As I see it, there are three broad set of voters. There are (1) those who can analyze and discern the lesser of two evils, (2) those — even if they care about news, cannot analyze the news and use other criteria than choosing the lesser of the two evils. (3) Let me note from the outset that many Americans are ignorant and really do not concern themselves with politics. And if they do, it amounts to a loyalty to their party — right or wrong.
Those who can discern the lesser of two evils (1) and those loyal to the democratic party (3) voted for Kamala Harris.
And those who are loyal to the Republican party, voted for Donald Trump.
So what about those who don’t have enough informatiom, those who cannot analyze, and those who do not care about a lesser evil? Those too chose Donald Trump on other considerations. And these other considerations have nothing to do with domestic or international concerns.
So, on what basis did they choose Trump? It has a basis in evolution and a genetic disposition to choose a strong male for leadership. If we leave out all information about Harris and Trump, and simply pay attention to their personality traits, the picture I get is of a short giggly business woman who seems to talk from a script, and a hefty older male in a suit who talks in an unrehearsed, down to earth, confident manner. Who does your instinct tell you to choose for a leader?
—————————————————–
Commentary by AI
The argument you’re presenting seems to reflect a combination of political analysis, evolutionary psychology, and the dynamics of leadership perception. Let’s break it down.
The Three Groups of Voters
You categorize voters into three groups:
- Analytical Voters: Those who can discern the lesser of two evils.
- Uninformed or Non-Analytical Voters: Those who are not well-versed in the news and make decisions based on other criteria.
- Party Loyalists: Voters who are more loyal to a political party than to any candidate.
Based on this, you’re saying:
- Group 1 (Analytical Voters) and Group 3 (Loyal Democrats) would lean towards Kamala Harris (or whoever is representing the Democratic Party).
- Group 3 (Loyal Republicans) would vote for Donald Trump.
- Group 2 (The Uninformed or Apathetic) would also lean toward Trump, but their reasons for doing so are more rooted in non-political, instinctual factors rather than policy or party loyalty.
The Role of Evolutionary Psychology
The crux of your argument seems to be that, for some voters, their decision is influenced by innate psychological traits, specifically what you describe as an “evolutionary disposition” to prefer strong, confident male leaders. You suggest that voters who don’t engage deeply with policy might gravitate toward Trump because of how he presents himself—unrehearsed, confident, and assertive, traits that are often associated with masculinity and authority.
This idea is rooted in evolutionary psychology, where humans may have evolved to instinctively favor leaders who exude traits of dominance and strength, particularly in men. Evolutionarily speaking, these traits might have signaled competence in leadership or the ability to provide security and protection—traits highly valued in ancestral environments. When you contrast Trump’s persona with Kamala Harris’s—whom you describe as more “giggly” and “scripted”—you can see how a certain subset of voters might make an instinctual, non-rational judgment based on personality over policy.
Perception of Leadership
This taps into the perception of leadership—which is often about presence, confidence, and dominance rather than deep policy knowledge. Research on leadership and charisma suggests that people tend to favor leaders who project authority, decisiveness, and competence, even if those qualities aren’t directly tied to their political policies. Trump, with his larger-than-life persona, his straightforward, often combative style, and his emphasis on “strongman” tactics, would appeal to voters who prioritize these qualities.
Kamala Harris, on the other hand, while competent, might not resonate with the same visceral, primal instincts. As you note, she can come across as more polished and scripted, which may not stir the same instinctual appeal in those voters who are making decisions based on personality rather than policy.
Group 2: The Uninformed Voter
For voters in Group 2—those who don’t care enough to engage deeply with political issues—their decisions may be influenced by factors that go beyond intellectual analysis. They may vote based on personal charisma, gut feeling, or the personality traits they associate with leadership, as opposed to any concrete policy issue. The media portrayal of Trump, his commanding presence, and his ability to dominate the news cycle likely contribute to his appeal in this group.
Tribalism and Loyalty
It’s also important to note that tribalism plays a role. Many Americans, regardless of their level of engagement or analysis, vote in a way that is heavily influenced by loyalty to their party, community, or “tribe.” For many Republican voters, Trump represents the figurehead of their tribe, and his win can be seen as the culmination of that loyalty, irrespective of his personal qualities or his policies.
Conclusion
In short, your argument points to an interesting intersection of instinct, personality, and tribal loyalty as driving forces behind Trump’s 2024 victory. For some voters, their decisions may be less about rational policy evaluation and more about an unconscious, evolutionary inclination to favor strong, assertive leaders.
This theory reflects the complex reality of voter behavior, which is often influenced by far more than just policy positions. Personality, media portrayal, and instinctual preferences all play a huge role in shaping electoral outcomes.
———————————
You said:
You rely on exit polls for why people vote. But they rationalize!
ChatGPT said:
Your commentary offers an intriguing analysis of voter behavior, blending political psychology and evolutionary theories with leadership dynamics. Here’s how I’d refine or expand on your ideas:
- Broadening the Three Voter Categories
While the analytical voters, non-analytical/apolitical voters, and party loyalists are useful distinctions, there might be a fourth critical group: the “single-issue voters.” These individuals may fall outside your categories because their choices hinge on specific issues like abortion, gun rights, or climate change. Their decisions are less about leadership traits or party loyalty and more about policy alignment on a singular concern.
- Evolutionary Psychology and Leadership Perception
Your assertion that Trump’s “strong male” persona resonates instinctually is compelling but might oversimplify the dynamics. Leadership preferences vary widely across cultures and historical contexts. While a dominant and assertive style appeals to some, others might prioritize empathy, cooperation, or expertise. Kamala Harris’s persona, which you describe as “giggly” and “scripted,” could appeal to voters seeking a thoughtful, measured approach, especially in modern, diverse societies valuing inclusivity.
- Gender Dynamics in Leadership
Implicit bias against women in leadership is an established challenge. Research shows that women leaders often need to balance perceived competence and warmth, a dual expectation not as heavily imposed on men. Harris’s approach might reflect an attempt to navigate this double bind. Dismissing her style as “giggly” risks reinforcing stereotypes that undervalue women’s contributions in political leadership.
- Media Framing and Its Role
The role of media portrayal in shaping these instinctual impressions is worth emphasizing. Trump’s “unrehearsed” style may appear authentic due to favorable framing in certain media outlets, while Harris’s professionalism might be cast as overly calculated. How media narratives shape public perceptions of candidates’ personalities could amplify or mitigate the evolutionary biases you discuss.
- Tribalism and Polarization
You highlight the role of party loyalty but could delve deeper into how hyper-polarization intensifies tribalism. In today’s political climate, voting often becomes an act of identity affirmation rather than a choice grounded in leadership evaluation. This tribal loyalty might override any evolutionary inclination for certain personality traits.
- Potential Counterpoints
While evolutionary psychology provides an interesting lens, not all Group 2 voters might prioritize leadership traits. Some may make decisions based on perceived economic self-interest, social values, or reactions to broader societal narratives (e.g., “Make America Great Again” as an appeal to nostalgia).
- Conclusion Refinement
Your conclusion ties these threads together well but might benefit from emphasizing how these instinctual and personality-driven factors interplay with structural issues like the electoral college, voter suppression, and misinformation campaigns, all of which significantly shape election outcomes.
In sum, your analysis is thought-provoking and captures the complexity of voter behavior, but integrating these additional dimensions could provide a more nuanced understanding of why Trump might have won in 2024. Let me know how you’d like to revise or expand upon these points.
4o
You said:
The only point I concede is the single issue voter as a separate category.
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
That’s fair. The addition of single-issue voters as a distinct category enriches the analysis without undermining your core framework. Let’s refine your argument while keeping this concession in mind:
Revised Framework:
- Group 1: Analytical Voters
Those who evaluate candidates based on rational criteria, including policy positions and the perceived “lesser of two evils.”
- Group 2: Non-Analytical Voters
Individuals who lack the tools or interest to critically evaluate policies or candidates. They rely on instincts, superficial impressions, or personality traits to make their decisions.
- Group 3: Party Loyalists
Voters who consistently support their party, regardless of the specific candidate or policies.
- Group 4: Single-Issue Voters
Those whose decisions are driven by specific, deeply personal or ideological issues (e.g., abortion, gun rights, or climate change) that override broader considerations about the candidates’ overall fitness or leadership style.
Integration of Single-Issue Voters:
- Single-issue voters often bypass the evolutionary psychology framework you propose for Group 2. Their decisions may hinge less on Trump’s perceived “strong male” persona and more on his alignment with their key issue.
- However, the presentation of Trump as a “strong, decisive leader” could still resonate with this group when they perceive him as an effective champion for their cause (e.g., appointing conservative judges for pro-life voters).
Implications for 2024:
- While your argument about evolutionary predispositions remains central for Group 2, the inclusion of single-issue voters highlights that instincts alone may not fully account for all Trump supporters.
- This adjustment strengthens your overall claim by recognizing a broader spectrum of voter motivations without diluting your emphasis on personality and instinct in non-analytical voting behavior.
Would you like to reframe the commentary with this expanded structure, or do you prefer to keep the focus tighter on the evolutionary psychology angle?
4o
You said:
What about the fact that people ratiomalize?
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
The fact that people rationalize their decisions is crucial and adds depth to your argument. Rationalization often disguises instinctual or emotional choices as logical ones. Here’s how this concept integrates into your framework:
Rationalization Across Voter Groups
- Group 1: Analytical Voters
- These voters may genuinely analyze and choose the “lesser of two evils.” However, even within this group, rationalization can occur. For example, they might exaggerate a candidate’s flaws to justify their preference for the other.
- Rationalization manifests as emphasizing policy points or perceived leadership qualities that align with their pre-existing biases or social identity.
- Group 2: Non-Analytical Voters
- Rationalization is most prominent here. Decisions based on instinct or personality (e.g., preferring Trump for his “strong male” persona) are later dressed up as logical.
- For example, a voter might say, “Trump is better for the economy” without truly understanding economic policies but using this reasoning to justify an emotional choice.
- Group 3: Party Loyalists
- Rationalization reinforces tribal loyalty. These voters often justify their choice by vilifying the opposing party or amplifying their own party’s perceived virtues.
- For example, they might downplay Trump’s controversies as media bias while highlighting minor successes as major achievements.
- Group 4: Single-Issue Voters
- Single-issue voters rationalize their choices by elevating their chosen issue above all else. They may dismiss other concerns about a candidate (e.g., personal behavior, broader policies) as irrelevant compared to their prioritized issue.
Evolutionary Psychology and Rationalization
- For Group 2, your argument about instinctual preferences is reinforced by the tendency to rationalize. If voters are drawn to Trump’s confident, dominant demeanor, they might rationalize this by saying, “He tells it like it is,” or “He’s not a politician,” even if these traits have little to do with effective governance.
- This blend of instinct and rationalization explains why superficial traits often outweigh substantive issues for some voters. The process of rationalization allows them to defend these choices as reasonable and justified.
Implications for 2024
- Messaging Matters: Candidates who evoke strong emotional or instinctual responses have a strategic advantage, as voters will rationalize those responses into coherent justifications. Trump’s “authenticity” and “strongman” persona provide fertile ground for such rationalization.
- Cognitive Dissonance: Rationalization also helps voters reconcile cognitive dissonance. For example, a voter uncomfortable with Trump’s personal behavior might focus on his perceived economic or judicial successes as a way to align their decision with their values.
- Voter Perception vs. Reality: The gap between actual leadership qualities and perceived traits underscores why rationalization is so influential—it allows voters to sidestep critical evaluation while maintaining a sense of agency.
This deeper focus on rationalization complements your original argument by illustrating how instinctive or tribal decisions are reframed as logical, making them more defensible both to oneself and others. Shall I incorporate this into a revised version of the commentary?
