It seems impossible to me that we can do any analysis of how mistakes by the Clinton campaign caused her to lose the Electoral College, without examining the mindset of the campaign professionals Hillary hired and trusted. Clearly an aged socialist Senator, from a tiny state, had awakened impressive enthusiasm from so many people to the point where he mounted a credible challenge to the preferred candidate of Democratic Party professionals. Yet from all that came out in press stories and in leaked hacks of the Democratic National Committee, the Clinton “professionals“ viewed Sanders supporters as naive and not serious. All the talk of “Berniebots“ connoted mindless, idol worshiping amateurs, who simply didn‘t understand Presidential politics.
Once Clinton had secured the nomination, her campaign team perfunctorily began to fold the support of the Sanders people into her campaign by adopting Sanders positions on Trade, Wall Street, student loans and college tuition’s. However, while Hillary urged people to go to her website to review her positions on these policies, much of her campaign rhetoric focused upon her experience, Trump‘s lack of same and his misogyny. Given her strong opposition to Sanders policy ideas during the nominating campaign and in her debates with Sanders, her movement to the “Left“ seemed self-serving and insincere. Indeed, after the Democratic Convention, basking in the glow of highly favorable polling numbers, word leaked that the Clinton people were focused on capturing “Never Trump“ Republicans by moderating their messaging.
An article in Salon “They mocked us, they made fun of us”: Bernie Sanders surrogates recall meeting with smug Hillary Clinton staffers“ speaks to this:
“The retrospectives on how not to run a campaign keep coming. Early Tuesday morning, The Daily Beast published an interview with a couple of former Bernie Sanders surrogates who extended an olive branch to Hillary Clinton’s staff after the primary and were met with, at best, closed ears and, at worst, mockery.
Despite “sounding the alarm for months,” Nomiki Konst, a progressive activist who served on the 2016 DNC platform committee, said the Clinton campaign “fucking ignored us” in key battleground states — Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin — where President-elect Trump ultimately thrived: “We kept saying to each other like, ‘What the fuck, why are they just blowing us off? They need these voters more than anybody.’”
“Once we were at the convention, Bernie people were on the ground — we could feel it, people were pissed off, there with their pitchforks ready to fight,” she added. “But before the convention, after the platform committee meeting that I was on, Bernie surrogates were talking constantly, saying, ‘Oh my god, Hillary is going to lose if she doesn’t address TPP and [free] trade and [all these] other issues. We were looking at the polling and thought that if these people stay home, she’ll lose.”
Konst said Clinton’s staffers “looked like they had no idea what was going on here” while she and others “were painting them a dire picture.”
“I remember their faces, it was like they had never fucking heard this stuff before,” she added. “It’s what we had been screaming for the past 9 months … It’s like [they] forgot the basics of Politics 101.”
“The Clinton campaign believed they had the strongest and brightest people in the room … and they had no concept of why people would choose Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton,” Nebraska Democratic Party chair Jane Kleeb — a Sanders supporter — recalled of meetings between the Sanders people and Clinton staffers. “They mocked us, they made fun of us. They always had a … model that was supposed to save the day. We were street activists and they don’t get that. And that’s a fundamental divide. They ran a check-the-box, sanitized campaign. And voters don’t think like that. You don’t win elections that way.”
Beyond all the other complaints and refrains, detailing either the dirty tricks, or the campaign contretemps that caused the Clinton loss, is the obvious truth that the Clinton Team was full of the hubris that made them, in their minds, the best and the brightest. Sadly, undoubtedly it is the rest of us who will suffer from their prideful disdain.
Sanders-021507-18335- 0004
December 22, 2016 at 4:13 pm
Mike: And this post is far more like what I heard, what I felt, and what I feared. Hillary did in the General the same thing that caused her to lose to Obama in 2008. Back then, it was ignoring caucuses because those states didn’t really count, they were RED for god’s sake. This time, ignoring swing states. Both times: campaign managers more interested in a landslide popular vote [nailed it!] than in winning the electoral college [ohhhh shiiiit…].
LikeLike
December 22, 2016 at 4:53 pm
In retrospect, we all had some real warnings that Clinton was not getting through to voters.
My recollection there were more then a few news stories quoting right wing women they did not believe Trumps misogynist remarks were a measure of his ability to govern.
When you think about it, that view is not very different from many liberals who thought the attention to Bill Clinton’s infidelities had nothing to do with his ability to govern. In both cases, the judgment of voters was that personal failings of character do not determine the ability to lead.
To me, it seems a bitter irony that it was Clinton who concentrated on what many considered irrelevant personal characteristics while it was Trump who found the issues to win voters.
Too bad for all of us that Trump is a show man and a hustler and not a states man.
Finally, on another web site, well known to all of us here, there a report that Clinton’s popular victory is tarnished by the fact that when we remove NY and California she came in millions behind Trump. I have not verified that myself.
But if true that ought to add to the warnings apparent to anyone who wants to run from the center or left. I don’t see how any party can give up governorships, state houses and many of the states between the coasts and expect to win a national election – after all, a party cannot win governorships and statehouses without changing minds, the same minds that vote in national elections.
LikeLike
December 22, 2016 at 7:24 pm
BFM: Just California is enough; she won 8.754M to 4.484M, so the excess of 4.270M covers all the 2,864,974 she won by in the popular vote (that is the final official number).
It is likely, due to natural affinity, that Clinton did not have to campaign or run ads in California at all in order to win its electoral votes. (The same is true in at least 10 other states). But she did, perhaps out of the political expediency and convenience of “proving” to moneyed people, in California, that she could seat a crowd. Anyway she did spend time and money in these states, both of which would have been better spent in Wisconsin or Michigan.
Scroll about halfway down this CNBC link to see a graphic; Clinton was spending big in California, New York and other perfectly safe blue states. I think it was to raise money from those states; e.g. 25% of her campaign funding came from California alone ($56M).
Oh well. Once again, money failed to buy an election for an unlikable candidate.
LikeLike
December 22, 2016 at 9:38 pm
“Anyway she did spend time and money in these states, both of which would have been better spent in Wisconsin or Michigan. ”
Imagine, her campaign, and many others – me included, thought she might extend her lead into some hard core red states.
One of natures little jokes.
I read Nate Silver. I knew there was chance she would loose. I knew that many states are correlated. I understood a little when Silver pointed out that this election had far more variation.
Some how I really believed in the “fire wall” and the “ground game” and all the other stuff.
Oh well, Some how I think people are really going to be ready for a change in 4 years. I just wonder if there will be anybody with a plan that includes more than messaging.
LikeLike
December 23, 2016 at 5:51 am
BFM: My biggest fear is the Democrat’s message will just recycle Hillary’s again.
“I’m not Trump! I’m not a racist! Or a misogynist, or an islamophobe!” [audience applauds]
“I! am! Not! Trump!” [audience standing ovation, candidate drops the mike, thinks that’s enough]
LikeLike
December 23, 2016 at 6:25 am
BFM: I read Nate Silver. … I really believed in the “fire wall” and the “ground game”
It is very hard not to believe, I include myself. I had my doubts and thought more than once that Trump had stepped over the line and couldn’t recover.
I don’t blame Silver, he doesn’t poll, he just analyzes polls, and there is nothing he can do to make his supply of polls any better. They are the ones missing the mark, there is something rotten at the core of all their methodologies that is causing this error, something they are failing to capture.
If nothing else, the “margin of error” (+/- 3%) on polls is obviously wrong; the calculus behind those claims makes key assumptions about polls that are demonstrably false. One is that all voters for either candidate are equally likely to be chosen by random selection, which is clearly false. They try to “correct” for that, but it is ad hoc and unscientific; ie if they don’t realize they are under-polling or over-polling some demographic, they don’t correct for it.
There is a mathematical way to backward derive their true margin of error based on results, if Nate did that perhaps his site would be less misleading, and would have reported the race closer to 50/50, instead of 75/25. But even then, what is “rotten” about the polls is probably a lack of statistical psychology, the voters are human beings, not flips of a biased coin that will be perfectly described by the distributions of statistical mechanics. A three second video won’t make the coin behave any differently, but it may permanently change a few million votes.
LikeLike
December 23, 2016 at 9:13 am
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/dec/16/siri-hustvedt-trump-was-elected-because-misogyny-is-alive-and-well-““He was elected because his exploitation of the big lie technique worked, because misogyny is alive and well among women and men,” she says. “He was elected because, as a study at Yale demonstrated, when faced with an identical description of an ambitious politician, both men and women respond to a female candidate with feelings of ‘moral outrage’, but have no such feelings for a power seeking male candidate.” It goes back to what she has been saying about the science of perception, the kinds of expectations we have for men versus those for women. “If she’s emotional, then she’s like a woman. If she’s not emotional, then she’s cold and heartless,” she says of Clinton. “Whereas Trump actually has played the female role: the out of control, angry hysteric. And yet, he has been perceived as a robust, masculine figure by a large portion of the US public. The possibilities for a woman are infinitely more narrow.” A feminist writer’s perspective…….
LikeLiked by 1 person
December 23, 2016 at 12:24 pm
SwM: Love the article; Hustvedt sounds very interesting.
I’ll quibble about the misogyny explanation; I think it is too pat. Would Elizabeth Warren have met the same fate? I don’t think so, neither did the polls of a year ago, and I personally know a handful of Trump voters that consider Trump a pig, and they at least say they would have abstained or voted for Sanders or Warren.
If what Hustvedt says is true, why did Hillary beat Trump by 2.8M votes in the popular vote? Why didn’t misogyny rear its ugly head there?
If what Hustvedt says is true, how did Hillary beat Sanders?
Even if what she Hustvedt says is true, and America was ready for a Black POTUS in two elections but not a Female POTUS, wouldn’t it be elective incompetence on the part of the Democratic Party to do everything in their power to force Hillary’s nomination? On Hustvedt’s premise, wouldn’t the underlying driver here be utter incompetence of the supposed best minds in American politics for not knowing something so fundamentally decisive as “misogyny is still too powerful in the Swing states and a female POTUS is out of the question” ?
I don’t think misogyny really is the underlying driver. I think it was indeed utter incompetence, but had little to do with gender; and much more to do with mentally dismissing the 30 years of scandal, and multiple ongoing scandals, and the widespread lack of dislike and distrust of Hillary Clinton, even by 1/3 of their own voters. As if sticking their fingers in their ears and saying “none of it is true” was going to convince anybody.
The stats show the truth, Trump in several of those “firewall” states did no better than Romney + 1%, it was Hillary getting several % less than Obama’s worst in those states, because too many Democrats just don’t like her and refused to turn out for her.
LikeLike
December 23, 2016 at 12:51 pm
“I’ll quibble about the misogyny explanation; I think it is too pat. ”
You made several interesting points.
It seems to me that misogyny was a factor, but only one factor among several. Unless I overlooked your remarks, we could add that Clinton was already elected senator and appointed SOS. It would seem that misogyny is on the decline or at least not the most significant factor.
It is important to get this right. If you really believe that misogyny is what kept Clinton out of office then there is no reason to change the message or the policies – and that would be a disaster for Democrats and ordinary Americans.
LikeLike
December 23, 2016 at 2:52 pm
What kept Clinton out of office was 77,000 thousand votes in 3 states.
LikeLike
December 23, 2016 at 3:03 pm
MM, I get the distinct feeling that many of the same men don’t like Elizabeth Warren. There could be a woman out there that they might vote for though. Some states are better for women candidates that others. For instance, as far as I know there has not been a woman governor from FLA OH VA or PA. Don’t think they have female senators either. Women are still breaking glass ceilings in many of the states.
LikeLike
December 23, 2016 at 3:36 pm
Trump was able to lie and convince working people he was on their side and Clinton was the Romney like Goldman Sachs candidate. Now that Trump has filled his cabinet with billionaires and investment bankers, it is impossible for him to make that claim. Eventually the voters will realized that they have been conned. At that time it will not be too difficult for the democrats to craft a message. If unemployment rates have gone up and Social Security and Medicare payments have been cut, the task will not be that difficult.
LikeLike
December 23, 2016 at 3:47 pm
I have read statements from working class people expressing belief that Trump is going to make Obamacare cheaper.for them. More than likely they will end up with nothing.
LikeLike
December 23, 2016 at 3:58 pm
” At that time it will not be too difficult for the democrats to craft a message. If unemployment rates have gone up and Social Security and Medicare payments have been cut, the task will not be that difficult.”
Too bad the Democrats did not craft a convincing message challenging corporate economic interest and favoring the working class this time. Apparently that message had some appeal.
And too bad the one championing the working class over corporate interest was a lying hustler from the top 1 percent.
LikeLiked by 1 person
December 23, 2016 at 4:01 pm
“I have read statements from working class people expressing belief that Trump is going to make Obamacare cheaper.for them. More than likely they will end up with nothing.”
Ain’t it the truth. They]’re gonna look like a sub-contractor on a Trump project in Atlantic City.
LikeLiked by 1 person
December 23, 2016 at 4:02 pm
SwM: I personally know people that voted for Trump, people I have known for 30 years, that I believe are sincere in saying they would have not voted for Trump if not for Hillary, and three that would have voted for Bernie or Warren over Trump, but believed Hillary was literally a corrupt influence peddler, and Trump was just an asshole, so they chose the asshole over somebody they believed was a traitor.
What kept Clinton out of office, as I detailed before, was 300,000 missing votes in those states, 300,000 votes that Obama got, and she did not, and more than enough to wipe your 77,000 out. See this graph.
What kept Clinton out of office was raising $56M in California and not spending it in those three states: That would have been $727 per missing voter, maybe the GOTV money her own staff was begging for in Michigan would have worked, instead of running millions in ads in CALIFORNIA to boost her “landslide” national numbers.
“Many of the same men” is undoubtedly true but not enough to make the difference. 1/3 of Democrats do not dislike or distrust Elizabeth Warren, and only 13% have an unfavorable opinion (unfavorables are 12% for Biden, 11% for Bernie). So sure, 13% of Democrats don’t like Warren, that could be all misogynist men, but the unfavorables for Warren are almost exactly the same as for Biden or Bernie, and her 1% or 2% extra dislike is not enough to tilt the balance. Hillary’s 22% more than Sanders, that was enough to tilt the balance and lose her 300,000 votes that could have won the race.
Any of those three (Biden, Sanders, Warren) could lead the ticket, they are the three most popular contenders among Democrats for the ticket, in that order. I don’t want Biden, I would give my money and vote to Sanders and Warren in any combination (presuming I have any money left in 2020). Warren, I believe, is the quickest wit of the three, in terms of parrying questions with logic and facts off the top of her head. Sanders falls back on principle quickly; I believe he is sincere but question his memory for detail. Biden is a gaffe machine and a creepy touchy grandpa that relies far too much on his smile; I fear he’d melt under the Trump blowtorch.
LikeLike
December 23, 2016 at 4:48 pm
Sanders will be 80.Biden will be 78. They both will be too old n my opinion. I think Joe would have won those rust belt states as no one can hang the elitist rap on him. He probably has less money than does Bernie.. As to Warren, it remain to be seen how effective she is against Trump. She does not give a good speech.
LikeLike
December 23, 2016 at 5:57 pm
Just some of the absurdity out there,sometimes we need it.
Trump’s driver’s license casts doubt on height claims
By Darren Samuelsohn
12/23/16 09:54 AM EST
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-drivers-license-height-232948
LikeLike
December 24, 2016 at 7:31 am
Pathetic shit — all above.
HRC lost — thank you god.
Trump won — fuck you god.
So what should be done now? This is the question.
Analyze all you want with pretensions of insight; talk forever of why — but the facts remain.
LikeLike
December 24, 2016 at 8:03 am
SwM: There you go again; trying to pick a candidate that fits a “presidential” profile instead of a candidate that can get a standing ovation. We don’t need another pre-determined favorite! Take your thumb off the scale! At the moment, these are the three most popular candidates, obviously that can change in three years, so we will see. Cory Booker is pretty low on the list, but could rise.
Age is just a number, if Sanders or Biden cannot cut it on the campaign trail, then they are too old.
If they still draw yuuuge crowds, they aren’t too old.
Same goes for Warren, regarding speech. I hope she is smart enough to solve problems, and giving a good speech that inspires people, and that she can give naturally in her own voice, is just a problem to be solved. Reading, finding coaches and writers, whatever it takes, I expect her to solve the problem.
If something as simple as that is beyond her ken, then I think I should rethink how smart I think she is.
In any case, a better primary schedule would be a pure charisma contest judged almost entirely near the end in the dozen swing states. “Near the end” so the public has sufficient exposure to all candidates to choose the one that can draw the biggest crowds in the swing states, maybe 8 or 12 states in the middle of the pack, the ones that will decide the election.
LikeLike
December 24, 2016 at 9:14 am
“So what should be done now? This is the question.”
Ok, that is a good question.
What do you suggest. Do you agree, as has been suggested here, to resist every thing Trump.
I think that is a bit unrealistic – that we have to choose the least popular and most damaging policies to have any hope turning them back.
Should we have a little analysis first or do you suggest we just run off and do something?
LikeLiked by 1 person
December 24, 2016 at 9:17 am
MM, I am not picking anyone. We will be lucky if we don’t get blowm up in the next for years by an intentional or accidental nuclear event.
LikeLike
December 24, 2016 at 9:40 am
I have little respect for your words, BFM; so know this going in. You expend much effort to say nothing in my opinion.
But since you’ve asked I’ll answer as concisely as I can.
Foreign policy rules our lives much more than credit is given.
Chew on it; research it on your own. Write back with what you’ve learned after some years.
I don’t have the time, nor inclination to say more as this perspective is considered foolish in these parts of the world; and actually is an experiment of others; or so is claimed
Good luck..
LikeLike
December 24, 2016 at 10:10 am
gbk: That was a non-answer, and you are just myopic, picking one thing that interests you or terrifies you and claiming everything hangs on that hook. The truth is that it is all inter-related. Foreign policy is driven by greed, so I can say greed is the issue, and explains everything. Of course greed leads to economic inequality, I can claim that is the issue, and explains everything. Of course economic equality is closely related to energy consumption, I can claim energy is the issue, and explains everything!
So basically pick a topic, a myopic fool will figure out how it is correlated to everything else, then exaggerate those correlations to claim it explains everything.
Foreign policy does not rule our lives any more than wealth disparity does, in fact the majority of foreign policy is about the fight (both metaphorically and literally violent fighting) over resources and access to markets and immunity from laws (including taxes and tariffs) and all moral restraints, in the pursuit of wealth.
Take that away, and “foreign policy” pretty much vanishes altogether. Even “terrorism” is, objectively speaking, a war primarily about economics and resources (like unique geographical sites), and the right to enslave people to a religion for the economic well-being of “leaders.”
There is a large network of inter-connecting nodes that collectively “rule our lives”, just like the human body is a large network of inter-connecting organs. but life is not all about the liver, or the heart, or the lungs. Just because losing lung function can end your life, does not make your life all about your lungs. Sure, a catastrophic loss of lung function would quickly lead to death, but that doesn’t mean we should try to make all of our health issues lung-centric, does it?
LikeLike
December 24, 2016 at 12:30 pm
SwM: MM, I am not picking anyone. We will be lucky if we don’t get blown up..
I don’t think it is time to pick anyone, either. I would equate that metaphorically to picking a destination, when what I think we should settle on in the next six months or so is a direction in which we shall walk (agitate for and talk about), and if we can do that then the destination options (i.e. the right candidates) will become clear in about three years.
LikeLike
December 24, 2016 at 12:57 pm
“gbk: That was a non-answer, and you are just myopic, picking one thing that interests you or terrifies you and claiming everything hangs on that hook”
Sure, MM. At least I don’t waste time pondering unknowns, I deal with the realism of the world not the tangents untaken. So sorry for this. Of course, I haven’t made most of my money from known corrupt contracts which you admit to.
Fuck off, MM. You write too much and say the same damn thing. I’ve said little and yet stand accused — again– of being myopic — get Slarti here so you can gang up again. I am far from myopic. You are blind to the real problems of this country which has little to do with all the post angst of the current election.
You bring hypothetical arguments which have no bearing on reality so that you can display your “skill” of logic while ignoring issues that claim the bulk of this country’s wealth.
This country disguises the costs of war through social division. I’m amazed you don’t see it, but given how you’ve bragged about your defense work, I’m not surprised.
Back off, MM, let sleeping dogs lie. Argue, along with SWM, BFM, Blouise, et. al. how this country would be so great while ignoring our propensity and cost for war.
You are a fool.
LikeLike
December 24, 2016 at 1:41 pm
MM,
So sorry my topic is not yours. Your topics are always post-fact. You pull them apart like a wet toothpick, which is not difficult as they are a product of your mind (see above for such foolishness). So sorry my topic speaks to realism, as this seems to onerous for you.
So, again, fuck off, MM. When your delusions meet the road look around and you’ll see me there, dealing with the realism of nation states.
No need to hurry, the quagmire is always there.
Fuck off, and have a good day.
LikeLike
December 24, 2016 at 2:27 pm
“I have little respect for your words, BFM; so know this going in. You expend much effort to say nothing in my opinion. … But since you’ve asked I’ll answer as concisely as I can. … Foreign policy rules our lives much more than credit is given.”
At last common ground for agreement – I don’t think much of your comments either. Most of your comments seem to be composed of needless hostility, coupled with the obvious posing as clarity.
Consider ‘foreign policy rules our lives much more…’
Hasn’t a major topic of conversation here been TPP. Isn’t trade policy a part of foreign policy.
Hasn’t a major concern regarding Trump, and part of the analogy between Trump and Hitler. been his proposed treatment of Muslims and immigrants? Aren’t both those topics, immigration policy and the vetting of refugees, a part of foreign policy.
Much of the conversation at the blog has to do with the way aspects of foreign policy directly affects our lives. Your statement ‘foreign policy rules our lives much more …. ‘ seems to be direct evidence you are just not following the conversation.
There is, however, a major difference between us. I try to practice a kind of good conservation with blog comments. I try to find something useful in comments, even when they seem, largely, a waste of Internet packets and space on the screen. That devotion to good conservation of comments accounts for my response to your remark.
Finally, I realize if could have used far fewer words and said something with much the same meaning, such as “bug off”.
But if I am to take the time to respond to you, why wouldn’t I want to point out the flaws in your point of view? Why wouldn’t I want to point out that the supposed justification for your hostility has little to do with me or the others who comment here.
But please keep commenting. I am sure that once in a while I will find some kernel or thin wisp of meaning that I can comment on. And that makes it seem all worth while – for a fleeting moment.
LikeLike
December 24, 2016 at 3:32 pm
“I don’t think much of your comments either.” – BFM
Excellent, your dribble makes me dizzy. Your stating of the obvious time and again makes me wonder how you function in the world.
Get up on the center pedestal, you deserve it.
LikeLike
December 24, 2016 at 4:15 pm
“Excellent, your dribble makes me dizzy. Your stating of the obvious time and again makes me wonder how you function in the world.”
Careful now, dizziness in a man your age can be a sign if impending stroke.
But this material of yours really needs some work. No matter how I say it, it just does not come across as funny.
Maybe you need some new material. Maybe take a road trip, open yourself up to new experience and come back with some fresh insights.
Good luck.
LikeLike
December 24, 2016 at 4:44 pm
GBK: When your delusions meet the road look around and you’ll see me there, dealing with the realism of nation states.
You are projecting, accusing me of the errors you make. So you are “dealing with the realism”? Bullshit; you are fretting about bullshit you don’t understand and therefore can’t do a damn thing about. You aren’t “dealing with” falling off a building by watching the ground approach your face.
GBK I’ve said little and yet stand accused — again– of being myopic
precisely, you’ve said little because you have nothing to say, except that you don’t think we understand the importance of your one and only topic. That is myopic.
GBK You are blind to the real problems of this country which has little to do with all the post angst of the current election.
I am blind to neither the problems of this country or the problems of the world. You may think I am, but that is because I see them for what they are, and that is not how you want to see them. It is you that are blind to the truth, and it is why you spend your time fretting about things you can’t do anything about — because failing to see them as they are, you are unable to identify the pressure points that would change the future.
GBK You bring hypothetical arguments which have no bearing on reality so that you can display your “skill” of logic while ignoring issues that claim the bulk of this country’s wealth.
No, I don’t. I bring arguments based on realistic models of what is happening, so they have plenty of bearing, but you are incapable of logic and rely on emotion, which isn’t giving you the right answers. With the skill of logic you cannot understand the present and you cannot understand the most likely future or see how to take action to redirect the path toward a more desirable future. So you are left, metaphorically, watching in horror as your house burns to the ground and you do nothing but hope the fire will magically go out.
GBK: This country disguises the costs of war through social division.
That’s pretty true.
GBK: Back off, MM.
If I have something to say, I’ll say it. You are myopic and incapable of logic. Enjoy your rage and terror!
LikeLike
December 27, 2016 at 9:32 am
Neural correlates of maintaining one’s political beliefs in the face of counterevidence
Jonas T. Kaplan, Sarah I. Gimbel & Sam Harris
Nature: Scientific Reports 6, Article number: 39589 (2016)
Abstract
People often discount evidence that contradicts their firmly held beliefs. However, little is known about the neural mechanisms that govern this behavior. We used neuroimaging to investigate the neural systems involved in maintaining belief in the face of counterevidence, presenting 40 liberals with arguments that contradicted their strongly held political and non-political views. Challenges to political beliefs produced increased activity in the default mode network—a set of interconnected structures associated with self-representation and disengagement from the external world. Trials with greater belief resistance showed increased response in the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex and decreased activity in the orbitofrontal cortex. We also found that participants who changed their minds more showed less BOLD signal in the insula and the amygdala when evaluating counterevidence. These results highlight the role of emotion in belief-change resistance and offer insight into the neural systems involved in belief maintenance, motivated reasoning, and related phenomena.
Maybe it has to do with her dorsomedial prefrontal cortex?
LikeLike
December 27, 2016 at 10:11 am
-Challenges to political beliefs produced increased activity in the default mode network—a set of interconnected structures associated with self-representation and disengagement from the external world. Trials with greater belief resistance showed increased response in the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex and decreased activity in the orbitofrontal cortex.-
Bron,
This explains the person you are presented through all the years Ive known you. 🙂
LikeLike
December 27, 2016 at 10:34 am
bron98: well, that is basically recycled science, I’ve read evidence of essentially the same thing in academic papers back in the 1980’s. neuro-imaging wasn’t exactly possible then; but similar studies were possible that strongly implicated the Amygdala in rejecting evidence that ran counter to strongly held beliefs, and not just for political beliefs but religious and moral beliefs, even scientific beliefs. Historical evidence supports the same conclusions; even the theory of plate tectonics, despite overwhelming logical evidence (still cited today as the definitive proof of it) was scorned and vilified by geologists for over a lifetime before it eventually became the standard explanation. And that was just pure science with no lives or money at risk or at stake (as there is in politicized science like global warming). The same goes for evolution, although one could say that science soundly refutes all religious origin stories (unless one stretches the use of the word “metaphor” to the breaking point).
Rationality evolved late in our species, the “neocortex” is called “new” for good reason. As a late addition, it is not and never has been for anybody the center of our decision making, it is subordinate to the emotions and serves to provide a view of “predicted consequences” for interpretation by the amygdala, which computes the emotional impact of the various actions available.
All they are seeing in this study is stuff we could have predicted decades ago; that some people are so emotionally invested in their political beliefs that, if they accept strong evidence refuting such a belief, the amygdala correctly computes the emotional fallout as too devastating to be worth accepting that evidence. In self defense they choose flight or fight (flight: Ignore the evidence, fight: attack the evidence as manufactured, mistaken, misreported, improperly acquired, cherry picked, etc), so they can maintain their belief.
The same goes for religion; people that have spent a lifetime in prayer, belief, and donations will attack any refutation of their belief as evil doing, and will sometimes be driven to violence rather than lose the sunk investment of all that time and money, or lose their hope for the future. It is an emotional reaction, because we are not at heart a rational species, rationality is just a bolt-on tool we sometimes find useful for getting something we (emotionally) want: But it’s no way to run your life!
LikeLike
December 27, 2016 at 4:34 pm
god damn, the liberals don’t like, the Objectivists don’t like, the only ones who think it is funny is the conservatives.
LikeLike
December 27, 2016 at 7:29 pm
>> the only ones who think it is funny is the conservatives.
Oh, it was supposed to be funny? Why would conservatives find that funny? It is ironic if they do, since derision in service of denial and dismissal of facts is one of the very reactions of the amygdala being studied. Now that’s funny!
LikeLike
December 28, 2016 at 4:25 pm
liberals point to the cingulate gyrus and say that is the reason for conservative thinking.
LikeLike
January 4, 2017 at 9:50 pm
Hola! I’ve been following your weblog for a while now and finally got the courage to go ahead and give you a shout
out from Lubbock Texas! Just wanted to mention keep
up the fantastic work!
LikeLike
February 27, 2018 at 3:19 am
Great Post! Keep it up! – http://e123movies.com
LikeLike