wave of terrorist attacks across Europe. On the other hand maybe McCain or Romney would have done worse and a bigger conflagration would have happened. Or maybe it would have happened regardless of who was elected and it had nothing to do with the American president.
Voting is such a cumbersome process because you never find out what the alternative would have been, how much is actually changed by the politicians, and each decision is about many issues at the same time.
That is why we such be humble in our attitude toward voting, and not hate people who vote differently since there is a good chance they are actually correct and we should try to keep as few decisions as possible to politics.
This is going to inspire some rage. Good luck. 
If my claim is false, I’m sure you can refute it by providing a list of Trump’s accomplishments that address all those voter concerns that I listed. The ones that his supporters elected him for.
I think you lost a big piece of that message and your CRC algorithm seems to have mangled it even more. The concerns I referenced and which were enumerated in the cited article were the concerns of Trump voters, who explained in surveys why they – Trump supporters – voted for Trump and what they hoped Trump would do for them.
Which article are you referring to here?
Did you seriously not hear Trump talk about how great healthcare was going to be after ACA was repealed? It wasn’t even a lie, since he never told us a policy.
Now, if you say that reasonably priced health insurance for everyone is a liberal policy, not a conservative one, could you get conservatives to state that in large friendly letters on all their mailings? They won’t, of course, since that is a desire for more or less everyone. The problem was that all their plans came nowhere close to meeting that goal.
Yet before the election this is what the mainstream media was saying:
The New York Times:
Link.
CNN:
Link.
CNBC:
Link.
And my personal favorite from the biggest jackass on the planet: Paul Krugman
Link.
Yet, in reality, the market is up 4,000 or so since the election.
So, those who supposedly knew what was in our best interest were screaming that Trump being elected would be an instant disaster. It wasn’t.
Maybe, just maybe, people actually do know what is in their best interests instead of the talking heads who are frequently wrong.
Slee
Do you actually believe there is a causative mechanism here? How does an elderly politician who incoherently rants and has made basically no policy decisions relevant to the economy related to the stock market price? I know you want to believe Trump is the best choice for you. I’ll agree with you for the sake of argument. So he’s gonna do huuuge, great things for us. But what has he done that matters so far?
Not sure if the first part is serious. I am a supporter of pro choice policies and SSM. I don’t think all economic actors make 100% rational choices, I just don’t think we can accurately determine when they are and when they are not. I think as a matter of public policy, it’s best to allow people to make their own choices for as many things as possible. Any time choice is limited, it should be subject high levels of scrutiny.
So, telling someone it is probably not a good idea to rob a bank is wrong?
Ditto for telling someone that shooting up with heroin is not in his best interests?
How about telling the teenager in a horror movie not to go into the basement?
People do maximize their perceived utility, but sometimes the perception is very far from reality.
Sometimes the person is right. But not always.
I wish all conservatives shared your views.
I’m talking about this article that I cited in post #30 – the one that identifies “authoritarianism, social dominance, prejudice, lack of intergroup contact, and a sense of relative deprivation” as the key factors driving Trump voters. My question was what he’s been doing to address their economic concerns (“relative deprivation”).
Meanwhile those other concerns seem like a problem in their own right. Obama provided leadership and an attempt to conciliate, especially in minority relations. Trump offers an unprecedented appeal to bigots and neo-Nazis. How do you think that’s going to work out?
How has the stock market suddenly entered this conversation? It has nothing to do with anything being discussed here, and its short-term knee-jerk reactions are irrelevant to discussions of policy, pretty much as discussed in this thread and summed up here:
Markets generally tend to react well to Republicans being in power, but markets are neither good predictors of economic prosperity nor good barometers of societal economic health.
One might also note the following incidental facts:
The economic fundamentals haven’t changed since the economic recovery and consequent strong bull market began under Obama in 2009 after the Bush recession. If this gang of incompetents mismanages the economy, the fundamentals eventually will change, and markets will follow, as they always do. So far said incompetents have done nothing at all, although if they kill NAFTA that may be the start of it.
According to Gallup only 54% of Americans invest in the market, either through individual stocks, mutual funds, pensions or retirement plans like a 401(k). That’s down 11% since the Great Recession. So to a big chunk of Trump supporters stock market gains matter not a whit.
Mnuchin warned that most of the gains would be reversed if Congress didn’t pass tax cuts. But if they do, the tax cuts would further widen the record level of wealth inequality by overwhelmingly favoring the top 1% who already alone control nearly 40% of America’s wealth. Which is directly pertinent to my earlier statement: equity markets alone are a terrible indicator of general societal well-being.
I, too, wish that more conservatives shared your views these issues.
And I agree with your last point. No one here has suggested limiting choices. I’ve never claimed that no one should be permitted to vote for a lying self-serving politician beholden to special interests who will act against the best interests of the voter. But who would really want to if they knew the facts? What I’m arguing is that a better democracy is achieved if voters are informed enough to understand the issues that they’re voting on, so that perhaps they can make better choices for themselves. I’ve given you examples of where this is not the case and you’ve rejected them out of hand, and called me arrogant for doing so.
Thanks for providing the link. I’m sorry to report that I started to read it and realized it was a wildly politicized piece and gave up. I’ve seen more objectivity and honest analysis of the right on DU.
The short answer to your question is that I don’t believe “relative deprivation” is the principle economic concern of Trump voters. That sound to me more like a leftist trying to project.
Do they?
I said that markets tend to “react well” to the election of Republicans in the sense of the initial knee-jerk reaction, not the long-term fundamentals. I don’t dispute your cites that Democrats tend to manage the economy better.