Well, inwards
Part IX, nosotros made what should last the obvious indicate that Trump was the most dishonest presidential candidate nosotros accept e'er seen. By far. However, the indicate of including "valence" characteristics inwards our electoral models is to brand comparisons betwixt candidates. So, did voters run across it that way?
Um, no.
Here's an example of a poll, from Nov 2, inwards which voters saw
Trump as to a greater extent than honest past times a margin of 46% to 38%.
What the fuck went wrong? Here are a few observations.
1) It wasn't but Comey. Note that perceptions of Trump's honesty payoff were at that topographic point during a lot of that graph.
2) Voters genuinely are pretty fucking gullible. As I said inwards
Part VI, you lot basically had to last a rube to purchase into Trump's act, together with a lot of people genuinely were rubes.
3) The media weren't doing their fucking jobs. (Yes, that was grammatically correct. "Media": plural). I don't but hateful they were giving Trump also much of a transcend on his lies-- I hateful they were roofing Clinton's pseudo-scandals, similar the "Clinton Foundation" nonsense every bit though it had been a existent corruption issue. No policy decisions were influenced past times donations to the Clinton Foundation, together with every investigation came to that conclusion. On the other hand, the "Trump Foundation" bribed Pam Bondi (Florida Attorney General) to telephone phone off a criminal investigation into "Trump University" inwards Florida, everyone
did know that, together with the latter got close no coverage. That is a failure of the media, together with 1 that contributes to voters' failure to brand an accurate comparing of who was to a greater extent than dishonest.
4) Impressions of candidates form early, together with are hard to change. The critical concept from cognitive psychology is the "schema." It is a form of agency of looking at the world, together with 1 time you lot educate a schema, you lot tend to twist data you lot have to stand upward for inside that schema. So, if you lot educate a schema of Clinton inwards which she is dishonest, together with produce therefore early (say, inwards the 1990's), therefore whatever slice of data you lot have afterwards that volition last twisted to stand upward for inside that schema. If you lot educate a schema of Trump inwards which he is but a blustery, straight-talking guy who wants to milk tremble materials up, therefore whatever he says that isn't factually truthful gets written off every bit but bluster rather than dishonesty. Aren't schemas fun?
For a multifariousness of reasons, then, voters but got it wrong.
Way wrong on honesty.
Next up, competence!
