I droned on for around 500 words and explained things in a way that didn’t boil things down to simple maxims. I’ve talked to Trump supporters kind of a lot since I’m on a few closed political discussion boards with a mix of viewpoints where we debate things and try to hash things out. It’s an interesting mix of fun and frustration. The approach I used there does work sometimes for people talking about voting third party (though rarely). It’s totally ineffective when trying to persuade Trump voters. Best to stick to one or maybe two sentences with simple ideas, minimal nuance, and a lot of emotional punch. A very brief argument ad absurdum can work sometimes.
Trump supporters are by and large not intellectuals. Trump supporters are by and large anti-intellectual. They are not motivated by any kind of drive to understand nuance or complexity, and many have actually expressed disdain for that kind of approach, since they’re generally comforted by black and white thinking. Every one that I’ve encountered and spent time talking to was at their core driven by a deep-seated sense of resentment against people least deserving of that resentment. Every one was mostly motivated to present arguments demonizing some minority group and praising Trump for demonizing them. Every one that I’ve discussed matters with was also shockingly credulous.
This is just my experience, but I do have that experience, and have spent many hours talking to various Trump supporters. So while I’m all for explaining and clarifying what the election’s purpose is, and what the job actually entails, a nuanced approach will fail for a large segment of the audience. They’re mostly interested in demonizing muslims, black people, hispanic people, and libruls.
