Appeal to Superstition?

As the election heats up along with the rhetoric, acrimony and partisan vitriol, I often hear this frequently parroted chant from the alt-Right (Breitbart) arch defenders of Trump:

The more you elitists disparage, insult and condescend to the Trump electorate the more you ensure his reelection.

I hear it repeated quite a lot. It seems to be a recurring meme that has caught on with the ideological brain virus that is Trumpism itself. In other words it's not just a rote answer, but an implied ad baculum that if we don't shut up and keep vehemently protesting against the president and his fanatical legions of followers we are just reassuring he will be elected again. There seems to be a kind of magical either/or error in reasoning at play here.

As if to imply that the disgruntled Trump underdog was the sole reason he was elected and there are no other factors such as Russian interference, The Comey October surprise, Indifference to Clinton, prejudice against women, voter suppression, voter turnout etc.

The deceptive intent is not to sensibly debate the issues, policies and general demeanor of an incompetent administration but to introduce some one-size-fits-all panacea designed to stifle all criticism, discussion and argument against his reelection.

Any thoughts on what other fallacies are at play here? It is interesting that I hadn't really considered it a veiled threat or ad baculum fallacy until writing it down just now.

https://qz.com/893501/an-epidemiologist-explains-how-america-came-down-with-the-trump-virus/ <>

It's politics, so fallacies abound.

1. The argument you cite is ad hominem.

2. But there is an element of truth. People who say stupid things don't like to be insulted. In makes them angry and they are more likely to vote.

3. You called Trumpism a "brain disease," which is a personal attack rather than an argument.

4. Other fallacies? False cause? Racisim? Whatever. It's politics.

5. Logic doesn't drive political loyalties. Two good books, probably available in large public library:

https://www.amazon.com/Persuasion-Reception-Responsibility-Charles-Larson/dp/1111349274/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=charles+us+larson&qid=1562263991&s=books&sr=1-1

https://www.amazon.com/Political-Mind-Cognitive-Scientists-Politics/dp/0143115685/ref=sr_1_11?keywords=george+lakoff&qid=1562264023&s=books&sr=1-11

Actually there is a lot of science behind ideological brain diseases. Trumpism being just the current one. I cited an epidemiologist in my original post, but this article just came out from Psychology today:

A Complete Psychological Analysis of Trump's Support | Psychology Today www.psychologytoday.com/b. . .

There are many other respected philosophers, neuroscientists, journalists, authors and psychologists who have presented some very good evidence that ideas do indeed spread like viruses. Daniel Dennett and Mckay write and lecture extensively about it (The Evolution of MIsbelief) also see Dan Kahan and the Yale Cognition Project, Daniel Kahneman, Malcolm Gladwell. So I think your dismissal of it as a personal attack is ill-informed. In fact, it was not directed ad hominem (to the man) but to the phenomenon itself.

As i followed the debacle from the Trump leaning side, but ultimately choosing none, i think i have a good window on the phenomenon here.

The idea that disparaging Trump will lead to his re-election is not so far fetched, i think even just Richard Dawkins' Meme Theory is enough to show that ideas are in fact viruses, which are subject to how well they survive in time and how many minds they infect.
But more than "Just shut up and let it happen normally, or it's gonna happen outrageously", it's that the supporters wrongly assume that all Trump supporters are with him, for the same reason. That is, they commit a sweeping generalization by asserting that the ONLY reason he will be re-elected, is because everyone shares the same cause, but that's clearly false. I myself know people who will vote for him on the grounds that they don't like the others, that Trump is at least somewhat predictable and no other reason (A controlled evil, let's say).

Aside from sweeping generalisations, the issue is much bigger. The article talking about Trumpism as a virus checks out in saying it's a virus, but misses more than half the reasons for it. The article from Psychology today is much better, but some points are dubious at best.
The reason for the original claim, is that these loud Trump supporters are using Trump as an umbrella for all sorts of ills they personally see in the world around them, thinking he will fix them (Which he didn't and that's a fact, except for some tax changes and some barely effective protection of free speech). The utter failure to communicate with them is also a big part of this, because even if, the supporter is an actual racist that deeply believes blacks, mexicans, asians (Interesting because Asians outperform everyone else, and even deeply vitriolic Alt-right members recognise this), the approach is not talking them out of it. But unlike this man www.dailymail.co.uk/news/. . .
the approach at large, seems to be "Burn all their cards that let them access society". Non racist supporters are called racists (Psych-today notes that not all are racists, but some clearly are, and that's true) by association with the real ones.

Then we would have to get into how the simple perception of freedom loss compels people to action, even if that freedom is actually not lost, or how sometimes Trump supporters are simply under attack simply for their perceived politics, not actual personal beliefs about politics.

Furthermore, the psych-today article notes that exposure to the outgroup reduces the negative feelings anyone might feel towards them. That is true, if the exposure is positive. But what is continuously broadcasted to these supporters is how "White men are the biggest threat in America", or other similar polarising actions, such as protests with no clear positive persuasive message. Which then prompts the confirmation bias of the conservatives, to look for news that demonizes them and there's plenty. This in turn fuels the trump machine, and the circle begins again.

I don't think this site is the place to discuss politics in detail, but i hope you have not forgotten about Covington Catholic. That mess will be misguided conservative fuel for years to come. All in all, the right is in defense mode and they're far more energetic than the left at this point.

It seems that this question is more about promoting partisan politics and making ad hominem attacks than a serious study of fallacies. You are using this group as a platform to spread your own political ideology and to disparage that of others under the guise of studying fallacies. It would be great in the future if you tried to come up with less politically partisan examples of what you perceive as "appeal to superstition" arguments in order to create a more productive discourse.

I appreciate your criticism and I can understand why you think it, but however partisan it may seem I am genuinely interested in the phenomenon of ideological brain viruses regardless of how they are manifest. Be it a Star Trek convention, a fundamentalist revival, or a Trump rally.

So, regardless of your own political bias or your analysis of mine (Bulverism) do you detect a fallacy in the rote response : Keep on protesting because you’re only ensuring the opposite result ?

So, back at you. Is it an ad baculum, or something else?

Maybe we can set up a syllogism to see how it stands" The theory is The more you elitists disparage, insult and condescend to the Trump electorate the more you ensure his reelection.

Lets try Modus Tollens ( Mode that denies) IF/THEN
P>Q (IF P, then Q)
~Q (Not Q)
-------
Therefore ~P (Not P)

P1./ If you elitists disparage, insult and condescend to the Trump electorate, THEN you ensure his reelection.
P2/ Trump's base is only 38%. 38% won't win an election
C:Therefore: you can disparage Trumpers without losing the election

I guess the real question is why do they care? Why are they telling you what is going to elect Trump. Think about it. Trumper's are giving advice to his opposition on how to campaign?

5. Logic doesn't drive political loyalties.

What if you aren't a member of a party? I have no political loyalties. I'm interested in the truth. Ideology drives me away from a party. I'm drawn to philosophy, but repelled by ideology. I don't join parties and never have. As an independent I can say that logic plays a huge role in getting my vote. I won't vote for anyone that knowingly supports a logical fallacy. A person that knowingly does that is irrational and I don't vote for irrationality.