[pistle]

This wreaks of elitism. Media is not consumed, nor as influential, as you are suggesting. Never denigrate the intelligence or incentives of others. To dismiss others' intelligence, experience, and/or process for developing their preferences, you miss out on understanding their motivations and needs. You may miss out on opportunities to develop friends, family, ... or customers.

Despite not having a deep warm-fuzzy for Trump or Hillary (thus increasing their favorability ratings), they represent something to their acolytes. It makes sense and defies scapegoats like "they are media sheeple!"

[beeboop]

I think most people with your opinion would change their mind if they listened to honest answers as to why people voted for who they did. Most people don't have a reason other than gut instinct, or perhaps one or two big social issues like abortion or (previously) gay marriage. No amount factual evidence to show these people that they're actually voting against their interests would change their mind.

One of the most common ones I've encountered is asking someone why they feel they can trust a particular candidate, when here's a giant list of things implicating them in corruption, lies, and indisputably voting opposite of how they campaigned. The response is always "All politicians are corrupt, it's just part of the system". Or "anyone running for President isn't the type of person who should actually be a President". Anything counter to these people's gut beliefs is dismissed as "everyone has that same problem", ignoring the extent to which their choice has it.