������Ƶ

Weird, isn’t it? The presidential election is too close to call, which means that about half the country will vote for Donald Trump. Yet Democrats know so little about his supporters and care even less. 

There are two parts to this. The first involves why people have such willful ignorance about the presidential race. I focus on the Democrats.

The second, a discussion of Nate Silver’s recent article about why Trump could win, is an example of a how to reduce this ignorance, though it is probably too late. Voters may claim they are interested in the campaign, but it’s a limited kind of interest.

What Are Friends For?

The 2024 presidential campaign is yet another reminder that your friends are probably not a representative sample of public opinion, and that thinking that they are closes you off from reality.

It is psychologically understandable, but this has great costs that need countering if you want to understand what’s going on

Instead of digging deeper and going outside themselves, people stay in their tunnels and silos with others like them.

Instead of taking seriously the reasons people give for supporting Trump, they say things like, “How can anyone vote for him?”

These people, including your friendly media, are on a hamster wheel of misunderstanding. They have Trump Derangement Syndrome, which is understandable because Donald Trump is truly off the rails.

The downside, though, is that the more you have it, the less you can understand why others might vote for him.

Here are two examples: a Starbucks guy and MSNBC.

When a guy stopped me at Starbucks today and asked who I thought would win, I said the best information says it’s a toss-up.  He was disappointed in my answer because I didn’t reassure his position.

“How can anyone vote for Trump?” he said. 

For Harris supporters, MSNBC is a huge, reassuring, encompassing friend — a Binky for liberals.

For him this was a rhetorical question to a response that he did not want to hear.

Trump says and does something outrageous, and anti-Trumpers say, “God how awful.  It’s really going to cost him this time!”

Recently MSNBC has given enormous coverage to the number of Republican big shots who have come out for Harris. That may be a big deal for its viewers, but they are already committed Democratic voters.  

For Harris supporters, MSNBC is a huge, reassuring, encompassing friend — a Binky for liberals.

MSNBC’s coverage is more pep rally and love fest than analysis. That’s OK if you just want to know why your side is good and the other is bad.

A regular Harris supporter comes away with questions, “How can anybody vote for Trump?” as well as a firm belief that anyone voting for Trump is — you choose — red-necked, uneducated. deceived, rigid or psychosocially bereft.

More likely, they have no firsthand knowledge at all.

In other words, friends reinforce a person’s views but divert her grasp of a fuller reality. And this kind of reassurance can end up biting you in the butt.

Reassurance Is Overrated

Nate Silver’s “Twenty-Four Reasons That Trump Could Win” talks about Trump and Republicans in ways that are so much better than Democratic voters and MSNBC do.

He has something to teach, something you should learn, not because it is reassuring but precisely because it’s not.

His reasons don’t talk about toxic masculinity, Christian nationalism or the latest Trump antic at the latest Trump rally. They are free of the typical shaming disguised as psychobabble used to describe Trump and his voters.

Here is a version of his 24 reasons condensed into five.

First, some fundamental factors that go beyond the election work in Trump’s favor. The Electoral College in recent years has worked in favor of Republicans. That means in effect that Trump may need a lower percentage of the popular vote than Harris does to win.

There is a global trend toward the kind of authoritarian populism that Trump advocates. There is a trend against incumbent parties. There has also been a worldwide increase in anti-immigration attitudes and policies. 

All of these are tentative because links to election results are not direct, but plausible. They are a reminder that it is not simply all about the character of the voters and candidates.

Second, inflation is down considerably, but prices remain high and aren’t likely to drop. Voters historically are hypersensitive to inflation. The argument that voters are wrong doesn’t get much traction. And many voters are nostalgic about the economy during the early Trump years.

Trump has all the characteristics of a con man, but being a con man often works.

Third, there’s a leakage of Democrats’ friends and allies. Though they are still in the minority, a worrisome number of Blacks and Hispanics support Trump.

You may be willing to denigrate Trump voters generally by calling them deceived, misled, psychologically bereft maybe even racist. Are you prepared to use that same language of disrespect and dismissal, that same labeling, for these groups, especially African Americans, who have been the heart and soul of the Democratic Party?

If not, what is the language you use to describe their choices? Frankly, I think the answer is that you have no language.

It’s the same with white working-class men, the guys who were at one time so central to labor’s Democratic support.

There may be plausible reasons why these groups have leaked in Trump’s direction. You may think they are wrong, but they can’t be dismissed as irrelevant. Face it. You have no good explanation.

And then there’s the widening gender gap. Men are much more likely to vote for Trump than woman are. The other day a person I know used the term “toxic masculinity” to explain this.

What does that even mean? At best it’s a stigmatizing label making it improbable that you’ll understand what’s going on in their minds and impossible for you to have a campaign strategy that back to the Democratic Party.

Fourth, Issues that Democrats continue to stress don’t get much traction in the broader community.  Examples are the Jan. 6 insurrection and the ongoing threat to democracy. That is what the polls show.

Democrats’ college-educated consultant class has for how to appeal to the mass public.

Fifth, Harris got a late start and may not have had enough time to define herself or her policies. 

Trump has all the characteristics of a con man but being a con man often works, and he has had a long time to polish his con.

Of course, all these reasons are contestable. I could frame an argument against every one of them. The point is, though, that they are plausible and worth considering. They encourage engagement, discussion and taking the opponents seriously.

The playing field is much more likely to be free of the usual shaming, handwringing, self-deception and digging a deep friendly hole in the sand to bury your head in.

It’s quite possible, around 50-50 really, that a huge number of Democrats are going to be disappointed by the election results.

In the long run it will be a worse sign if large numbers of people are surprised, because surprise indicates how little they understood and how much they ignored what was happening around them. 

That’s not a good sign for having the capacity to fight another day.