This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/20/upshot/big-picture-with-trump-vs-clinton-is-all-in-the-framing.html
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Big Picture for Trump vs. Clinton? It’s All in the Framing | |
| (about 1 hour later) | |
| Getting people to put on one set of glasses rather than another to view their political choices is part of what campaigns do to win elections. The fight to frame the choice is one of the biggest battles. | Getting people to put on one set of glasses rather than another to view their political choices is part of what campaigns do to win elections. The fight to frame the choice is one of the biggest battles. |
| Throughout the primaries, Donald Trump has attempted to make the choice about what we’ve lost: jobs, pride and greatness. Hillary Clinton wants people to think about how far we’ve come. It’s a classic divide: gains versus losses. We happen to know a lot about how it affects the way people make decisions and how small changes in the way choices are presented affect whether people think they are gaining or losing something. | Throughout the primaries, Donald Trump has attempted to make the choice about what we’ve lost: jobs, pride and greatness. Hillary Clinton wants people to think about how far we’ve come. It’s a classic divide: gains versus losses. We happen to know a lot about how it affects the way people make decisions and how small changes in the way choices are presented affect whether people think they are gaining or losing something. |
| Research has illustrated the way people’s decisions over fixed choices change in light of context. In times of gains, people tend to be risk-averse. In times of loss, they tend to be risk-accepting. | Research has illustrated the way people’s decisions over fixed choices change in light of context. In times of gains, people tend to be risk-averse. In times of loss, they tend to be risk-accepting. |
| This particular dichotomy is relevant to 2016 as Mr. Trump attempts to convince voters, through his rhetoric, that we are in an era of loss. Even his campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again,” invites people to remember a time when we had something that is now gone. If he is successful at framing the choice, people may be more likely to take a risk on an outsider with no previous political experience. | This particular dichotomy is relevant to 2016 as Mr. Trump attempts to convince voters, through his rhetoric, that we are in an era of loss. Even his campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again,” invites people to remember a time when we had something that is now gone. If he is successful at framing the choice, people may be more likely to take a risk on an outsider with no previous political experience. |
| Mrs. Clinton, should she become the nominee, will attempt the opposite. She will try to convince voters that we are in a time of gains and recovery, highlighting the steady climb out of the global financial crisis and how the party will continue that march forward. She will attempt to paint Mr. Trump as a risk not worth taking, as her surrogates have already started to do. | Mrs. Clinton, should she become the nominee, will attempt the opposite. She will try to convince voters that we are in a time of gains and recovery, highlighting the steady climb out of the global financial crisis and how the party will continue that march forward. She will attempt to paint Mr. Trump as a risk not worth taking, as her surrogates have already started to do. |
| In addition to candidates’ explicit attempts to frame the choice, there are other factors that implicitly affect the context of elections — and of 2016 in particular. One of them is the president. Barack Obama is framing the 2016 election without even trying. But it’s not his policy legacy or economic record that is influencing people’s attitudes; it’s him, personally, and it’s happening on both the right and the left. | In addition to candidates’ explicit attempts to frame the choice, there are other factors that implicitly affect the context of elections — and of 2016 in particular. One of them is the president. Barack Obama is framing the 2016 election without even trying. But it’s not his policy legacy or economic record that is influencing people’s attitudes; it’s him, personally, and it’s happening on both the right and the left. |
| One of the most important ways he is having an impact is in the strong support Mrs. Clinton has had from black primary voters. It’s a remarkable change from 2008. Michael Tesler, assistant professor of political science at the University of California, Irvine, writing in The Washington Post last week, calculated that on average, in states with exit polls in both years, Mrs. Clinton has done about 60 points better among black voters this year. | One of the most important ways he is having an impact is in the strong support Mrs. Clinton has had from black primary voters. It’s a remarkable change from 2008. Michael Tesler, assistant professor of political science at the University of California, Irvine, writing in The Washington Post last week, calculated that on average, in states with exit polls in both years, Mrs. Clinton has done about 60 points better among black voters this year. |
| Mr. Obama’s absence is also affecting the decisions of white voters. Without him on the ballot to frame the choice, some white Democratic voters, specifically those with negative views of blacks, are moving away from Mrs. Clinton. A similar shift has not occurred among white Democratic voters with more positive views of blacks. The loss of white voters with high levels of racial anxiety has very little if anything to do with Mrs. Clinton as a candidate and more to do with the fact that she was running against a black opponent in 2008 and she is not in 2016. | Mr. Obama’s absence is also affecting the decisions of white voters. Without him on the ballot to frame the choice, some white Democratic voters, specifically those with negative views of blacks, are moving away from Mrs. Clinton. A similar shift has not occurred among white Democratic voters with more positive views of blacks. The loss of white voters with high levels of racial anxiety has very little if anything to do with Mrs. Clinton as a candidate and more to do with the fact that she was running against a black opponent in 2008 and she is not in 2016. |
| Mr. Obama is also shaping the election among Republicans in 2016, as a recent YouGov poll shows. The survey contained an experiment in which a random half of respondents were asked to evaluate the nation’s economy and their personal finances “since 2008,” while the other half were asked to do the same thing “since Obama was elected president.” When Mr. Obama’s name was mentioned, people’s subjective views of the economy and their finances changed. | Mr. Obama is also shaping the election among Republicans in 2016, as a recent YouGov poll shows. The survey contained an experiment in which a random half of respondents were asked to evaluate the nation’s economy and their personal finances “since 2008,” while the other half were asked to do the same thing “since Obama was elected president.” When Mr. Obama’s name was mentioned, people’s subjective views of the economy and their finances changed. |
| Republicans were roughly 20 points more likely to say the nation’s economy and their personal finances had gotten worse when the question was framed in terms of Mr. Obama’s presidency than when it was asked using only the year, Ariel Edwards-Levy at The Huffington Post reported. Democrats and independents were not similarly affected. Democrats were less likely to say income inequality had grown if Mr. Obama’s name was mentioned. Reactions to Mr. Obama, in this case driven by partisanship, significantly changed people’s views of their objective conditions. | Republicans were roughly 20 points more likely to say the nation’s economy and their personal finances had gotten worse when the question was framed in terms of Mr. Obama’s presidency than when it was asked using only the year, Ariel Edwards-Levy at The Huffington Post reported. Democrats and independents were not similarly affected. Democrats were less likely to say income inequality had grown if Mr. Obama’s name was mentioned. Reactions to Mr. Obama, in this case driven by partisanship, significantly changed people’s views of their objective conditions. |
| The lenses through which people see the world are impressively persuasive. To see how being in a frame of gains or losses affects people’s choices, we can turn to pioneering work by the award-winning psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. | The lenses through which people see the world are impressively persuasive. To see how being in a frame of gains or losses affects people’s choices, we can turn to pioneering work by the award-winning psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. |
| In a classic test, people are asked to choose between two treatments for a disease that is expected to take 600 lives. The first group chooses between treatments that will “save lives,” while the second chooses between treatments that will “take lives.” The change in the framing of the choices affects which treatment people choose even though the number of lives saved stays the same. | In a classic test, people are asked to choose between two treatments for a disease that is expected to take 600 lives. The first group chooses between treatments that will “save lives,” while the second chooses between treatments that will “take lives.” The change in the framing of the choices affects which treatment people choose even though the number of lives saved stays the same. |
| In the first group, people can choose a treatment that will save 200 lives with certainty or gamble on a treatment that has a one-third chance of saving 600 people and a two-thirds chance of saving no one. People in this group overwhelming (72 percent) choose the sure thing — the treatment that will save 200 lives with certainty. | In the first group, people can choose a treatment that will save 200 lives with certainty or gamble on a treatment that has a one-third chance of saving 600 people and a two-thirds chance of saving no one. People in this group overwhelming (72 percent) choose the sure thing — the treatment that will save 200 lives with certainty. |
| In the second group, the choice is reframed in terms of deaths, and the opposite result obtains. People in this group choose between a treatment that will result in the deaths of 400 people with certainty or a treatment that has a one-third chance of resulting in no deaths and a two-thirds chance of resulting in 600 deaths. In this group, people overwhelmingly (78 percent) choose the gamble and risk losing everyone to the disease for the small chance of losing no one. | In the second group, the choice is reframed in terms of deaths, and the opposite result obtains. People in this group choose between a treatment that will result in the deaths of 400 people with certainty or a treatment that has a one-third chance of resulting in no deaths and a two-thirds chance of resulting in 600 deaths. In this group, people overwhelmingly (78 percent) choose the gamble and risk losing everyone to the disease for the small chance of losing no one. |
| The experiment illustrates the way people’s decisions over fixed choices change in light of context. In times of gains, people tend to avoid risk. In times of loss, they’re more willing to go for the gamble. | The experiment illustrates the way people’s decisions over fixed choices change in light of context. In times of gains, people tend to avoid risk. In times of loss, they’re more willing to go for the gamble. |
| So what is it you see in 2016, gains or losses? | So what is it you see in 2016, gains or losses? |