The Semiotics of The 2016 Election: Normalizing Aggressive, Weaponized Stupidity.

This election cycle so far has been a wild roller-coaster that I've wanted to get off of about 6 months ago. Each day one (or both) of the presidential candidates says something outrageous, then it's blown up on most major news networks for about 24 hours, then swept under the rug to make room for tomorrow's scandal. I know, this is how it's been for years in our society, but it feels a little different this election, doesn't it? Many people, including myself, believe it is thanks to the internet's archives of poor decisions made by both candidates over the past few decades, and every day more and more stuff is archived, which can either benefit both candidates, or severely hurt them. Usually, thanks to selective bias, it's the latter. I've only been following this election since last November, but I have kept up with it almost everyday since. After my chosen nominee was pushed out over the summer in favor of someone I trust less than a gas-station egg salad sandwich, following this election became less about caring about the future of this country, and more about entertainment. However, putting my utter discontent of both presidential nominees aside, I do respect both nominee's effective use of fear-mongering, blaming others, and telling voters just what they want to hear to gain their support. It's not a system that appeals to me, but it seems to work for the uninformed common masses of this country. In this blog I will discuss my understanding of the semiotics of the current election cycle, and how the presidential nominees got to the positions they are at now.

This Photo of Donald Trump's Speech Looks Like Something Out of a Dystopia Fiction.

Donald Trump, potential billionaire, has a long history of being a TV personality, real estate entrepreneur, businessperson, steak salesman (my favorite), and many other professions before becoming a nominee for one of the most powerful people of the world. One outside of the loop may ask: how did this guy become a presidential nominee? Simple! He speaks at a 6th grade level, something almost all eligible voters can relate to, and he speaks his mind. He attacks anyone who makes fun of him, no matter how small the comment, and his followers seem to love it. "A man unafraid to speak the truth" one may say, appealing to many, but mostly those with not-so-politically-correct-views. Hostility, aggression, "weaponized stupid" is what seems to keep Trump's support alive nationwide. He's psuedo-popular among many ineligible voters (most under 18, or outside of the country) for being a vessel for memes across the internet, calling him the "God Emperor", a title given to a fictional faction leader of the table-top game Warhammer: 40k, but hey, there's no such thing as bad press! His constant presence on Twitter also keeps him relevant, which brings me to a major point:Trump's understanding of the internet. Trump seems to adore being in the limelight. He understands that the internet is the place to go to gain support, despite the negative content it generates against him daily. He has a far better handle on this type of communication than his opponent, Hillary Clinton, who appears to ignore or misuse the internet's great potential, but more on that later. What's pretty impressive about this candidate is how he's managed to gain so much support while only spending half of Clinton's Campaign Funding, a decent portion of it self-funded. 

As far as I can tell, these seem to be the major factors that appeal to Trump supporters, and I didn't even delve that far into his policies, which don't seem to be that big issue of an issue for both candidates this election cycle.

Clinton needs millennials, badly. She's got a lot of support from name-recognition, SuperPACS, and being the first potential female president, but that's not enough. She managed to write a majority of them off during the Sanders Movement, believing they wouldn't impact the election much. However, the opposite is the case, and it's led to Trump catching up to her pretty quickly. Millennial's aren't the Clinton Campaigns only problem, there's Benghazi, refusal to release transcripts to paid wall street speeches, the whole email and FBI thing, the Wikileaks thing that made Debbie Wasserman Schultz step down as DNC chair only to be appointed an honorary chairwoman for Clinton's campaign a few hours later, the recent IT guy incident, and many more that seem to be ignored by major media networks, mostly CNN for some reason. (Hint: CNN's parent company is Time Warner) If we pretended that none of that ever happened, what we are left with is an unlikable person who just can't seem to hold on to people's trust. Her platform seems to be "I'm Not Trump" rather than actually talking about her policies. She may be a decent choice for baby boomers due to the remembrance of the nostalgic era of her husband's presidential terms, but to Millennials who are constantly update by the internet (including myself), she's not very favorable. Her recent health issues and compulsive lying are what's currently bringing her down in the polls, but hey, at least her Millennial pandering is getting better.

In conclusion, the internet is key to understanding the semiotics of this election. Not biased websites connected to television news networks like Fox and CNN for republicans and democrats respectively, nor liberal sites like Democracy Now, but a conglomeration of fact-checking sites like Politifact. Sites that due extensive research rather than playing on one's emotions for ratings. From what I understand, our culture is really into bias confirmation due to the multiple sources of news that specifically pander to those with certain views rather than giving a non-bias article for all. The fault can be traced to the politicians that can't seem to keep money out of politics, fueling the divide between parties, and also giving us possibly the two worst candidates in American history. 2016 will most definitely go down as one of the worst political years in recent times.