One common misunderstanding I see about the Stack Exchange platform on many
sites is "Why was this question not allowed here?! It's such a useful question!"
No one is arguing it's not a useful question; but it's simply not what we
If you go to a Thai restaurant, you expect to be find, well, Thai food. If you
find a lot of Italian food mixed in with the Thai food on the menu you'd likely
be confused. Not that there's anything wrong with Italian food – you might
love Italian food! – but it's just not what a Thai restaurant does.
The Stack Exchange sites are the same. It has a heavy focus on specific,
answerable, and non-opinionated questions.
This doesn't mean that any and all subjective content is forbidden though, I
encourage you to read Robert Cartaino's answer here,
as well as the Good Subjective, Bad Subjective
post he links to.
These – as well as other – rules exist to encourage useful, constructive,
insightful, and generally high-quality content. In many ways Stack Exchange is
the exact opposite of something like Youtube comments.
Back to this specific question: I voted to close it for these reasons:
- It's speculative, and don't see how it can really be answered without hindsight.
- It's not clear what exactly is intended with "ideology", which is shown by
the discussion about this in the comments.
- It has attracted poor quality answers. For example your answer may or may not
be correct, but as I read it, it doesn't actually answer the asked question
(and several people seem to agree with me on that).
Which reading of the question is "correct" here isn't important, what is
important is that several people have different understandings of the
question, which kinda proves the second point that the question is unclear.
I feel this question can probably be salvaged by an edit, somehow. Perhaps "Are
Donald Trump's policy positions significantly different from established GOP
leadership?", or something like that.
The problem with editing the question now is that it'll change the meaning of
the question, invalidating the five answers. Perhaps it's better to ask a
separete question and let this one be.
If you really want to attract political scientists, historians and
writers/pundits as you claim, rather than say coders that read the newspaper
or kids trying to skip out on homework, which seem to make up the bulk of
viewers and voters, something needs to be done to make the questions more
relevant and thoughtful.
I'd love to have a more diverse user base here (I say this as a programmer), but
in my experience all Stack Exchange sites are heavily biased towards this
Stack Overflow is a resounding success, and I can virtually guarantee you that
almost every professional programmer in the world has heard of it and uses it in
some form or another (it's hard not to, since so many Google results point to
The Stack Overflow model has since been exported to a wide range of other topics
– from more IT stuff to Cooking to Christianity to Politics – with some modest
successes, although none of the sites have been as resounding of a success as
Stack Overflow is.
I'm not entirely sure why this is the case; perhaps it's due to the nature of
the subject matter, or due to the nature of the people interested in such
subject matter. Or maybe it's because there are already many good discussion
forums for many topics. Or perhaps it's something else. I don't really have a
clear answer for you.
What I do know is that allowing unclear and opinionated questions to remain
open is not the answer.