An interesting theory about the Trump phenomenon:
No doubt some of the protestors at Trump events protesting against Trump were also paid protestors. But what if much of the social agitation online for Trump is manufactured?
On radio, I assure you it is. Last Tuesday night, my radio show saw a wave of callers calling in to complain about what I was saying that very night on radio. The callers assured my call screener they were listening. The calls were coming from area codes all over the nation and they were very angry about what I had just said on the radio that very night about Trump.
I was on vacation. The guest host had been talking about local matters and had not even mentioned Trump. Hello, seminar callers. Likewise, many of the calls to my radio station demanding I be fired or disciplined for insulting Trump have come from people making statements about my radio show that clearly indicate they have not listened to the show or the station.
Similarly, whenever I get a wave of emails attacking me for things about Trump, frequently the same IP address pops up. On Twitter, the waves come from people with rarely used or new Twitter accounts that are suddenly all in for Trump — every tweet an attack against someone or Trump propaganda. More often than not, the accounts have pictures of someone other than the the person tweeting and most do not use real names.
Certainly it could be people with low social connectedness, as Michael Barone has noted, but it sure seems odd to suddenly get a a wave of #whitegenocide tweets from accounts that are just suddenly active and all in to attack people who oppose Trump.
Donald Trump right now has support from about 35% of the smaller of the two American political parties. That is different from 35% of the nation as a whole. His polling is so terrible, Utah, Mississippi, Georgia, North Carolina, and other states become in play for Hillary Clinton in ways they would not with a different candidate.
But his supporters are convinced they are actually a majority because they have entered an echo chamber (and a cult) where everyone agrees with them, they are the loudest voices, and they don’t see anyone online who can stand up to the overwhelming presence of Trump support. Everywhere they turn there are more people just like them.
Given that Trump has only the support of a third of the smaller of the two American political parties, that level of support makes no sense unless there is more than meets the eye.
I think this is definitely a part of it.
If Trump is astroturfing then my scenario is likely and Trump wins in the first voting round. Welcome Mr. president.
It’s undeniable someone is trying to take advantage of rank-and-file disgust with feckless party leadership to hijack the Republican Party. Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have deep ties to Putin, and many of us reflexively rejected Trump on sight last year as a Clinton stalking horse.
But there is one thing at which the GOP’s feckless leaders have always displayed astonishing feck, and that is protecting their phony-baloney jobs. We’ve accused them often enough of only pretending to try to defeat Democrats, but under Trump the accusation would become absolutely true and irrevocable. Not much demand for political consultants in a Potemkin opposition party.
I kinda think Trump’s too cheap to shell out for hired rabble-rousers. If he can’t be bothered to hire and maintain effective state staff for the state delegate conventions, why pony up for session callers night after night?
On the other hand, the Russians have a track record of caring way, way too much about social media dominance, and run vast boiler rooms for this sort of purpose. And rumor certainly has it that Trump is Putin’s candidate. Trump’s new convention manager is certainly been a bought man for the Russians for a decade or so.
While I have doubts about Trump (centered on the question “Would he better for liberty than Cruz, or worse?”), I did enjoy this cartoon:
http://www.gocomics.com/kencatalino/2016/04/06
Hmm. Is there an argument against a border wall other than “Racism!”?
Darkster,
Here you go:
http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/04/trumps-wall-plan-could-actually-increase-crime-000085
The claim that using regulatory authority is illegal is a strange one at this point in time. Obama has set a very different precedent.
I guess we need to always have a white male Republican in office in order to have rule of law, a combative media, and a government that embraces checks and balances. H/T Instapundit.
Barge landing successful. OT I know, but just… awesome.
Some of Trump’s supporters may be fake but the good ones or bad ones? As in, some people who say nice things about Trump could be fake but also people who say things that reflect poorly on him could be fake too. There is a far larger incentive for people to run a campaign of fakes that make Trump look bad then using fakes, who make Trump look bad, to boost Trump.
Its all really tough to say anything more definitive than fake people on the internet is a real thing. This is politics and politics have always been dirty and of course Democrats don’t have any ethics. Who stands to gain from fake Trump supporters making Trump look bad by appearing to defend him? Its still the primary so a Republican has motive but considering how damaging this is to the Republican party, you still can’t rule out a Republican.
Also, while it is tempting to just blame fake people for things you don’t like, people actually do exist who do and think things you don’t like.
Did anyone catch this article from a week or so ago? How to Hack an election
Wodun-
Thank you for posting that; I read it last week and it was the very first thing that popped into my head when I read the session caller article. Even if the article turns out to be “fake but accurate”, it’s certainly something to consider as a lens through which to view social media reports.
Low information voters make that sort of tactic MUCH easier to pull off. When turnout passes 25% or so, you can almost guarantee that the majority of voters are low-information.
Is campaigning for a candidate because you were paid in advance worse than campaigning for him because you expect to be paid, one way or another, after he wins?