LogFAQs > #930874616

Anteaterking posted...

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

I feel like people who wrongly speculated about 2016's results should STFU this time around, unless they learned their lesson put enough work into their research for an intelligent hypothesis.

some people are too much in a bubble to even accurately make predictions about human nature. it took social media for them to even know that more than just a handful of people disagree with their worldview in 2016, lmao.

One thing that Trump had over Yang is that he was leading the GOP primary field for basically the entire time after he announced he was running, outside of the month right after he announced and a brief period of time where Carson was leading instead. It was dumb for people then to be like "Well, despite being way in the lead, there's no chance Trump wins the primary".

But Yang doesn't actually have that support. This isn't pundits ignoring what the people are telling them in the polls. It's that real people aren't currently planning on voting for him.

before "real people" were voting for Trump, it was an already popular "joke" amongst people who knew they weren't voting for Hillary. even before they knew he really had a shot. there's no joke with Yang's name that's going to give him those non-serious votes, though. the novelty was voting for Donald Trump regardless of his policies. I remember Gary Coleman had votes in California when he competing with the Terminator for the seat, lol.

But I agree that serious voters don't seem to be considering him at this time. If he had some novelty in his name, he could at least win the "hurr durr, I'm funny" crowd, lol.
---

Never let those intent on misunderstanding you be the narrator to YOUR story!
Context? Context!? CONTEXT!!!