The writing was on the Facebook wall

When the results were announced, there was déjà vu. In my mind, Facebook had already let the cat out of the bag

Sushmita Bose

Published: Wed 9 Nov 2016, 6:54 PM

Last updated: Wed 9 Nov 2016, 8:57 PM

Shakira said "hips don't lie", but the rest of us say "numbers don't lie". There's a bedrock of safety in numbers, organic numbers - not trumped up, extrapolated ones. That's what came to mind when I started following Donald Trump's and Hillary Clinton's Facebook pages (I was, of course, too scared to tell anyone I had secretly "Liked" Trump's page lest I be judged by righteous rage). This was what they looked like last week, when the battle for America was hitting the home stretch: Hillary's page had 8.5 million followers; Trump's had 12.5 million. 40:60. Then, the shocker:
Hillary, much vaunted, much wanted, had 6,25,000-odd fans on her 'Hillary for President' page. Hateful 'Trump for President', on the other hand, had 2.2 million fans. 6,25,000 vs 2,200,000. The numbers said it all. Trump was winning going by social media verdict. Only, I didn't have the gall to say so to anyone in my free-thinking, libertarian circle because they'd assume I'm a redneck (for the record: I'm not).
Yes, there were an awful lot of poll predictions culled from alleged numbers. But I have no idea what kind of methodology was used, what kind of cherry picking was done. Most of them pointed at a clean sweep for Hillary (albeit there were ups and downs). Today, she's conceding defeat - so the less said about the "scientific basis" of those findings, the better.
The two sets of Facebook pages also threw up some fascinating insights. The Hillary campers seemed to be voting for her because they wanted to keep Trump out of high office; they weren't particularly convinced she's the best person for the job. Subtext: she was the lesser of two evils (now, if Bernie Sanders hadn't dropped out of the race, who's to know what would have happened?). On Trump's pages, there was an unflagging - almost linear - solidarity of thought: everyone felt he's the man who will change America; there was overwhelming "patriotic pride" about (however misguided the notion may be) 'Make America Great Again' and 'Drain the Swamp'.
Even more surprisingly, many of those commenting on Hillary's FB pages were putting her through the shredder; so maybe she had garnered some 'Likes' only so the "likers" could follow her and then trash her. When the results were announced, there was déjà vu. In my mind, Facebook had already let the cat out of the bag. So, why did most people I know miscue the outcome? There's one short answer: mainstream media. We are living in an age when mainstream media has stopped relying on reportage. They rely on analyses. Most times, these are trotted out by armchair analysts who sit in ivory towers and claim they have fingers on the pulse of the masses. And because mainstream media is also "pushed" via social media, spaces such as Facebook and Twitter are full of floating misinterpretations.
A couple of years ago, when Narendra Modi was running for prime ministership in India, my immediate family and friends' circle back in India were utterly opposed to him - for pretty much the same reasons why they hate Trump. If you were on their Facebook pages, you'd only see their states of denial. How did I know (back then) it was denial? Because I used to follow Modi on Facebook in 2014 - not to read about the broad dimensions of his chest, but to see what "the people" actually thought of him. Turned out, they loved him. They believed in his brand of change, and the lure of good times.
If, like me, you have free-thinking (aka, 'sensible') libertarians on your friends list, you are bound to come across comments and posts which underscore "facts" such as "the world's gone crazy, dude", "Americans are brain damaged" and we are all, collectively, headed straight towards Apocalypse Now.
Don't fall for the bait. Instead, check out the real reactions - good, bad, ugly - on organic pages where "the people" are less likely to be swayed by the studio bluster of John Oliver's Last Week Tonight and more by what's unfolding in real time, in a real place called the United States of America.
- sushmita@khaleejtimes.com