I voted for Trump and I hadn't heard of QAnon until maybe a month ago when I started to see it in the news.

I don't think many have heard of QAnon (I think I saw less than 30% reported?).

But many believe at least some of the theories pushed by QAnon, which include (but are not limited to):

* Trump is taking on a "Deep State" which is trying to take him down

* Trump is combating an international paedophile ring

You shouldn't be downvoted. Trump "taking on the deep state" isn't even a conspiracy theory, he literally made that a major part of his 2016 campaign. If deep state/swamp/etc is interpreted as a vague reference to the Washington/New York professional classes who populate government in huge numbers and tend to share very similar worldviews and beliefs, then calling this a QAnon pushed conspiracy theory would be a pretty grotesque distortion of the truth: conservative politicians have campaigned on rolling back big government for as long as there have been competitive elections.

> Trump "taking on the deep state" isn't even a conspiracy theory, he literally made that a major part of his 2016 campaign

You're misframing this. The conspiracy theory is not that Trump is taking on the deep state; it's the existence of the deep state to begin with.

>If deep state/swamp/etc is interpreted as a vague reference to the Washington/New York professional classes who populate government in huge numbers and tend to share very similar worldviews and beliefs

Speaking of grotesque distortions of the truth, that is not what the "deep state" has ever referred to. It's always been, by definition, a conspiracy theory. It generally posits that the country is actually run by a group o unelected individuals in secret that orchestrate events in this country up to and including the selection of presidents.

Eh, wasn't one of the main reasons Clinton ran aground the belief that her nomination was due to a stitch-up inside the DNC (selection of Presidents ... nearly, at least)? Isn't it true that many US laws are created by regulatory agencies of various kinds, and then implemented/enforced by unelected judges?

The notion that most rules are invented and implemented by the unelected isn't extreme, is it, it's more like an observation of how the system really works, especially in the US where - unusually - regulatory agencies can create new laws without involving Congress.

> Eh, wasn't one of the main reasons Clinton ran aground the belief that her nomination was due to a stitch-up inside the DNC (selection of Presidents ... nearly, at least)?

No,.that belief was a side effect of (1) the fact that it was, to a certain extent true that her nomination was largely a product of elite arrangements and structural advantage, and (2) the deep and broad unpopularity that was the actual reason she ran aground in what should have been the easiest election for Democrats in a long time.

Well, no. Laws are only created by Congress. Regulatory agencies can create non-trivial policies, and you might want to argue that the distinction between a regulatory policy and law is minimal or non-existent. But regulatory agencies are never what proponents of the deep state are discussing in my experience. Likewise with judges - and if we wanted to somehow include judges in the deep state, we have the problem that Trump has at this point appointed more federal judges in a single term than any other president and more SCOTUS judges than any other president. If judges are part of the deep state, Trump can not in any way be said to be fighting against it.

The downvotes on this are very aggressive and I'd love to know why. Do people think my summary of the data is wrong or that I'm underestimating the depth of it?

What does that mean?

I think Democratic voters are vulnerable to a different kind of conspiracy theory.

For example, huge numbers of left-leaning voters seem to believe that money is the determining factor in elections, whereas the evidence points towards you needing a certain amount, but beyond that it appears to be of marginal value.

How is overestimating the effect of money on election outcomes a conspiracy theory?

The far-right has been experimenting with new forms of high-value persuasion over the last five years or so, which are more subtle, cheaper, and more effective than the usual brick-in-the-face TV ad spend.

QAnon is one of those projects. So is the social micro-targeting used by Cambridge Analytica/AIQ which swung the Brexit vote in the UK and also did a lot to get Trump elected in 2016.

It would be irrational to assume the same thing wasn't attempted this year. All the media outlets I read - not just social media - have been heavily astroturfed with posts making the same pro-Trump scripted talking points over and over and over.

(HN has been relatively free of this, but I suspect that's primarily because conventional political debate is strongly discouraged outside of the occasional thread not because it wouldn't have been tried if it were possible.)

The problem with micro-targeting is that if you're not in one of the target groups, you don't see the ads - so unlike a TV campaign you're not aware of what the other guy is saying unless you can contrive some real and/or fake accounts that will get you an in.

And the propaganda techniques are both subtle and outrageous. (You might not think QAnon is subtle, but it's very carefully designed.)

Trump significantly outspent Biden on social. But the Trump campaign never really ended, while Biden had to start relatively cold.

So for all these and other reasons you're right. It's not about money, it's about narrative engineering implemented with money - and the right has always been much better at that than the left.

Troll swarm. Enjoy the ride.

Thanks. The good thing about having been on HN for a while is that I don't really need to care about troll voting.

Also there's often a trend I've noticed in some of my own down voted comments that an initial negative turns positive as curious readers want to see what was so bad, realize it was nothing, and upvote.

In this case I'm still not sure if people are downvoting because they don't like the data, don't like me not being convinced about the blood libel parts, think Pizzagate was real or what.

The blood libel stuff is absurd. Unfortunately, we have blackmailed politicians. So many of them have been caught doing absurd and evil acts that the absurd possibilities become oddly believable. I'm not saying it happened... but I wouldn't be at all surprised.

Pizzagate being "real" is ill-defined. Things happening in the basement of a specific DC pizza place seems unlikely, though not impossible. For example, the claim that it lacks a basement is reasonable but unproven. We'd have to excavate to be sure that there wasn't an unauthorized basement that is now filled-in to hide evidence.

We do know that pizza-related codewords are used by pedos, and that pizza-related codewords are used in the leaked Podesta emails. Are they unrelated? Not many people will rent a specific number of slices of pizza for a specific number of hours, but that is exactly what the emails reveal. The number of slices is commonly thought to mean the age of the children, but it could be the number of children.

Would you consider pizzagate "real" if everything was as stated, except that the actual building was next door to the pizza place? Supposedly a near-by building was owned by Epstein.

Would you consider pizzagate "real" if the pizza place was just a location to meet up, but not where any child was actually harmed?

I didn't downvote you but I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories. I voted for Trump because I like his style. I like that he pushes back when attacked. I like that he hasn't started any wars. I like my tax return. I like that he renegotiated NAFTA and trade with China. I like that he's getting Arab states to make peace with Israel.

What specifically do you like about the USMCA vs NAFTA? Do you feel it was worth the alienation of Canada as an ally? What advantages do you feel have been gained in trade with China? Wouldn't it have been more productive to work with allies on that front, rather than launching a unilateral trade war? Are these really the reasons you like him, or are they justifications?

I agree that not starting wars is good (except potentially when it's the only way to stop a terrible human rights abuse, like a genocide), and Trump certainly has a better record than Bush there. He does also seem to have made progress with middle east treaties. So I am with you there.

What on earth do you like about his style though? His style is to lie about everything, making up whatever supposed fact suits him at the moment, launch ridiculous ad hominem attacks at anyone he views as an enemy, and just basically stir up anger and discord. The way he "pushes back" is that of a childhood bully. He has ramped up partisan division and anger to an unprecedented level in modern history, and is in the process of undermining confidence in the democratic process itself. He's also alienated the rest of the world with his narcissism, incivility and pettiness. These do not seem like good qualities in a person, and especially not in a president.

I can understand people who vote for him because they're staunchly pro life. I'm not, but I can understand their ethical position. And I can understand those who have fallen for conspiracy theories. But if you're existing in the same reality I am, reading the things the man writes, and listening to the things he says, I honestly can't imagine how you can support him. I'm not one of these that thinks all Trump supporters are racists, or conspiracy theorists, or Russian bots, but I do find that any I've met who seem reasonable, once I dig deeper, believe things about the world that I don't just disagree with but know to be factually untrue. I've also met some who see the world the way I do, but aren't reasonable - basically those who just enjoy the fact that he makes the other side angry. I would truly like to understand what, besides a genuine belief that abortion is murder, could bring a reasonable, knowledgeable person to vote for Trump.

USMCA plugs a hole in NAFTA. It had been easy for non-NAFTA countries, particularly China, to import things into the USA via Mexico. USMCA mostly stops that. Canada isn't so alienated. The prime minister may be unhappy that his own failure was exposed, but the people got cheaper dairy. Even if Canada were alienated, it just wouldn't matter much.

It is usually best for the USA to act in a unilateral way. This is due to power. Working with multiple other parties is typically a harmful distraction. I get that some people are horrified by this, but it's clearly true, and the president's job is to put the USA first. Coalitions are for the weak.

His style is fun. There is nothing wrong with fun. It's a nice bonus, though hardly a reason to vote for the man. The same goes for getting globalist communists angry. It's a nice bonus. There are far more important reasons to support Trump.

The definition of "lie" has become absurdly biased. It's a "lie" if Trump makes a joke, exaggerates a bit, uses sarcasm, or has a few percent error on a number. Meanwhile, his opponents endlessly repeat proven falsehoods. Partisan division and anger were ramped up by his opponents, particularly in the media. There would be no division at all if people would simply accept the Trump plan for America.

We haven't had a non-narcissist president or candidate since Eisenhower, so clearly that isn't anything that matters.

You say he "is in the process of undermining confidence in the democratic process itself", as if it is his responsibility to sweep flaws under the carpet. His opponents have fought hard against anything and everything that could be used to prove fraud. (suspicious...) How can you support this situation, purposely being unaware of the extent of fraud? Unjustified confidence should be undermined. Unjustified confidence is harmful. We should not blindly trust a supposedly democratic process that would be easy to corrupt.

I'm looking back at you in disbelief. To use your wording: I would truly like to understand what could bring a reasonable, knowledgeable person to vote against Trump. (in either election) Are you in fact knowledgeable? DKIM proves corruption for both Hillary and Biden. The first time I chose Trump, I didn't trust him, but I knew that Hillary despised normal Americans and that she had committed crimes that would put any normal person in prison. I was shocked that Trump actually followed through on most campaign promises, and that earned him my enthusiastic support.