Candidate a: Trump
Candidate b: Clinton
Clinton:- vanilla, nothing positive that stands out much but better vanilla than worse, so a tool to prevent candidate a.
the result depends on candidate a being seen as better or worse than vanilla(no change) in some way
So, it almost becomes: vote for Trump, or vote against Trump.
We can rule Clinton out, pretty much:-
Choice: Trump, yes or no?
group a, american voters
group b, rest of world
group 1, those that are instantly taken with what the rest of us see as racist, sexist, or otherwise objectionable views.
group 2, the remaining majority, who see those things as objectionable, and cant consider voting that way.
Effect 1: There is a circular effect, where the media obviously interview supporters, they are seen by us as stupid, morons, as we expect from supporters of such ignorant and distasteful views from a not very bright person, and our views are reinforced, the media highlight this more and more and so on
Mode 1: judging candidates normally.
Mode 2: judging candidates to vote for.
state a: To start with and for considerably long, group a and b are both in mode 1
State b: group a start entering mode 2 as time progresses.
Effect 2: as time goes on, Americans start to ask themselves a different question to the rest of us, as they enter state b
thinking of early america timeline, and rest of world:-
what does he say that seems at all positive?
why would anyone support someone like that?
close to election:-
its the economy, stupid!?
promote business, and the economy, hopefully
down to earth, remove washington money leakages, make leaner
will his bad ideas get traction anyway?
will a wall really happen anyway?
how much damage can he do in his time anyway?
the bad stuff will be undone by his successor.
nothing really changes anyway,
do nothing, or make changes, and the successful can be kept,
failures removed. It seems better than dont ‘experiment’ at all.
Even if you dont consider him the safest business man, perhaps.