The 2020 election and groyper osmosis
Joseph Simonson 17 hrs ago
The 2020 election and groyper osmosis
In the polite corners of Washington, D.C. conservatism, speaking of a stolen election is akin to expressing anti-Semitism or admitting to voting for former President Barack Obama in 2012. Those who insist that there was a conspiracy to rob President Trump of his reelection must be cynical grifters, dupes who’ve fallen under the spell of alternative media outlets such as Newsmax, or else outright insane.
The conventional wisdom leading up to the election was that Trump was doomed. I believed it. By early 2018, I was placing bets with friends that Trump would not win a second term. As Election Day drew closer, I'd casually check the menu at Morton’s, daydreaming about the extravagant steak dinner a friend was going to buy me after Trump’s defeat.
The week before Election Day, I made a point to ignore any and all polling, figuring the results were essentially predetermined. I had spent nearly two years following this election, and I had resigned myself to the belief that people were simply exhausted by Trump. I thought Joe Biden was inoffensive enough to make even conservative-leaning voters comfortable.
But scrolling through my Twitter feed in the days leading up to the election, I couldn’t help but feel my confidence shaking. I was suffering from what I call “groyper osmosis.” The “groypers” make up an influential segment of the online far-right, named after the green frog (a fatter cousin of Pepe) that some sport as their avatar on social media. The anonymous groypers in my feed were convinced that Trump would win, and they seemed to have data to prove it. Obscure polling firms started popping out of nowhere, showing a neck-and-neck race or Trump gaining on Biden in states such as California. I tried to ignore the groypers, but it was impossible. Their posts entered my brain as if by osmosis.
Turnout models, developed by anonymous groyper-adjacent statisticians and data scientists, showed a path for the president's reelection. No, they didn't have the credentials of Nate Silver, but what makes FiveThirtyEight credible to begin with? I’m a journalist, but I can't think of any topic on which I trust the judgment of the vast majority of other journalists. Why would I trust their predictions about who was going to win the race?
The media were wrong in 2016, after all: wrong about the Republican primary, the Democratic primary, voters’ tolerance for Trump’s flaws, Hillary Clinton’s glaring unlikability. They were wrong about Russian collusion and wrong that the economy would tank, and the United States’s alliances would end, on Day One of Trump’s presidency. Their wrongness persisted after the election. They got wronger and wronger.
The groypers’ pitch to conservatives is essentially this: Why would you believe institutions that hate you, hate what you stand for, hate Trump, and hate this country? A search for "whiteness" on the New York Times's website returns over 630,000 results. Do you think a single person who wrote any of those articles wants your side to succeed? Is it out of the realm of possibility that their polls are wrong, maybe even deliberately wrong? One groyper election forecaster pointed out that Google searches for Trump jack-o'-lantern stencils surged in the last two weeks of October, while searches for Biden-related Halloween decorations remained flat. Was that metric really less reliable than the opaque model the Economist used to predict a Biden landslide?
cont…