Politics, math, and dog-whistles

In Frank Herbert's Dune, there is a cool idea of a military language with a flexible structure so that any pair of people can speak to each other in a way that they will understand, but which no listener will understand.

Modern politics and social media are moving closer to realizing this idea, through dog-whistles.

For example, I was really struck by this ad for a math curriculum package (see the second paragraph):

For the author and their intended audience, Common Core means something very particular and particularly bad.

Personally, I find the fragmentation of language very troublesome. Among other things, it contributes to a certain type of magical/fallacious thinking, nicely exemplified by the popularity of ObamaCare (according to some survey results):

1. The Affordable Care Act gets broader support than ObamaCare (they are two names for the same thing)
2. Individual provisions get significant majority (more than 50% of respondents) support, while ObamaCare does not only earns minority (less than 50%) support.

This first point is silly, and I don't see any logical way to redeem that combination of beliefs. For the second point, while it is possible to logically reconcile the two observations, the most likely explanation is that people surveyed were mis- or under-informed.

Election analysis

This isn't exactly a kids-learning post, so apologies to anyone disappointed. This is my attempt to organize some thoughts and analysis around the results of the 2016 US election. The questions I'm posing are "Why did Trump win/Clinton lose the presidential election?" and "What are the lessons for 2018 and 2020?"

This analysis is not complete, so apologies to anyone who wants a nicely packaged story.

I welcome data, analysis, and different perspectives supported by evidence.

Range of theories

CNN starts us off with a nice collection in their article: 24 theories why Trump won.

Before I summarize their list, I'll note that I intentionally use the combination "Trump won/Clinton lost" rather than focus on a single side. What I'm thinking is that there are factors specific to both sides as well as relative factors at play. It isn't appropriate to look at one group in isolation. That idea helps me with a simple taxonomy of their theories:

Trump-focused theories

1. Media. There are several sub-theories: (a) social media and fake new echo chamber: Trump supporters were ill-informed because of systematic problems with modern media. Facebook is particularly cited as a key culprit. (b) celebrity plays stronger than substance, 
2. Trump appealed to white males, so they supported him. Subtheories are (a) xenophobia/racism/sexism, (b) backlash to political correctness.
3. Trump appealed to voters who have been struggling economically

Clinton-focused theories

1. Voter suppression directed toward minority voters who would typically support the Democratic candidate. 
2. Leaked information related to scandals. Some sub-theories: (a) Russia provided hacked information, (b) FBI.
3. Third party candidates drained support from Clinton.
4. Clinton was a weak candidate who did not appeal sufficiently to those who formerly voted for Obama (a) saddled with too much negative baggage (b) not properly tested or vetted through the primary process

Relative theories

1. anti-establishment fervor

The most popular story

My impression is that the most popular theory is Trump 3: Trump won the votes of those who are struggling economically. One strong example from before the election is the Guardian's My Journeys in Trumpland.

Now, empathy is good and I applaud people trying to understand each other. That said, is the economic plight of the non-elite white voter the reason for this election outcome? It is a popular story with a nice human/humanizing face, but doesn’t ring true to me. Here are the reasons I’m skeptical.
First, from my own experience, this group has been struggling since the 1980s (maybe earlier). The story is not new.

Second, it looks like Trump’s overall support was about what we should expect from a “generic republican,” maybe underperforming a little. I’m basing this on the comparison against the past two elections (see here for example).

Third, the evidence that Trump’s supporters (on average, whatever that means) are fairly well-off (see 538 primaries and the income table from CNN exit polls.)

Confusion about voter turn-out

I am currently confused about voter turn-out. These articles from CNN and 538 seem contradictory, but I haven't had a chance to work through their numbers and reconcile.

Anti-establishment

Perhaps one useful test here is the degree to which incumbents were re-elected compared with past elections. I haven't yet gathered the statistics for congressional elections, but my impression is that incumbents were overwhelmingly re-elected, basically in line with past experience, if not more. See how few districts and states are cross-hatched in these maps, (marking that shows a flip in the party controlling that seat):

2016 House of Representatives results from NY Times as of 14 Nov 2016

2016 Senate results from NY Times as of 14 Nov 2016