Trump winning: who rises and falls in status?

This is not who you may think should rise or fall in status, but rather who will:

Rise

Peter Thiel

Scott Adams

Steve Sailer

Nate Silver

Critics of Obamacare, especially those such as Megan McArdle who said it was a huge mistake to proceed with zero Republican votes

Brexiters and Ukip

Ray Fair

Jonathan Haidt

Baskets

Those who pushed for market circuit-breakers

Martin Gurri

Donald Trump

Fall

Most intellectuals and academics

Pollsters

Economists

Progressives who suggested Hillary Clinton shouldn’t compromise with Republicans or reach out to them with significant policy concessions

Lots of other people too

People who denied the “backlash” worry about high levels of immigration

Ruth Ginsburg

The media, in multiple ways

Yet even more people

People

Addendum: Scott Sumner adds comment.

Comments

The character assassination attempts against Adams have truly been despicable. The worst thing about Trump winning is that I now have to live through 4 more years of media idiocy.

Reading twitter and Reddit it sounds like intense dislike of this type of behavior was a strong motivator or Trump supporters.

Maybe, just maybe they will get the message and tone it down.

That would be the wise thing to do. Which probably means we'll hear less from the wise side of the Left and more from the un-wise side. So, if anything, I expect the rhetoric to get worse, not better.

I'm in close-contact with a number of friends and relatives who are Trump supporters. The caricatures are pretty accurate.

So 50% of people are caricatures?

Reference my comment immediately before his: "..and more from the un-wise side. "

Michael Moore deserves a high place on the list, next to Scott Adams. He predicted a Trump win during the darkest days for the Trump campaign.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3919280

Case in point:

"Critics of Obamacare, especially those such as Megan McArdle who said it was a huge mistake to proceed with zero Republican votes"

In no universe was Arlen Specter not elected as a Republican and he was never nominated ever by Democrats.

He was forced out of the Republican Party by McConnell because he was not willing to create a second Great Depression.

Trump losing would also subject you to media idiocy.

Pretty humbling turn of events but as I've said before, the world won't change that much no matter who wins. The old consensus is changing, as Brexit and Trump show, and that's not necessarily all bad.

"The old consensus is changing, as Brexit and Trump show, and that’s not necessarily all bad."

I predict that the predictions on how great Trump will do will be overly optimistic and the predictions on how bad Trump will do will be overly pessimistic. I also predict this prediction will be from some point of view, completely wrong.

Fall in status: predicting

Nobody knows nuthin'

Prediction markets utterly failed. A lot of people lost a lot of money... And some made a lot too.

"And some made a lot too"

It was a good night to have bet on Trump. I would love to see a list of the winners from BetFair.

Frank.

Sailer. Get him a Bloomberg gig

No one is going to give Sailer a mainstream gig. People would then have to acknowledge the science on HBD and polite society is not ready for that.

What's HBD?

Sailer's politely stated hypothesis (and he is a very polite man) would be that people are different, and those differences aren't just cultural but also to some extent biologically based (Human biological diversity) and this should be recognized when formulating policy. Sailer believes a simple rule of thumb is that the differences we see are probably 50/50 biological (genetic) / cultural/environmental. That's a fairly moderate view, but 50% is a hell of a lot more than the prevailing view in policy-making circles that the ratio is 0/100.

It's a polite way of saying he's racist.
I mean literally. He believes in races. He believes that white people are smarter, on average than black people.
That's the classic textbook definition of racism , no?

How terribly American to think that race involves only black and white.

Ugh to the whole topic.

But it should matter whether or not it's true. If it's true, it shouldn't be deplorable. But it shouldn't lead automatically to reprehensible conclusions either.

Another thing that fell in status in this election is fake race rage. An honest Black Lives Matter movement would be pushing for vigorous law enforcement, for example, and a lot of people realized that they were being played.

I hope that's not the textbook definition of racism, because if so it recasts the racists as the heroes

An honest Black Lives Matter movement would be pushing for vigorous law enforcement

Yes, because when you're upset that a group of people keep shooting your friends and family for no reason, the thing you most want is for *that same group of people* to more vigorously police you.

I'm sure there are lots of black people who would like it if laws were enforced. They just don't want the corrupt and abusive organization known as the local police force to be more deeply involved in their lives and communities. if you could magically replace the actual cops with some sort of non-trigger-happy, non-paranoid, meticulously fair group of peacekeepers, maybe you would have a point. As it is, it's entirely obvious why Black Lives Matter isn't advocating more law enforcement.

Nobody wants errors. But how many people are you going to sacrifice to type II errors to avoid a tiny number of type I errors?

An honest Black Lives Matter movement would be primarily concerned about getting the thugs out of the neighborhood.

Law enforcement protects black lives, less law enforcement endangers black lives.

@Lord Action,

You're assuming all of these shooting are happening in "bad neighborhoods". They're not.
You're also assuming the cops aren't the thugs. Keep in mind how civil asset forfeiture and traffic fine enforcement have often been used as fundraising mechanisms for local police forces. In Fergeson, which was not a particular bad area, the police department was getting the majority of it's financing through traffic tickets and other fines.

http://www.npr.org/2014/08/25/343143937/in-ferguson-court-fines-and-fees-fuel-anger

There are plenty of examples that black people could relate to you of how blacks in perfectly nice middle-class neighborhoods get subjected to harassment by police. Are they supposed to shut up about that issue until the problem of crime in urban ghettos is solved?

I'm not saying arrogant police and overuse of force is not sometimes a problem.

I am saying it's a completely insignificant problem in the face of black-on-black crime. And that overwhelmingly blacks would be better off focusing on the real problem. Even if that meant tolerating more of the insignificant problem (although it probably doesn't mean that).

It's quite possible that for some blacks, getting hassled/shot at by the cops really is a bigger problem than black-on-black crime.
We are at historically low crime rates, which includes crime rates in black communities. I don't think this would be an issue if black people genuinely felt more threatened by thugs than by the police. You might try treating their judgements of what they feel more threatened by as more informed than yours given that they get their perceptions from living in these communities and you get your from the media.

It’s quite possible that for some blacks, getting hassled/shot at by the cops really is a bigger problem than black-on-black crime.

Somewhat north of 7,000 blacks are murdered every year, and north of 90% of the perps are black. The number of police killings bounces around a set point of about 370 a year, and half of them are not black. So, no it isn't.

@Hazle Meade: You might try treating their judgements of what they feel more threatened by as more informed than yours given that they get their perceptions from living in these communities and you get your from the media.

It's risk neutral vs. risk adjusted probabilities. Always awkward to talk about. I'm more scared of flying in a plane than other more risky endeavors. I know a plane is less risky, but it feels scarier. And since they are both so unlikely to happen, isn't my feeling of fear more real? Of course, I can try to read up on the safety, which might assuage my primal reaction of being scared of a bumpy metal container 35k in the air, and it works somewhat, but not completely, and not for everyone.

For black people feeling oppressed or killed by an outside group *feels* worse than known in-group risks. Sort of like how for some white groups in the EU/US knowledge of an arab refugee raping a women *feels* worse than the commonplace rapes that people already know.

It's always awkward telling people how they should feel based on probability distributions, we are sort of imposing the rational model of the world they *ought* to follow, rather than the one that *feels* real for them.

HM,

"It’s a polite way of saying he’s racist"

I heard a rumor that Steve Sailer believes in Gravity and that the Earth is round. Some people have claimed that he (Steve Sailer) even believes that the Earth orbits the Sun. Clearly a heretic who should be burned ASAP.

The definition of a "racist" is someone who believes that his/her race is superior (try a dictionary). Sailer believes (I think) that races actually exist. Strangely enough, forensic scientists and 23andme don't have any trouble determining a person's race from a drop of blood. Amazing how science can measure something that (according to right-thinking liberals) doesn't even exist.

@Art Deco:

What percentage of black interactions with other black people results in a shooting?
What percentage of black interactions with police results in a shooting?

Just looking at "number of black people killed" does not tell you, in any given interaction, what the average black person's likelihood of getting shot is.

In math: Is P(getting shot | black person) > P(getting shot | cop) ?

@Simon,
it's not just risk perceptions. In a lot of cases it's simply true that the cop is more likely to shoot you than a random-other-black-dude. Especially if you also account for the fact that most of these murders are happening within a criminal gang culture. If you're a middle class black professional, who lives in a nice neighborhood, you're probably not at a high risk of getting killed in black on black violence. But, you might get randomly shot by a paranoid cop at a traffic stop.

What percentage of black interactions with other black people results in a shooting?

What boundary conditions are you applying to the phenomenon of 'interaction'? Police officers aren't shooting random pedestrians. Nearly all of these shootings occur during confrontations of one sort or another. Well, how often do you get into spitting arguments with your next door neighbor?

Saylor doesn't understand the first thing about biology or genetics, so there's that. The rest of his moronic worldview falls apart from there.

Re:Sailer’s politely stated hypothesis (and he is a very polite man) would be that people are different, and those differences aren’t just cultural but also to some extent biologically based (Human biological diversity)

That in itself is not controversial. It's when you extend that into racial pseudoscience that it falls apart. Races, as posited by Sailer and his ilk, simply do not exist. Human genetic diversity is far more complex than the hoary old tales of "White, Black, Yellow (and maybe Red)" allow for. And at the same time there's far less genetic diversity in our kind than in most other animal species with large numbers of individuals in them. For all of our history humans have been among nature's most promiscuous creatures. We've also been very migratory creatures spreading our genes far and wide as we go.

Sailer believes that if you chunk people into three big boxes, people in the white box are on average considerably smarter than people in the black box. He also believes that if you make smaller chunks, some Africans (e.g., Igbos) are considerably smarter than the black average. In fact, smarter than the white average. Similarly, people from (or descended from people from) certain areas of east Africa are better sprinters than anyone else, and people from certain areas of east Africa are better distance runners than anyone else.

The frustrating thing is that the left could avoid the worrying parts of HBD if they would accept some basic, obvious truths about cognitive differences. There's no reason to spend energy chunking people up into races if you don't take differential outcomes as prima facie evidence of structural discrimination. Just focus on helping people succeed as much as possible and instituting safety nets for the ones that don't. The sport of combining vastly disparate people into huge categories can then be left to the internet commenters, as it should be. (I don't mean this to disparage Sailer, who, though I disagree with him on a lot of political issues, has been a brave and important contributor within the context of the current frame of discourse.)

"Sailer believes that if you chunk people into three big boxes, people in the white box are on average considerably smarter than people in the black box."

I would make an even weaker version, just for the sake of argument: we live in a universe where it's logically and empirically possible that this statement is true. Possible, not necessarily true.

What makes our current age religious in the matter is that the statement above about the boxes is seen a priori and necessarily false.

And that's really all that needs to be said about that. Science is powerless against dogma.

Correction: You said East Africa for both, but the sprinters are of West African descent.

Steven Pinker points out in "The Blank Slate" that stereotypes are often based on fact and often are broadly accurate, but that from both a moral perspective and a utilitarian perspective it is wrong to treat people differently based on stereotypes - treat individuals as individuals. I continue to recommend "The Blank Slate" as perhaps the most important nonfiction book of the century so far.

I don't understand that. Why would you ignore salient information? How could it be better from a utilitarian perspective not to take population averages into account? Are you saying pollsters should not have taken demographics into account when making predictions?

Blake, you're right. Thanks for the correction.

HBD is how the right wing spells AGW.

On the one hand, there are theoretical and empirical reasons to believe group differences in measured IQ are both genetic and important (the biggest HBD controversy) and there are also theoretical and empirical reasons to believe global warming is both anthropogenic and significantly deleterious. On the other hand, there were theoretical and empirical reasons to believe similar ideas in the past (for both sides) that turned out not be the case. In addition, some of the most fervent advocates for the claims are would-be totalitarians, which makes adopting the ideas much riskier than skepticism.

Being equally concerned about both climate change and dysgenic fertility lets you feel smugly superior to virtually everybody.

Generally, HBD is that there are evolved differences between and within different genetic populations of homo sapiens.

(A lot of HBD crowd talk a lot of really speculative breeze around this - see their chat about "clannishness" - but that's the core idea).

Specifically when it comes to IQ, well....

The hereditarian hypothesis of IQ says that IQ differences between individuals are partially genetic. This is very widely accepted as consensus science.

The shocking, unthinkable "HBD" variant of the hereditarian hypothesis is that when you compare Black individuals and White individuals there is *not* an exception to this (even though if would imply a group difference between Blacks and Whites). Again this is also essentially the consensus science, that there's no special exception for comparing Black vs White individuals.

That Black individuals with low IQ are *not* genetically different in their IQ potential from White individuals with low IQ is, it apparently, seem as shockingly, terrifyingly racist.

The apparently less racist idea is that racial populations are so absolutely different that there is mysterious, invisible factor that no one has detected or can model or understand that is depressing the IQ of Black individuals and/or raising the IQ of White individuals.

But we know that the races differ by no more than five single nucleotide polymorphisms, and since there are high and low IQ members of each race, clearly the differences must be associated with other genetic factors that just happen to be correlated at the population level and not with race itself.

Dan, there's enough genetic structure for average frequency differences to emerge in a polygenic trait, like, height. Or also, like the general intelligence factor. Whether we're talking between two groups with the degree of genetic structure that Africans-Europeans have, or with a much lower degree of structure, like NW Europeans and Ashkenazi Jews (or even potentially a lower degree of structure still than that).

The degree of within vs between group genetic differences in humans is no justification for a special X Factor that is correlated with race that makes, for example, Asian individuals of a given IQ genetically lower in potential in IQ than Whites of the same IQ and again lower still than Black individuals of the same IQ.

(Which, if speculative and unfounded in evidence, seems to me like a racist idea in the extreme, implying a mysterious racial derogation to individuals from different races with the same trait - racism between individuals just to make the group averages for genetic potential work out the same).

Read any Greg Cochran on the topic (he has a blog).

HBD is on track to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt by cognitive genomics in the next 5 years. Polite society can't deny this forever.

Whether HBD is true or not, as Thomas Sowell has tirelessly pointed out, in a capitalist free market those who are color-blind in their hiring or choosing services will outcompete or get better deals than those who are not. And if true, it doesn't help to ignore it in social policy.

@JH

What it will do, is prove the people wrong who argue that unequal outcomes are necessarily caused by discrimination. This will weaken the SJ position.

Note that right now, policy is made that discriminates against people to achieve equal outcomes.

HBD probably strengthens the SJ position and weakens libertarians. If certain groups are truly intellectually or behavorially disadvantaged simply due to genetics and no fault of their own than society should provide aid to those people to allow them to participate in a meaningful way.

Providing aid to the disadvantaged is not a SJ-position IMO. SJ is about people being oppressed.

Sailer's stock will continue to rise as his HBD hypothesis plays itself out in Europe.

We'll see about Thiel, his whole thing is the prediction that Trump will fundamentally change America for the best, which is still up for grabs. Martin Gurri and Nate Silver for sure will rise in status, I actually wrote off Nate's concerns based on prediction market behavior but boy did prediction markets let me down.

Also, I think you should add Jonathan Haidt.

Will we see a Tyrone point of view on this?

Yeah, those folks' rise in status won't last past the first time President Trump does something stupid, which probably won't be long.

Still, I'll throw Ross Douthat's name in the ring, too. He was saying a long time ago that the GOP needed to get more working class voters in the tent.

Agree that Haidt should be on the list.

agree, thanks, have added a few...

What about Assange?

Assange is a hero.

He stuck it to the corrupt liars in the Bush Administration, and then did the same to the Obama / Clinton crowd. I expect he will do the same to Trump if his administration falls into that same pattern of failure.

Disagree. Haidt has more to gain if the left expands its power.

I'm not seeing why Jonathan Haidt should be on the list. The social dynamics in academe aren't affected by popular opinion. Haidt and his colleagues will retire having not achieved much and academe will continue to circle the toilet bowl. The one thing that might change is if you get a critical mass of Republicans in statehouses who just aren't scared of the media and take a head cracker approach to higher education (and to the judiciary if they try to run interference for higher education).

Haidt may eventually parlay his moral foundations theory into a Krugman-like place in popular culture. He could easily do so if he wanted to.

Haidt offers us a theory, that even academic liberals can understand, of why Trump types are not just "EW BAD EVIL RACIST SEXIST BAD PEOPLE" but operating from intelligible moral premises in a coherent manner.

Which is why his stock is rising. But a lot of people are still going to refuse the very premise that the other side isn't Evil.

I see your point. The trouble is, as I see it, that academe is chock-a-block with people who fancy themselves 'well-informed'. They're no better informed than anyone else who reads the papers. They do, however, have the biases of their tribe, are very invested in those biases, and devote more explicit attention to that side of life. Plumbers and golf pros may have systematic biases as well. It does not affect their sense of identity and the questions involved are seldom taking up much rent-free space in their heads. The academic in my family is a very accomplished fellow in the ecological wing of biology. He does not comprehend simple arguments contra the positions in the political sphere he favors. He just finds it irritating static. He is a common academic type.

My social circle is heavy on academic natural-science types. They're smart people and they rant mindlessly for their (blue) tribe.

GF is a data cruncher from abroad; she doesn't get US politics and is putting off going to work today because she doesn't want to listen the maudlin, angry nonsense.

Mainly Haidt just rewrites the the “EW BAD EVIL RACIST SEXIST BAD PEOPLE” slightly.

Why Nate Silver? He predicted a Clinton win (yesterday/Monday).

Even up to 10:00 p.m. last night, his models were predicting a Clinton win.

I don't think Silver's stock should rise after this performance, but most of the problem isn't his fault- the problem is the shitty polling done by the media's polling whores. It was pretty clear that the bias against Trump bled over into the polling- especially the state level polling- the national polls weren't quite as awful- Clinton's average lead was about 5% or less the entire way, and she did win the popular vote last night, so within a 3% margin or error, the result made sense. However, the state level polls are largely run at the instigation and/or direct payment by the Democratic campaign this cycle, and they were routinely awful and it showed up.

As for Silver, it was really only in the last few days that he realized the danger Clinton was in, and my suspicion is that he had a source inside the Clinton Campaign- as a high profile predictor, he probably demanded to know why Clinton was spending so much time and money in Michigan and Pennsylvania the last week when the state level polls showed her comfortably ahead. He was probably given a heads up about the internal polling that has no incentive to be biased. In other words, Silver looks like a genius when the polls look good for Democrats and are actually reflective of the actual vote, and looks like just another chump when the polls look good for Democrats, but aren't reflective of the actual vote. My suspicion is that if the reverse of that latter case were operative, he would be far more rigorous in questioning the modelling being used to adjust the data sample.

There is a long history of anti-establishment voters being underpolled in various elections, in various countries. I believe that these people tend to either lie or decline to answer to such an extent that pollers simply cannot believe is true. So they systematically undercorrect.

There's no need to resort to tin foil hat hypotheses. The simple fact is that Hillary underperformed Obama-- rather badly with some groups (people expected to show up and vote failed to do so). The likely voters screens employed in the polling were based on recent elections, and they turned out not to be accurate this time out the gate. No one cheated deliberately. The simply assumed that the present would be like the past. It wasn't.

I don't see any claims for cheating, so I'm confused. Yancey Ward seems to argue that people who run/pay for polls tend to inject their biased into them, which seems logical and fully consistent with evidence for scientific bias where science tends to support the agenda of those who pay for it.

Prediction markets did all right. They had Trump at 20-30% for most of the general election. That's better than most.

Nate Silver was pretty far off in his predictions, and, for the second election in row, off in a Democratic/leftist direction. Goodthink has pretty much overcome analysis at fivethirtyeight.

I don't think so, the polls were off. He at least saw the clustering and was worried about it. He stated that 3% errors in polls happen often.

Silver gets points for acknowledging the unpredictability of his field, but having done so, what's his value going forward? Prediction is his whole stock in trade. We don't need a weatherman to look up at the sky and tell us, "hard to say."

I think the weatherman analogy is apt and supports Silver on this list. I'm regularly seeing day-of forecasts of 30% chance of rain that are helpful.

Yeah, there's clearly some value in someone who just says, "Uncertainty is high," but I think that before this, lots of people were thinking that Silver's role was saying, "Here is the certainty," and if he was able to successfully do that, obviously his value would be higher.

lots of people were thinking that Silver’s role was saying, “Here is the certainty,”

I remember 4/8 years ago having to get people to calm down about Silver's awesome predictive powers. No, he happened to hit it right on his statistical model.

Now the pendulum has swung way in the other direction, with people thinking Silver was supposed to be making extremely exactly predictions.

He was the voice of sanity saying that Trump could win. He gave it about a 30% chance, which apparently upset people who want to put that into a binary choice. But 538 was talking yesterday about how Trump was just one normal polling mistake away from the Presidency. Everyone else wanted to hear that Hillary was a solid lock.

Silver may have been better than many of the rest of late, but have people already forgotten that last year Silver at one point gave Trump only a 2% chance of winning the primary?

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trumps-six-stages-of-doom/

Recognition of uncertainty is more valuable than certainty that turns out to be wrong. And if you read Silver's 'The Signal and the Noise', you'll see that he has a very limited view of what is predictable vs what isn't.

False certainty in prediction is a menace when it informs the ruling classes. Nate Silver is providing a valuable service in telling his own cohort that they better adopt a little more humility regarding what they think they know and what they can predict.

Nassim Taleb should rise, he destroyed Silver's arguments and pointed out that using an options types analysis the poll unpredictability meant a 50/50 election, which is what we got. Trump just outworked Clinton on a jump ball election.

I'm shocked to see Nate Silver rising in status. 70% chance of Hilary winning?

She did win the popular vote.

538's prediction was a 70%+ chance of Hillary winning the Electoral college vote. On the other hand, you can defend it by saying this was just one of the myriad of potential 30% outcomes.

NO SHE DIDN'T! As of last count, Trump has more votes than Clinton. However irrelevant this is ...you do know that we have an Electoral College, right?

It's not a 'defense', that's just a statement of fact. There was a 30% chance the polls were off and lo and behold, they were. That's why Silver rises in status, he said all along how it works while some of the commenters at his sight were furious at him for not stating the obvious that Hillary was going to win easily.

I think people are unaware of how much Silver was being attacked just 1-2 days ago for daring to say Trump had a chance.

Li - what are you looking at? Just put "popular vote" in Google and it gives you the current count. Hilary's lead is almost 200k as I post this.

James - many other forecasters had 90+% chances for Hilary to win. 538 was the closest at 70%. So I guess the best weather forecaster.

I am somewhat surprised Comey is not on the list here somewhere. That pretty much was the difference in the election. Be interesting to see how Trump treats the guy who gave the Presidency but he has derided at every opportunity.

People, my only point is that a candidate who wins the popular vote usually has a pretty high (70%?) chance of winning the electoral college, too! So Nate Silver's analysis seems pretty decent to me.

He gave Trump a bigger chance of winning than many others. NYT had Hillary at 87%. Huffungton had her at 98% and I guess that was supposed to be serious analysis.

Pollsters doubted that there were many if any real shy Trump voters. I knew plenty, including myself.

Is it time to rename the Bradley Effect?

No, the Bradley effect presupposes that people polled lie about their voting intentions. This wasn't that. It was a mistake in estimating the likeliness that respondents would vote: Hillary failed to get the sort of turnout Obama did in 2012. If she had we'd be talking about Madam President right now.

I started out this morning googling "Nate Silver was wrong" and was a bit shocked that he's been excoriated by right-thinking (read: left-thinking) poll aggregators for overstating Trump's chances. He was the most "conservative" of all the mainstream poll aggregators. If we lived in some alternate universe in which we had polls but no elections, Silver might have been excommunicated instead of vindicated.

He jinxed her juju.

Magical thinking will never die.

Nate Silver was much better in his prediction that many other analysts and poll-agregators. He gave 30% for the chances of Trump winning, against less than 15% for the Upshot at the NYT, and around 1% from the Princeton consortium, the HuffPost, and plenty of others. He was heavily criticized for that on Election's eve, see article in the HuffPost for example.
Moreover 30% what what it model said based on polls -- two days earlier it was 35%, and Nate wrote when it went down that this changed was based on polls that were doubtful as they showed clear signs of herding.

Nate was not also stronger than the others just because the variance of his model was larger (i.e. because he said "we never know"), he was also strong on specifics. For instance, he had long insisted of the possibility, even the probability, of a Trump's victory in case of a modest, lest than 2%, lead by Clinton in the popular lead. This is what happened.
He also insisted on the very strong correlation between states, especially states with similar demographics. For instance
he said repeatedly that in case of a big mistake of the polls in one Rust Belt state, a similar big mistakes in the other was very likely. This is what happened with Trump taking Pennsylvania, Wisonsin, Michigan, and winning bigger than expected in Ohio.

Summary: Nate Silver was great, once again.

Silver also had the Senate pretty well nailed. He had a surge for Republicans in the last week to just over 50% chance of getting a majority.

Yep he nailed the volatility IMO. Anyone going with 90% + probability of Clinton win was crazy and the day before the election Nate laid out why.

I suppose it depends how you look at it. I think he was honest in acknowledging uncertainty which in itself a valuable contribution -- we need informed skeptics in our trade.

However rather than him being "much better in his prediction", I think he was "less wrong". The two are not the same, and it's not just semantics. There is something fundamental called the "bias-variance tradeoff". He went with the higher variance prediction (with its attendant uncertainties), whereas the other pollsters went with lower variance predictions (resulting in higher bias, especially when their assumptions did not match reality due to unmodeled effects)

Yes, I see what you mean. Also there is this problem of the meaning of "probability of winning" for a one-time event. The standard, frequentist, interpretation of probability doesn't make any sense in this context, and strictly speaking, at least with this interpretation, the HuffPost with its 1% chance of a Trump's victory is equally vindicated by the actual result.

The solution, of course, is Bayesian thinking. Say we consider four "serious" analysts, Nate Silver, Nate Cohn of the NYT, Wang of Princeton, the HuffPost, and that our prior estimates was equal among them, that is we assume that each has an equal chance, 25%, of having his/her model being the true one, according to which the election outcome is decided.
After the event of a Trump's victory we can use Bayes formulate to re-evaluate your priors. I didn't sleep much this night, but when I have time and energy I will do the (easy) computation and post it here. But it would surely give a huge
a-posteriori value for Nate Silver, a small consolation for Nate Cohn, and send Princeton and the HuffPost into complete irrelevance.

That leads me to your point, that Nate Silver is not better, just lest bad. I'm not sure what the exact meaning of that is.
How de we know that his 30-35% estimate of chances for a Trump victory was wrong. If we had another analyst with a non-zero prior who predicted the Trump's victory with an higher probability, he would surpass Silver in the a posteriori
estimayte of values. But did we? I don't know. Intuitively at least, when you see that Trump won many key-states with a less than 1-2% lead, it is clear that it was close, that a Clinton's victory was possible, and that giving Trump yesterday a chance of winning much greater than 50% would have been wrong.

all you have to do is look at nate's final analysis, which effectively notes some possibility for trump to win, but then pretty definitively calls it for clinton. the odd thing about last night: the NYT website had the election called with 95% certainty 4-5 hours before the TV media even got close to doing so. so TV media was clearly failing to report accurately about what was going on (they were also an hour or two behind in calling PA).

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/final-election-update-theres-a-wide-range-of-outcomes-and-most-of-them-come-up-clinton/

We know it was "wrong" because Trump's probability of winning was 100%. We know it was wrong because the crypto-voters were underrepresented (or misrepresented) in the surveys he used. He got some things right, and some things wrong but didn't seem to be aware of all of the shortcomings in his data. The real question is: given the enormity of the failure in these predictions, is there any real value in paying attention to any of them? Are we debating how best to count the number of dancing Angels?

"Also there is this problem of the meaning of “probability of winning” for a one-time event."

The most intuitive way to understand Bayesian probabilities are as betting odds. If you want to bet money on the outcome of the election (or are about to make a business decision that somehow relates to the outcome of the election), your expected return is higher if you look at the results of a model like Nate Silver's first as opposed to going with your gut. If you don't have any skin in the game on the outcome, you would be well within your rights to say who knows and who cares and wait for the final tally.

"He was heavily criticized for that on Election’s eve, see article in the HuffPost for example."

Sure, but the HuffPost is a ridiculous collection of Leftists that live in a bubble. No one should take them anymore seriously than you should take Breitbart. They might make a serious point or two, but neither site is, on average, a serious site.

Breitbart, like Drudge, called it right and for a long time.

Sure, but on aggregate, they don't write thought provoking articles, they write articles that confirm their biases. Certainly they are correct when their biases align with reality (as this election proves) but the Huffington Post also hits that low bar, too.

I don't claim that there is no value is such sites. Just that the value is fairly low.

+1 to JWatts.

I agree. I know only one news site worse than the Huffington Post: the French Huffington Post. (http://www.huffingtonpost.fr)

He also pointed out that if polling was off in one state it would quite likely be off in many states: hence Hillary's failure to win MI, WI, PA, NH and NC, in all of which polls had shown her with a significant (though not enormous) lead.

He said there was over a 30% chance of Trump winning. Which is like saying that an above average major league hitter will get a hit.

Or that a 6 point underdog wins a game in the NFL. People railing against the 538 model are just off the mark. Some of the criticism of the model is getting mixed in with criticism of Nate Silver as a person, and his personal takes on the election, particularly his early dismissal of Trump.

But he ultimately admitted he was wrong about that and should focus on the model and not his gut. Maybe Tyler should say that Nate Silver's model is up in status, but Silver is lower in status or a wash. Silver's status rises overall in my own view because he did admit his mistakes on Trump and he defended his model, which was the outlier at the end.

The other interesting thing is that the NYT model had Trump as a 15% shot, but once the votes came in that model was much quicker to show that Trump was actually winning. 538 only updated it's projection last night as states were called, but NYT was updating it in real time, at the county level. I assume the model was gradually realizing that Trump was outperforming the election polls and exit polls and was going better at the county level in the key battleground states. At one point 538 was so far behind in updated (NYT had it at ~80% Trump while 538 was at ~30% Trump) that 538 made some manual adjustments in it's election night model to show Trump's increased odds.

Yeah good observation ant1900. I called the election for Trump in an email to TC around 7:50 PM EST, when I saw Virginia tightening. I also predicted a few days before on Sumner's blog that polling was inaccurate when I saw from Vox.com that only one out of ten people reply to pollsters. That means the 'smart' people are replying while the 'dumb' are not, and I knew right away the polling data was bogus.

LOL I bet Tyler loves to see your emails come in. How frequently do you email him? Every day?

Hillary's failure to maintain her initial lead in FL was the warning bell for me.

NYT site was extremely well done and at a ridiculously fine level of detail. It made other sites and the networks seem crude.

Yes it was extraordinary

No he heavily warned against HRC winning the popular vote and losing the electoral college. In fact, he stated it was 10% possibilty so he was the loudest voice for this. And considering the most of the outstanding ballots mail in votes in California and Washington that it is likely HRC reaches a 1% (1M+ votes) popular vote lead.

In reality he was amazingly close on his warnings.

In 2012 538 erred in the Republican direction. To be sure it got all the states right-- but by smaller margins than Obama actually won by. Total error was about 3% of the vote. This time around the total error was a bit more than that-- but not by much. The election however was close enough that Trump squeaked by in the electoral college while Hillary still won the popular vote. The 538 gave a 10% chance of this occurring.

'People.'

Cry, Tyler. Cry, you bitch.

I don't think it will work, but can't we at least agree that it is at least somewhat admirable that a group of people who are literally being robbed of their patrimony grabbed the only bling instrument around and at least tried to stand up for themselves?

Ah...no.

Could you elaborate? There is an obvious plan to dilute these people's political and economic power. There is an obvious plan to relegate these people's deepest held beliefs as to what constitutes the good life and how communities should be organized to the category of "private opinion" that is may not impact political decisions. The transnational elite has shown a willingness to overrule the democrat decisions of smaller bodies politic. What would be the appropriate reaction in your opinion?

You stay classy San Diego.

That "People" really is kinda sappy.

"Progressives who suggested Hillary Clinton shouldn’t compromise with Republicans or reach out to them with significant policy concessions"

Do you actually think the electorate gives a hoot about Republican "policy"? Trump himself did not follow the Republican policy platform. Progressives suggested Hillary reach out to independents and rurals by taking up parts of Sanders' platform, which appealed to them. Lowering taxes would not have saved Hillary.

Trump vote was a big Eff You to the establishment and to scapegoated minorities and women, including an Eff You to the black Dem president. There is no way that a female Dem candidate could have appealed to that angry group.

And now you're reaching. Voting Trump was a vote against treating people differently based on their characteristics.

You mean like their geographical location of birth?

Wisconsin, voting D every election from 1988 onwards, home to deplorable racists.

Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, etc - they're voting because of Trump's stance on trade. He flipped a bunch of blue-collar protectionist union types.

Trump was a Democrat for most of his life and in many ways will lead like one. First thing he talked about last night were the inner cities and infrastructure. He also has ruled out cuts to entitlements. Combine with right wing priorities of tax cuts and increased military (and that wall) and we have a formula for an explosion in our debt like no other. Hope that Laffer is not wrong.

Yes. This is one of my primary reasons for abhorring Trump.

I get a choice between a national socialist and an international socialist now. Nobody with a sane stance on trade or fiscal policy in sight.

Trump was a Democrat for most of his life and in many ways will lead like one.

No. Enrolled Republican without interruption from 1969 to 1985. Back and forth between non-partisan and Republican registration since then, not many years as a Democrat.

Home to some wishful thinkers. Do they really think manufacturing jobs are coming back? The horrible thing is the only way for those jobs to come back is for the rest of us to pay significantly higher prices. I would prefer they find something else to do.

Steve J, I agree.

Rise

The future quality of America's genetic stock.

You're a terrible person.

I'm learning that whenever an American calls another American a "terrible person", that "terrible person" has just said something true.

How does Nate Silver's status rise in value?

He was the only pollster predicting Trump had a shot. I'm looking forward to watching a collection of heads implode when I get back from work tonight.

Rising in status: IBD / TIPP and Los Angeles Daybreak. IBD / TIPP was the most accurate in 2012 as well, per 538.

Silver looks like a guru to people high on their own supply. The clustering in the polls is because opposition voices were pushed so far out of the mainstream that they survive in online subcultures. Trump literally won on the Sailer strategy, which Sailer proposed back in 2000. Nate Silver was only 80% as stupid as the entire mainstream media and most of the "establishment" right into the election, and Sailer laid out exactly how Trump would win down the road 16 years ago.

I was talking about this in early 2014: The Logic of Strategy: Yuan Devaluation and the Road to Trade War and Immigration Issue Set to Explode in America; Prepare for Political Volatility and even ended that one by saying Trump had an opening. I am indebted to Sailer and other right-wing dissidents who debate everything and take a hard look at reality, whatever the implications. The status of the entire "far right" has gone up several notches, not because Trump won, but because they explained exactly why he would win years in advance.

+1

Steve Sailer gives away better advise for free then the entire professional commentariat could give having been paid untold millions for their worthless opinions.

Sailer gave advice and strategies that no normal politician would have considered taking into account. Everyone else gave strategies that fit into the narrow window of relatively respectable politics, which was clearly a mistake.

This doesn't look like the Sailer strategy to me: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/

Perhaps in comparison with Bush (2000), but in comparing to Romney (2012) it looks like he took the opposite advice: gaining support from Black and Hispanic voters while splitting the White vote based on education

Re: Trump literally won on the Sailer strategy

Nope. Trump won because Hillary failed to fully motivate the Obama coalition. If voter turnout among those demographics had matched 2012 she would have won. She would probably have lost against any Republican (unless she ran against someone who somehow failed to turn out the Romney coalition of 2012 to a similar degree, but it's hard to think who that could have been among the major GOP contenders this year). Voices were heard all along pointing out that people who voted for Obama might not be so eager to vote for Hillary. This was Hillary's election to lose, and she did.

In other words, Nate Silver was "less wrong" than most other pollsters

Silver?

No. Gold! Gold is good for Trump's uncertain presidency, though I do like some of his foreign policy ideas like making allies pay for military protection.

Yeah, what's up with these pollsters? How can they be all so wrong & yet so confident?

This whole big data revolution and sophisticated adjustments and everything and we get this?

I think people just dont understand probability. If the model gives a 90% chance of Clinton victory, Trump still wins 1 in 10 simulations.

Yep. The people who had it 98-2 were wrong, not 538. Polling is far from perfect, modelling based on polling is difficult.

But, 71-29 is not much better when it really should have been just 50-50. Maybe the polls run by the candidates' organizations showed that the election was a coin-toss. Maybe the public polls were off so much because their objective is not really to forecast the election but rather to sell advertising.

Everyone should have made a big correction when Clinton cancelled the fireworks. Her people knew!

The problem with the polling is that it was almost all off in one direction.

If we're talking random sampling errors, margin-of-error type of issues, then 15 different polls should somewhat cluster around the right result, with some overestimating and others underestimating. That assumption is why the average of the polls is considered to be pretty close to reality.

When places like RCP and 538 toss out one of the two polls with an error in the other direction and then go with polls which all end up off several points in the exact same direction, that's a design/pollster issue. Too much groupthink and too many polls unwilling to stick with numbers that don't match the "consensus" of pollsters and major media over time.

That's not true. In fact, the odds were greater than the model predicted, and you're just updating your Bayesian priors based on more data.

"Trump still wins 1 in 10 simulations."

So this is the darkest timeline?

Prediction markets also failed badly, again. I would not have called that two years ago.

Prediction markets have him a decent shot. Should it have been higher given what we know now? Hard to say.

It's not the market's fault that the entire establishment media ran a propaganda campaign against the GOP nominee. The markets worked perfectly. Money flowed out of the pockets of people with bad information, and into the pockets of people with good information.

No EMH for Prediction Markets?

Like Rahul says, that's a strange definition of success.

Prediction markets were more wrong than polling. They're supposed to be better than polling. I don't know if it's the nail in the coffin, but it's close. Either they're consistently manipulated, too small, or there just isn't enough information out there to go on. Maybe they're too tempting to people with more money than brains.

The better prediction markets, in my mind, are the ones that are monetarily based (betting sites). Those are illegal in the US (they shouldn't be) and it's also illegal for American's to participate in the foreign ones. So, the better predictions sites sit in the UK and are going to be influenced by European media. Which doesn't really understand internal American dynamics.

So, this is probably discredits foreign betting markets, but I wouldn't automatically assume it applies in all cases.

On Brexit the betting markets were worse than the polls at getting the result right. This is probably do to a herd effect: people see others taking a certain bet, and they follow suit.

Lord Action -- do you think it was wrong for the Pentagon to kill prediction markets? I think they were.

Oh yeah, for sure it was wrong. It was an experiment well worth doing.

I'm not kidding here; I'm genuinely surprised they've worked so badly in these major tests. It really seems, from all I know, that they make sense. It would be very good to understand how and why they fail.

Were they really bad? He was around 20% in the prediction markets. That means that about 1 in 5 times you will get surprised.

I'd call that really bad. Certainly it was worse than the polls, which were close. And reasonably suspected of underestimating Trump support.

I think some of the people on here berating the polls are actually berating the people who took a Clinton +2 poll and turned that into a victory fantasy. A Clinton +2 poll is not as far off as a 0.20 value from a prediction market. I realize one is comparing apples and oranges here - but if the prediction market is farther from reality than the poll, how can that not count against it?

You're just wrong. Prediction markets were better than polls

I think, given where the polls were, that prediction markets would have had to have had it at 50:50 to legitimately say they were better than the polls. They were far from that. Prediction markets exaggerated the chance of a Clinton victory relative to the polls.

You can call that what you want, but it's not validating for prediction markets. Which is kind of unfortunate, because they'd be a useful tool if they worked.

Good point. Does Hanson fall in status too?

The problem with polling is that you got to get people to talk to you and you got to get them to tell you the truth

I haven't talked to a pollster in decades and if any of them bothered me enough I would lie to them.

Precisely. And yet we build edifices of shiny models on such shaky foundations.

We? I haven't talked to a pollster for years. Waste of time.

My regulatory overlords quite regularly do surveys about what they do. Someone phones and goes through a bunch of questions. The last time I tolerated it by about 1/3 of the way in it was very very obvious that they structured the questions in a way that would get the answers they wanted. I said to the lady that I don't want to be rude, but is there a place I can make a comment? She said yes if I do another half dozen questions. So I did them and asked her to write in how badly they were at their core responsibility.

They made the mistake once of a web based survey that left room for written comments. They didn't do that again.

Pollsters start with the assumptions of academia and look for confirmation of their biases. That is why they were very wrong.

Simple: they're biased. That's the human tendency. They're also insular: "Nobody I know is voting for Nixon!"

Ray Fair. His model predicted a Republican victory.

Rise
- Steve Sailer
- Nationalist European parties
- Canada

Fall:
- The Baltics

Who cares about the Baltics? Are you aware this was an AMERICAN election?

He's talking about NATO.

Question still stands.

The Baltics still lose, as a result of this American election. It will have tons of repercussions outside our borders.

"tons of repercussions outside our borders."

Like what, the Baltics will need to accommodate the major power in the region because the US is not going to go to war for them in the name of "freedom"?

Good!

The baltics were my number one issue this election.

Why die for Talinn?

Fall: -not the Baltics; Germany (and that's good)

Canada? We are on the cusp of a banking failure. Our pretty boy won't be wearing a shirt because the tax paying population won't give him the money to buy one.

Which bank(s)? I want to get a head start on my CDS purchases.

Fall: ISIS (at least Trumpsters believe so)

Fall
Spirit Cooking
Communism / Feminism
Global Warming

Fall John Podesta.

Fall: women, gays, disabled

Brilliant Provoking-Trolling.
Why care for Baltics/NATO? is also superbly crafted to create the opposite feeling of concern!

Immigrants, refugees.

We're probably looking at a 6-3 Supreme Court before long. I would *not* want to be a young woman in the US right now.

I think Ivanka is a far healthier role model for young women than the mattress carrying victim fetishists.

Rising: Ray Fair?

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/05/sentences-to-ponder-97.html

Falling: America.

HOWEVER, I voted Trump myself. I look at it like this: Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way. Hillary offered a unique way of failing, as did Trump. Trump's flavor of diminishment was far more to my taste than HRC's.

The economic crisis that was going to happen ANYWAY, HRC or Trump, will happen sooner. Our national debt has probably crossed the event horizon after the Bush/Obama bailouts, but both Trump and HRC were determined in their rhetoric to sail right through any doubt of it. The pain was coming anyway, now we have a good scapegoat to blame all the world's ills on. Be happy, Tyler! Otherwise you might have had to consider some of the globalist policies were failing!

Finally, an honest voter.

The ratio of public debt to gross domestic product is excessive, but it's nowhere near what it is for Japan. Our debts are denominated in our own currency.

"There are other people in a worse situation" is not the most comforting thing I could hear, Art.

We all know the next 20 years or so are going to involve higher taxes (on a broader base) and lower spending. It's just a question of how that's managed. I don't think it's Armageddon, but it won't be fat years either.

Heh. Just wait till the debt servicing is the largest line item in the budget. Not a problem. Just print more.

Just wait till the debt servicing is the largest line item in the budget.

Which is what, at 4% interest at current debt levels? 4.5%

Just as Japan's debt is in yen.

@Art Deco - the only way out of US public debt, since about 40% is owned by foreigners, is default (my guess*) or massive hyperinflation. Japan's NET public debt, due to their high savings, is only about 120% of GDP, with the USA at about 100%.

* I am guessing that one day, when US Debt-to-GDP grows too high, over say 200%, the USA will simply say: 'All foreign debt held by non-US citizens and non-US based corporations as of this date will be null and void, and no transfer of debt will be allowed'. "Problem solved!" (at least in the short term, and in the long term I did not see Russia, Argentina suffer).

Thank you Lev. I've been hearing about the "event horizon" for decades now. Could you come on here and give us a warning a week before it really happens instead of years (decades?) in advance.

Thanks and I'll be standing by.

The markers can remain irrational longer than any of us can remain solvent. I don't know where the cliff is, but it is out there and we're headed its direction.

That's all the prognostication I can offer honestly.

Very valuable insight - much appreciated. I'll go check over on Zerohedge now to get opinions from the rest of the doomsayers. I'll report back with a timeline...

Sigh. I guess as counterpoint, wake me when NYC is underwater and the polar bears are extinct, because global warming is a hoax until then? It's a warning. Take it for what it is. Some humility is required to acknowledge there's a crapton of variables, like acidification of oceans or anemic foreign banks boosting USD, and the very wise cannot see all angles.

I think we've all learned that prognostication is a mug's game.

2025-2030 are expected to be the prime years of the Social Security trust draw down which will require offsetting either on balance sheet spending or taxes or pretty significant public debt issuance. That's an extra 2 trillion or so in debt over 5ish years over and above on budget debt issuance. Seems likely to be a relatively high stress period.

The bailouts did not run up the national debt to any major degree. The money spent on TARP was paid back by most recipients, with interest.

That Gurri piece is really good. This election was just as much a reaction to the Obama presidency as the Clinton candidacy. The toxic identity politics actually came from the left and what the media is decrying as "racism" (i.e. white people voting) is merely a reaction to Obama's post-racial presidency.

It's not a reaction, it's the new normal. What Gurri says about pain points also applies to diversity. The people setting the world on fire are those pushing for diversity, when the hard evidence says diversity reduces social trust and increases conflict. If you are really concerned about a world on fire, Trump is the only thing, and maybe only the closest thing, to a firefighter in the 2016 election. Merkel wins hands down as the world's top arsonist, though Clinton may have given her a run for her money.

fall: muslim-americans, latinos, iran

Fall: Victim-mongering by wealthy whites

Putin.

I hope you're right, Jan.

I hope he can rise in status while also moderating his approach to foreign policy. While overall this is a win for Putin, it may be somewhat tricky for him, as lots of his domestic support comes from boosting nationalism by pointing to a Western villain, conspiracy, etc. If Trump is out there saying we just need to be friends and do what you will on your own borders it gets a lot harder to keep that narrative going. Of course, nothing stopped Putin from lying about everything before.

Pure typical disgusting projection, Jan. Putin's domestic support comes mainly from having saved his country from people like Tyler, and running its government in their interest instead of his. But obviously you are determined not to learn any lessons from recent events.

Killing a couple of journalists here and there hasn't hurt: if Trump had promised to do that he could have had this thing by ten million votes.

Thanks, lad. Insightful as always. Also, Russians like Putin because their apartment is 2 square meters bigger than before and he makes them proud to be from a withering country that achieves far below its potential.

I fail to see how Brexiters and Ukip rise. In the short terms it may look like a win because they're similar. However, that's also a problem. It's like two friends, they can be the best friends but never a couple. They support each other in ideals but I don't see them reaching an US-UK trade agreement.

Really? That has to be an extremely tempting target for the guy who wrote "The Art of the Deal."

If that's the case, Trump will pull a good deal for the US out of the anxiousness of Brexiters. Said deal would be better for the US than for the UK. How does this rise the status of Brexiters?

That might be a fair point. It's probably better, viewed broadly, for the UK to align with the US than the EU. But Trump is in a position to drive a hard bargain.

"I fail to see how Brexiters and Ukip rise."

I agree that this might not end up with a rise for Brexiters, but it's assuredly a loss for Pro-EU'ers. There was a lot of transparent Clinton love that's not just worthless at this point, but probably a negative.

Fall: safe spaces, BLM, ACA, other repellent horsesh*t.
Rise: meritocracy, incentives, capital.

This is an amazing opportunity for the GOP to open up the tent to minorities who enjoy the second batch. If Trump gets carried away with building walls and stopping abortions, it will be a devastating waste.

"This is an amazing opportunity for the GOP to open up the tent to minorities"

I know your sentence continues after this but I can't take any sentence seriously that says this non-ironically.

Totally agree, "Too Hot" managed to completely miss the point about this election.

I see your point, but stick by mine. When there aren't concentration camps and nuclear winter in two years, a lot of people are going to realize they've been had by their former Dem masters. Welcome to the free-market right.

Scott Sumner babbled about 'fascism'. Ordinary voters don't talk that way. The one's who do are Democratic committeemen who are inveterate in their loyalty.

Unfortunately, people don't work that way. Almost everyone evaluates today's prediction against their beliefs today, not against what ultimately happens. That's why it's practically a requirement of being a "serious foreign policy thinker" that you supported the Iraq war.

There is no opportunity to collar the black vote. Shaking it loose would require one of three things: some sort of catastrophe for which the Democratic Party is held responsible (as happened during the period running from 1929-33), and abrupt flip in the political ecosystem (as happened during the period running from 1956-64 - not something you can predict and quite difficult to fathom), or a gradual erosion of the appeal of politics as an identity affirmation (something that would take generations). Supposedly, younger black cohorts were more congenial toward Sanders than the older cohorts. That may be the earliest phase of such an erosion.

Building walls is his signature. He has to build the wall. (While we're at it, the wall is good policy and stopping abortions the only decent policy). An affection for abortion is characteristic of juvenile singles and professional-managerial types, not blacks qua blacks or mestizos qua mestizos. Mestizos tend to be natalist in their behavior.

My prediction is that Trump actually cares about immigration, but not that much about abortion. He will presumably appoint Republican SC justices, so he may end up presiding over a narrowing of legal abortion in the US--I wouldn't be all that shocked to see us end up, at least in many states, about whee most European countries are, with morning-after pills and first-trimester abortions available, but nothing else. But I don't see any reason at all to think he believes strongly in banning abortion.

Technology has us headed towards a world with no surgical abortion. Pharmaceuticals and early diagnostics make it less necessary on one end, and ever-better NICUs make it less morally acceptable on the other end.

The courts will eventually rubber stamp that, but they'll follow and not lead.

"But I don’t see any reason at all to think he believes strongly in banning abortion."

Which is pretty much what Trump has said. He'll cut Federal funding for abortion. That's not the even in the same ball park as a blanket ban on abortion, which seems to be a repeated talking point.

My prediction is exactly the opposite. Nothing will be done about immigration, although I am warning my Hispanic friends to start carrying their papers!

What's wrong with safe spaces? And no, I don't believe in this concept of "triggering" or micro-aggressions or whatever.

We used to call them 'playpens.'

Nothing. It is a great place to put people who you want to ignore. Shut up and go to your safe space.

A funny, or not so funny story. I took advantage of meeting and talking to German people who immigrated to Canada after the war to try to understand what happened there. Normal people, some with military background. They are almost all gone now. One woman said the most chilling thing. She said you couldn't walk the streets without feeling unsafe. After he came to power the streets were safe. And only troublemakers got the nasty treatment.

That was her safe space. It wasn't safe actually, in fact extraordinarily dangerous and evil.

The 'safe spaces' of modern academia are the closest to the communist evil that I have seen.

Fall: Open borders proponents

Well, yeah. Arguably they helped bring this about.

Fall: actual BLM, the one out West, if first orange president holds to pledge.

I don't think Trump is any kind of SoCon, and neither abortion nor gay marriage are high on his give-a-shite list. However he may be forced to provide some pay back to the SoCons, who are among them whut brung him, So I expect his first Court appointment (to fill the empty seat) will be at least as far to the Right as Scalia was, though probably not as brilliant. Any subsequent appointments will be anyone's guess. Having paid his tab once, Trump may well consider the debt has been retired. I fully expect buyer's remorse will come to visit that segment of the GOP coalition.

Rise: Helmut Northrop, professor of political science at Stony Brook, whose electoral model predicted that Trump would win the general election with 97 to 99% likelihood back in February 2016. http://fortune.com/2016/02/26/stony-brook-professor-trump/

Yes, I also will defend Silver here, although I do agree that his analysis would have been helped with a little right-of-center input from time to time. His pearl-clutching rants against Trump on some of his podcasts were embarrassing. Nonethless, he looked at Trump's chances pretty realistically, unlike the warm liberal cocoon of the NYT's Upshot, for instance.

He looked at Trump's chances realistically after Trump had locked up the GOP nomination. Prior to the primaries he was saying it couldn't happen (a judgment which was not realistic).

And he admitted he was wrong and needed to focus more on his models and less on his gut and emotion.

+1

Silver isn't any more inherently insightful than any number of other pundits when he's just talking about what he thinks. Where he adds value is where he has built and tested a model and is giving you actual numbers.

I would also suggest those who put a lot of faith in betting/prediction markets (cough... Robin Hanson... cough) go down in status as well.

Markets can only incorporate available information. Prediction markets did better than just the polls and expert consensus. 538 did better than both.

The polls were systematically wrong, the possibility of which is Silver's big insight. That increases the underdog's odds, because if one poll is wrong, there's a chance that they could all be wrong in the same way. And so 538 was getting slightly higher odds to Trump as we approached election day. The markets were telling us that Trump had a shot, but not as much as Silver was.

Remember how when the financial meltdown occurred, lots of formerly-small correlations between asset prices went to 1? I wonder if there is some similar thing going on with polls--if there is a systemic bias not accounted for by the pollsters (shy trump voters, different leverls of response for trump/non-trump voters, flawed model of who will actually vote), then the error in poll #1 and poll #2 may not be independent, and may even have a correlation close to 1.

The correlation factor was the likely voter screens. They were off, at least on the Democratic side. Plenty of people who voted Obama in 2008 and 2012 did not show up at the polls this time.

"Prediction markets did better than just the polls and expert consensus."

Pardon me? No they didn't; they did worse. Polls were at least saying it was close. Depending on when you measure, prediction markets were something like 5:1 or 3:1 against Trump winning. That's a bad miss.

https://www.thestreet.com/story/13883932/1/prediction-markets-point-to-likely-hillary-clinton-victory.html

Sorry, you are wrong. No poll, ever, all year, showed Trump with a lead in WI or MI. So if you simply looked at the polls, without adding any other insight, you would have been very wrong in your predictions. Almost no experts/pundits/public intellectuals were saying Trump would win, less than 5% is my scientific guess.

538 was at about 35%. Markets were around 20-30% at the end, which I place between polls/experts and 538. If you want to say that the experts and pundits were arguing that Trump had better than a 1/3 chance, please send the evidence. A lot of the articles I read in the last few days were arguing over why Silver was wrong and gave Trump too much of a chance. See Matt Yglesias's Vox article, the Huffpo twitter war, Nassim Taleb, and others.

The markets were ultimately weighing the available information - polls, 538, NYT (15% chance for Trump) and other prediction models (all which had lower odds for Trump). The fact that the market shaded towards Silver, who was the outlier, actually raises the status of the prediction markets.

Some other political science models did well beyond just Ray Fair, apparently (just based on reading tweets, need to dive into that more). The less human interaction there was in the prediction system, the better it was, seemingly.

Polls were roughly tied nationally with maybe a slight Clinton lead. And since the Democrats waste a lot of votes piling on in California, you had to think the electoral college would be close.

I'm not here to defend polls, which were pretty clearly about 5% anti-Trump biased. But that they didn't get MI or WI right is not a powerful critique.

I'm just saying they were less wrong than prediction markets, which said Trump had no chance.

Polls were Clinton > +3%. That's at least as bad as the NYTimes and worse than prediction markets

Go look for yourself instead of listening to MSNBC:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/

One of SIlver's complaints in the last days of the election was that there had been very few quality polls done in MI or WI. So the 538 numbers for those states were based on old polls and a smattering of dubious polls with known issues. In the last three days or so a couple of poll did show MI at least tightening dramatically.

How about Fall - the Clintons. Good Riddance.

After the Comey Clinton Skates speech I said to everyone who would listen that it would not stand.

It didn't.

+1 Comey. He no longer has to fear finding a horse head in his bed. The second time must have been a bit tiresome.

It's an interesting result. Merkel's days are likely to be numbered too. Brexit and the UK fallout from that has made me realise how much in the tank media, business and government elites are for unlimited immigration. So much so they would rather disenfranchise their fellow citizens than accept limits.

Anyway I sincerely hope Trump does a good job.

Alternative for Germany is doing well in surveys. Alas, not well enough to knock out the German establishment (who are united in their disdain for the German people).

"Anyway I sincerely hope Trump does a good job."

+319,000,000

Down: neoliberalism. Now if we can only add neoconservatism to the scrap heap.

Both 'neoliberalism' and 'neoconservatism' are contentless epithets. The former is favored by red haze nincompoops and the latter by a mix of red haze nincompoops and anti-semites.

Completely agree. Guy is a clueless blowhard that tries to sound intelligent and contrary but fails.

Here is Art's pope:

http://novusordowatch.org/2014/05/francis-hides-cross-from-jewish-rabbis/

Art is a closet cuckservative, actually not clear why he'd be happy with this election.

How is contentless? Neoconservatives themselves will explain it to you: https://g.co/kgs/eH91ac

"Neoconservative" became an epithet because self-described neoconservatives have f**ked up the world BIGLY

What will this do for Bitcoin? I hadn't realized until this morning that the "Make Mexico pay for the wall" thing means taxing immigrants' remittances. Seems like an international, untraceable currency might benefit from that.

Also - I second everyone else about prediction markets.

I don't understand how prediction markets failed here. They gave Trump a non trivial chance of winning, right? 25 percent if i recall correctly.

I thought they had the odds going much lower than that by Monday. But others should confirm; I may not know the best sites.

Monday he was at 17 percent

http://web.archive.org/web/20161107053743/https://electionbettingodds.com/

How many illegal immigrants have sweet computer setups for appropriately handling an encrypted currency? How many Mexicans living in Mexico who have relatives that went to America to work picking vegetables in a field?

They have cell phones?

To spend bitcoins, you need just a little bit of computing power. A modern cell phone is more than enough.

To receive bitcoins, you need even less.

To maintain the system and mine bitcoins you need a lot of power, but the average user doesn't need them at all.

Really? I'll admit to not ever using Bitcoin, but doesn't everyone get their bitcoins stolen because they don't keep them in the right encrypted wallet or whatever? You really think vegetable pickers are going to look up and download the appropriate wallet and figure out how to use it etc.? I hope there are Spanish instructions?

It's fine that you don't know how bitcoin works, but then don't opine on it.

The coins are stored on the public blockchain. Ownership is transferred via cryptographic operations. The keys are managed by the users, or by agents appointed by the users (public wallets like MtGx, coinbase, circle, square, I wish I were kidding about those last two). You need to keep your key secure if you manage it yourself, which means on a device (cellphone, tablet, computer) without any malware.

There are apps for bitcoin on every phone app market. It's easier than paypal.

Bitcoin spiked from 705 or so to 739 as the election unfolded, down to about 723 now

http://bitcointicker.co/

With the decline in traditional media and need for explanations, I have to imagine that Scott Alexander will continue to climb in mainstream acceptance.

I hope so. He deserves it

Well, you do get down to what are the bare essentials (for you if no one else).

Put prediction markets on the falls list. Missed Brexit, strike one. Missed trump, strike two. No more strikes for me. Apparently nothing of consequence as millions of people casting votes can be predicted accurately by bets.

Tyler and Alex: Could. we have a discussion about prediction markets, and how they can go wrong? This election might inform the discussion, but there are other examples of failures.

One obvious srce of error is if a lt of people place bts on a prediction market based on their identity or loyalty to their team. You could have the betting market odds determined by lots of small bets made for emotional reasons, with those swamping the smaller number of bets made based on real understanding. I bet professional gambling on sports gets a lot of this kind of betting--perhaps they'd get much less accurate predictions by going with odds set by the market, especially when its New York vs Columbus.

Another issue comes up if the state of the art in predicting something simply isn't all that advanced. Maybe the best anyone knows how to do for predicting elections is some kind of smart poll aggregation a la 538, and so there's nobody who reliably has better predictions.

Still other issues come up--for small-bet prediction markets, a wealthy person using sock puppets can skew the results to influence public opinion. For bigger prediction markets, it seems like the prediction could be skewed by hedging. And so on.

I think it's far more likely that interested parties are placing large bets in order to influence public opinion/ perceptions.

So what we could see is a yo yo effect wherein big bets make prediction markets less predictive and hence fewer people pay attention to them at which point interested parties stop making bets to move the markets and the prediction markets become more predictive.

Rise- Mike Pence

Fall: some big names in Mexican business.

For Brexit, most of large companies hedged against GBPEUR or GBPUSD fluctuations. Right now in Mexico is casualty count time because lots of big names in business forgot to hedge against USDMXN changes.

As Taleb said, an event with a 50/50 chance of occurence is NOT a black swan. So, everyone trying to describe the event as a black swan is falling even more.

Also rises, Paul Krugman
Trump will provide endless opportunities for his columns slamming him

No, it provides Robin Wells endless opportunities for slamming him. Problem: she cost PK his audience 15 years ago and they just run up the score with people who already agree with them.

Yeah, Krugman is a brilliant guy that has wasted himself on that column. I'll never understand it.

Rise: Breitbart? Milo Yiannopolis (sic?) and other alt-right media? The Hillbilly Elegy guy will be making a mint Voxplaining the motivations of white working class people to Democratic Party strategists, so him, too. And whoever the guy on Twitter was who described last night as Night of The Long Faces.

Re: Rise: Breitbart? Milo Yiannopolis (sic?) and other alt-right media?

No, because none of their tin-foil hat theories came true: Trump won the election, there were no dirty tricks rigging the vote.

Celebrities, whose name recognition is now apparently enough to make the jump into politics without having to go through the rigamarole of having to govern things first.

Campaign staff, the fee sucking, complex modeling, market clobbered hedge funds of politics.

To some degree: celebrities with the skills to build and maintain a business of some size. Not many of those among the on-air talent. (Wayne Rogers, Joan Rivers, and Bob Hope were all successful in business but did not employ that many people IIRC).

Yes, this seems like a big one. Trump won with a fraction of the professional election consultants that everyone assumed was necessary, and against Clinton with a huge , professional operation. Election consultants and all the other profssionals who promise to help get you elected in exchange for money have just lost substantially in status.

The ground-level GOTV effort is also cast in doubt now.

At least his professional pollster will probably get paid, now.

Rise: Theresa May

Putin is happy, but don't be short sighted, if President Trump implements the policies proposed by Candidate Trump he will do liberal democracy a favor because he will fail fantastically.

Hugo Chavez was once a populist hero folks, I'm not expecting Trump to drag America to the current state of Venezuela but I doubt he will make it Great Again... better than it is today, I bet he do more harm than good but because USA will still be a democracy, things will work out better than most of us expect... trial and error still is a way to learn guys.

he will do liberal democracy a favor because he will fail fantastically.

He'll put plans for a large construction project in front of Congress and he'll take a more antagonistic stance in trade negotiations. How does he 'fail' in an obvious way that costs him, and how does he fail with the 1st task unless the Chamber of Commerce persuades the Republican caucus to torpedo it? And, if that's the case, is it his failure or their failure?

What large construction project? The wall? Is the wall going ahead? OMG!

"What large construction project? The wall? Is the wall going ahead? OMG!"

That just sounds like someone who lives in a bubble.

What about how Scott Adams just got lucky? Here he is in 2011 predicting that Herman Cain would be the Republican nominee: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/102892888781/cains-inexplicably-high-polling. Seems like he just picked a guy nobody was talking about and if they happened to win, he'd get credit for being great at forecasting this sort of thing.

Without lots of help from Assange, Putin, Comey, then Adams would have been dead wrong.

You left Clinton and the DNC off of your list of people that Adams should thank.

The hacked election myth starts to take shape. Shady foreigners, Russians! and the FBI...

Also an assist from Hillary Clinton herself, who (to paraphrase Margaret Thatcher about an opponent of hers) ran around the country stirring up apathy, at least among her expected voters.

I believed Adam's "persuasion" theory until the second debate. Persuasive, not to me. Scott Adams was right for the wrong reasons, just as Silver was wrong but for better reasons.

Missing from Rise: Reince Preibus, Mike Pence, the CNN pro-Trumpers.

Fall: All the Never Trumpers. John Kasich (had a speech scheduled at AIE for Thursday. Think he's rewriting, or canceling.)

ER,

Big Time Fall

The Bushes

"Fall: All the Never Trumpers"

Biggest fall of them all, aside from Hillary, maybe.

On preference falsification, Timur Kuran ? Rise?

Also don't see Mickey Kaus or Michael Goodwin, two Dems who supported Trump.

Conspicuously missing from Cowen's Rise list: the bulk of the people who voted for Trump. That's a problem, since their expectations are high after Trump made promises that he can't keep, leaving his supporters disappointed and disillusioned. Who will they blame? Not likely Trump (for to do so would be an admission of their gullibility) but those people - blacks, immigrants, Muslims, and, yes, women. Trump has backed himself in a corner with no way out, other than a collapse of both our system of government and the economy.

They will blame congress since Paul Ryan is unlikely to back the much of the Trump agenda and the: Democrats in the senate. will filibuster what passes the House. What will callapse is the Republican Party as it has been since WWII..

"What will callapse is the Republican Party as it has been since WWII.."

Wasn't that what the Left was claiming last week as they confidently expected a landslide for Hillary. And now with Trump winning we see exactly the same prediction. It seems like this prediction doesn't change no matter what events transpire. Is that a prediction or just an article of Faith?

The Democrats will oppose Trump on immigration, but on trade there are votes to be had there. Which brings up the question as to whether Ryan will allow Trump's trade wish list to move forward if it can only be passed with Democratic votes while a large number of GOPers are opposed due to corporate donor pressure.

President Obama used Executive Orders to significantly affect immigration. President Trump can and will do the same.

The GOP will (probably) give Trump his way on immigration, assuming it isn't something radical. It's on trade he;'ll have some problems from his side.

I think a lot of people in swing states made this election about the supreme court (my old network in Cincinnati, Ohio views it this way). So I think you should add among your status winners:

* gun owners / advocates
* fetuses and embryos

Fall: Robert Stacy McCain, who said the Billy Bush tape cost Trump the election and if you disputed that you were disputing 'facts'.

You left out the biggest winners of all-- Assange, Putin, Comey and the mainstream-- that is, Right Wing-- media, such as "America's most trusted news source."

I doubt Assange will get any better teatment under Trump than under Clinton.

Certainly Fox News was a winner and MSNBC a loser for the short term.

Let's all be Americans again.

No more "North American Union." No more "open borders" and dreams of "world government." Our country is in bad shape. Let's work together to make it better.

I thought Trump's acceptance speech was a model of statesmanship. This thing is over, so if any of you on the other side can put aside your axe and realize that the future does *not* mean "94+ million people out of work," then put your hand on the plow.

And let's get moving.

Make America Great Again?

Fall in Line?

Get with the Program?

Can we find a few more mindless slogans to regurgitate?

There is one slogan I propose for the end of every contentious election: "The people have spoken--the bastards."

However much you like or dislike Trump, he won the election and is going to be the president, with Republican majorities in both houses of Congress. I hope he turns out to be a much better president than I expect, because he can't fail without the country failing.

As I said in a previous thread, I have no problem with obstructionism as a political tool. The R's used it well all the way through the Obama administration. You want to get what you want as a minority, you throw a wrench in the works and force your opponents to negotiate.
Nobody has a moral obligation to fall in line.

Interesting that you think it's "mindless" for someone to extend a hand across the aisle. Look, we control the House and Senate. Your agenda is a complete non-starter, and we're going to undo a lot of the damage you've inflicted on this country. But I'll give you this: those who lined their pockets criticizing every possible dimension of American life are certainly sensitive to injustice. You can contribute useful information about those injustices, and your desire to correct them indicates that we all agree when it comes to the goal. We're going to approach those problems differently now, and I'm hopeful that we'll be more effective. But I'm against the myopia and complacency of one-party rule. As an American, you have a place at the table.

Just don't crap on it.

Thanks.

What do you think my agenda is? I'm a libertarian. I'm anti-Obamacare and pro-immigration.
I have zero illusions about politics anymore. You use every weapon in your aresenal to get what you want. I'm going to use every weapon in my arsenal to oppose what Trump wants to do on immigration and trade, and I'll support repealing Obamacare, and anything else he might be aligned with me on. There is no moral obligation to "work together". You want me to work with you? Give me something I care about in exchange. Don't expect me to go along with you because we should all hold hands and sing songs together. And BTW, I said the same thing when Obama was elected.

We're not going to "work with you" because we don't need you

@Sir Barken:
We have ways of making you need us to go along with you.

You mean like repubs did over the last 8 years? *roll eyes*

The Clintons have gone past their sell-by date, as the Adams, Roosevelts, Kennedys and Bushes did. Dynasties aren't compatible with even the phony democracy of America. While the Progressives were overjoyed to successfully engineer Trump into the nomination, they erred in believing that the unattractive, unhealthy, unpleasant Mrs. Bill Clinton would appeal to an electorate that had moved on from the 90s.

I understand that Trump won the election, but the popular vote doesn't seem to be in yet. The reason I mention this is that I prefer precision in language, and so you shouldn't claim to represent the majority of the people until you do, and if it turns out that you don't, then don't say you do.

Yes. Lets see if Clinton won the popular vote.

Fall: All the celebrities who vowed to GET OUT of the U.S. if The Donald was elected!

Amy (unfunny) Schumer, Lena Dunham, Barbara Streisand, Bryan Cranston, Miley Cyrus, Jon Stewart, Cher, Chelsea Handler, Samuel L. Jackson, Whoopi Goldberg, Neve Campbell, Keegan-Michael Key, George Lopez, Ne-Yo, Rev. Al Sharpton, Raven-Symoné - PLEASE make good on your promise and leave. This "Basket of Deplorables" does not want you here!

Where's the GoFundMe site for making this happen?

They're celebrities....they don't need "funding" for this to happen.

"Fall: All the celebrities who vowed to GET OUT of the U.S. if The Donald was elected!"

George Stephanopoulos' and his wife.

Samuel L Jackson is ok. He can stay.

Rise

Allan Lichtman
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/28/professor-whos-predicted-30-years-of-presidential-elections-correctly-is-doubling-down-on-a-trump-win/

Agree with Tyler for a no for pollsters, but up vote for Nate Silver?

As Allan Lichtman said, Nate's just a clerk.

Anyway, Allan Lichtman was spot on. If only everyone listened, could have gotten the early lament and partying out of the way. For many, it was hard to focus today.

Fall: climate change alarmists, pretty much most of the media

Meh. That wasn't a big issue in this election. You had one candidate in the tank for Saudi Arabia, and the other at least somewhat sympathetic to domestic producers. You were going to see more oil friendly policies either way.

Silver's job isn't to read the polls as best he can, it's to predict the fucking Election. I don't care how he does it since there are civilians on youtube that have predicted the result by inches. Silver was hurt in his assessment by him obviously choosing sides. And he never throughout the process corect for bias.

"Silver’s job isn’t to read the polls as best he can, it’s to predict the fucking Election."

No, it isn't, it is to give odds on the outcome of the election. A lot liberals were criticizing him for giving Trump a non-negligible chance of victory and his defense turned out to be exactly right.

Rise: Charles Murray. I suspect "Coming Apart" will be important for understanding what just happened.

Yes, a war between Murrayites and Putnamites will be the next political, ideologial and academic battles.

Looking forward to that actually.

No one on your "Fall" list had any status to begin with.

Only one thing has changed today: Now you know.

But don't worry, you'll be back in your bubble tomorrow. Possibly lunchtime today.

Rise: Smug know-it-all Trump supporters who make a career of criticizing liberals for being smug

Fall: The angry Left who make a career of criticizing conservatives for being parochial bigots.

Fall: Rachel Maddow

'The sombre host told MSNBC viewers, as Mr Trump edged towards victory: “You’re awake by the way.

“You’re not having a terrible, terrible dream. Also you’re not dead and you haven’t gone to hell.

This is your life now, this is our election now, this is us, this is our country – it’s real."'

Rachel Maddow used to look like this:

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=rachel+maddow+images&view=detailv2&&id=705E5354EDF1F72596D0AA961EBAE15C82A2E2B9&selectedIndex=0&ccid=Va%2bwuiUx&simid=608035532022353033&thid=OIP.M55afb0ba2531c7c230dd5e7c7c3c5bd8H1&ajaxhist=0

For her parents and her high school bf, what came next was the real nightmare.

Stay classy, Art. I would ask you how you'd feel if someone talked like that about your daughter but then I remembered you don't have any children.

This is by the way a perfect example of the problem with Trump as president, the normalization of coarseness and general assholery. We're supposed to be better than that. To go from a classy guy like Obama to Trump is sickening. It's a god damn shame.

I agree. President Obama turned out to have a surprising amount of personal charm, and abundant self-control. It was relaxing to watch him on TV, more so than a lot of the professional TV talkers, actually.

Fall:
The Libertarian Party.
Gary Johnson.

Couldn't even get 5% of the vote in an election year when both major party candidates were hated by the majority of Americans.

+1

Though I'm coming around to the view that the system is rigged in the sense that there are large rewards to scale.

The system is rigged in the sense that the duopoly of the D's and R's have an iron grip on the political process. It's largely the fault of the electoral college winner-take-all system. Third parties consistently throw the results to minority plurality winners, which is a strong disincentive for anyone to stray from voting for the duopoly.

A decent budget for interview prep and a daily foreign policy briefing from a qualified staff would have prevented the whole Aleppo debacle.

Which is a chicken and egg problem. If you're not seen as viable, you aren't going to get major financial backing.

Yes but realistically what would that have bought him, maybe an extra % point? If you asked the average voter why they didn't go with him, I doubt "he couldn't answer a question about Aleppo" ranks very high.

Fair point, but it didn't help.

I heard a lot about the Aleppo gaffe in mainstream news.

A cynic might suggest you heard about it because the media figured out he was more injurious to HRC than Trump.

Yes MSM goofballs seized on it in an attempt to discredit him. It was a big joke.

What's the old line from Good Will Hunting? You paid $40,000 for your degree I got the same knowledge for a buck fifty in late fees and some time, or something. It's probably even easier when google aggregates global newspapers every day and one can scan the summaries in as much time as it would take to read the daily briefing.

I suspect that Weld's multiple pro-Clinton rhetoric undermined Gary Johnson's campaign.

It did for me.

Johnson run: It wasn't like it had no significance. It did. It was Ralph Nader all over again, as Gary Johnson siphoned votes pretty much from Clinton, as most Johnson voters were Sanders supporters who could not stomach Clinton.

That's almost certainly untrue. I voted for Gary Johnson, because I didn't particularly like either Clinton or Trump. But if I had to choose I would have voted for Trump. It's likely that Johnson drew votes from all over the spectrum. Both Clinton and Trump were poor candidates.

Predicting the result of a US presidential election is a 50-50 bet, like a football game. Big deal. Prognosticators with cajones put their money down on trifecta bets on horse races with 8 entrants for instance, which could have 336 possible permutations. Some handicappers will win this bet on practically every race.

Chris Christie
Rudy Giuliani

heh. This still holds up.

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/trump-top-poll-most-halloween-mask-sales-n672451

confounding issue with this - Hillary lost sales due to the creepy clown scare.

Has anyone said Nassim Nicholas Taleb yet? He certainly seems like a "rise" for his Black Swan concept and critiques of what he calls the "intellectual yet idiot" class (journalists, pundits, economists, social scientists)

Since Taleb was babbling eight years ago that deposits-and-loans banks had no future except as cash machines and that the economic implosion would be worse than Nouriel Roubini was predicting (it was 1/2 as severe as Roubini was predicting), he'd have nowhere to go but up (among the marks who bother to pay attention to him).

As much as I am concerned about a Trump presidency, it's nice to see all of these intellectual elites discredited.

+1

I have many qualms about what Trump will do in office, but It is certainly worthwhile to see a bunch of overpromoted elites getting clobbered.

Thiel and Silver are gay. Yet they gain on a Republican win. Times change.

Fall:

Kate McKinnon (lesbian).

Rise:

Alec Baldwin?

I'll wager you Foster Gunnison was a Republican. The parties did not differ on the subject of homosexuality in 1968 and as late as 1986 Democratic pols found the gay lobby an embarrassment.

We used to be more astute than we are now, and that's true across the board.

I think you explicitly state all Legal Immigrants. He rallied against Somalians In Minnesota a couple days before the election.

I have to disagree that economists "fall" with the Trump presidency. Seriously were the economists 'happy' with the Obama and Democrat economy? All the significant economic pointers except the stock market were pointing the wrong way. And the stock market was/is being actively supported by massive borrowing and printing of money by the federal government. That should scare the shit out of an honest and intelligent economist. IMHO any economist who believes their profession was elevated by agreeing with and encouraging the massive borrowing and printing of money under Obama should seriously consider changing careers.

But Trump has promised to deliver so much free stuff the deficits will far eclipse those of Obama.

Except Republicans will never act on his promises and my guess is the gridlock leads to recession and tanking economy just like Reagan and GW.

Yeah, yeah, Carter caused the 87 housing crash and bank failures that led to no jobs created for the 4 years of HW and Clinton caused the rerun of 87 two decades later. Two Bushes, two TARPs.

But I'm guessing Republicans will cut taxes in short order triggering a recession just like in 81 and 01.

Think big like a real American, mulp! This crash is gonna be YUUUGE! Think 1929-that's the bar!

Seriously. Globalization means the contagion has spread to every major economy. There is no escape. :/

Why doesn't Tyler mention the obvious risers ie. the WWC and religious people?

While there's no shortage of people claiming Trump as their own this morning, I think it's far from obvious that any particular one is a "Rise." One thing that Trump has consistently shown is that he doesn't like being told what to do, and all of these people are going to be pushing him to promote their agendas.

My personal "Fall" prediction is the social progressives. I predict a spate of birth gender legislation soon, and an attempt by Congress to get around the same-sex marriage SC ruling.

"...and an attempt by Congress to get around the same-sex marriage SC ruling."

There might be a pro forma attempt, but I doubt it's serious. There's not that much of a push from the Right to change the ruling. It's an emotional issue, but not a bread and butter issue.

Yeah, if that happens, it will happen because Trump will nominate Republicans to the SC, and eventually, there may be enough Republican SC justices to reverse the nationwide gay marriage decision.

The biggest immediate loser is probably SJW activism, particularly of the hound-someone-from-their-job form. That depends on the perception that everyone supports the ideas of the activists, and this election has made it very clear that a lot of people do not.

I don't think an attempt to limit same-sex marriage depends on conservative SC justices. Abortion opponents have been devising inventive ways around Roe v. Wade for decades. Remember, although Trump has upset the status quo for the getting elected President, getting elected to Congress is largely the same: be extreme enough to win your primary, then coast on your gerrymandered district. So there's a pile of Congresspeople waiting to show their primary voters what they can accomplish without a Democrat president to veto their legislation.

I wouldn't count on this. In my experience, they're most hate-filled in blue bubble enclaves in red states. In places where they feel more dominant, they can be fairly civil.

It’s an emotional issue, but not a bread and butter issue.

When it's something the Anointed want, it's "a matter of principle". When it's something ordinary people want, its "an emotional issue".

For the time being SSM is safe. Whoever Trump appoints to the empty seat simply replaces Scalia-- and Oberfell was decided with Scalia on the Court.

The Religious Right helped give Trump the win-- but they took a serious fall when North Carolina dumped Pat McCrory.

Fall: Saul Alinsky

No. The alt right used his playbook. Make fun of the opposition, use their standards against them, keep it fresh, let negatives break through to being positives.

Because it works.

Talk about cisheteropatriarchal privilege... I see that Tyler's list is all men! How about:

Ann Coulter
Laura Ingraham
Michelle Malkin

Fall. The people who said the growing income inequality did not matter.

Maybe. Though it's a darn strange manifestation of that. It needs to be paired with people coming to believe the left really wasn't interested or capable of helping the poor. Which strikes me as going a bit far - I don't think most people believe that yet.

For the most part the poor are not the trump supporters. The inequality that produced Trump voters, is the fall in the ratio of the median income to the top 1% , that is the rich are getting richer and they are not. The welfare programs that help the poor and not them just makes ithem feel worsej

Most people who worried about income inequality weren't worried about us electing a center-right guy who might make our immigration system more like Canada's. They were worried about us electing a Bernie Sanders -like guy.

I think a lot of people don't believe that Hillary Clinton much cared about the poor outside of the votes that she could obtain by claiming to care about the poor..

I'm not aware of many politicians who one could demonstrate take an interest in the welfare of the impecunious. Rudy Giuliani perhaps, Mike Huckabee perhaps, Jimmy Carter perhaps. Democratic pols take an interest in people employed in education and social services, for whom the impecunious are clientele. The poor themselves are just a vote farm.

LA,

The left traded workers for identity politics years ago. See "The Republicans and Democrats failed blue-collar America. The left behind are now having their say" (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/06/republicans-and-democrats-fail-blue-collar-america). Note the location (the reliably left-wing Guardian). Note that author (Thomas Frank of "What is Wrong With Kansas" fame).

The serious left (Sanders, Corbyn) is still very concerned with workers. Note that the serious left is trying (with some success) to raise the minimum wage (which I strongly support). However, the dominant cosmopolitan elite liberal/left traded identity politics for workers, a long, long time age. The dominant cosmopolitan elite liberal/left is utterly willing to support trade, immigration, and Wall Street policies that devastate the middle-class while enriching the "Martha's Vineyard" class. They gambled that racial / sexual identity politics would produce more than enough votes to enable the destruction of the middle-class. Until Tuesday, they were right.

I only said that this view (the left is exploiting the poor) is still uncommon. I didn't offer an opinion on its correctness.

There is truth in this view but on the minimum wage, Medicaid expansion, and support for state universities, it is more than just Sanders and his ideological allies who can claim to be on the side of low-income to middle-class people.

Note also that minimum wage ballot issues did fairly well this election.

Rise (I hope): young woman pundit on PBS last night, don't know her name, young African-American woman - suggesting this will offer an opportunity to check imperial presidency, as GOP blocks Trump policy moves (if he actually makes any). Way to find the silver lining, girl!

You got that right!

I wonder when Trump will be hosting Saturday Night Live.

Comay.

Singlehandedly swung an election .

Once again, a branch of government determined the election.
Some votes are more equal than others.

Very seriously - women get big a rise in status today.

A lot of them rejected Hillary. They did not fall for the line that it is imperative that a woman be elected, even if that woman is a career felon with zero accomplishments and brain trauma.

There will be a woman US President soon. And now, the first one can be someone we don't all have to be deeply ashamed of.

That is a very good thing. Well done, ladies.

Ugh, but +1.

Women didn't fall in line and vote identity politics in the way many people had banked on.

http://starecat.com/content/wp-content/uploads/dont-try-to-understand-women-understand-each-other-and-they-hate-each-other-al-bundy.jpg

I don't think a woman will be nominated before 2040 for either Democrat or Republican, and she will only have 60% odds.

No woman will get to run as the outsider like Obama and Trump, but will need two decades. No woman in office today qualifies.

I'm not sure that there is a good argument for women 'rise'. The guy says what he says about women and it's pretty despicable on all counts. The cognitive dissonance among these women voters is pretty appalling.

I'd say the biggest fall here is the office of the presidency. No decorum or basic respect from the highest office.

Agreed that presidential respectability and decorum has fallen dramatically in status.

Look, we have our own Berlusconi now. He wasn't the end of the world in Italy. It'll be fine.

Continued falling. It clearly took a hit back in Bill Clinton's term.

Come on, man, Trump is a different level altogether. Clinton at least comported himself like a normal statesman in public. The optimistic case is Trump will tone it down now that he got what he was after.

"Come on, man, Trump is a different level altogether."

Agreed. Until Trump is banging the intern in the Oval Office, he hasn't reached Clinton's lows.

Voted for Her. Why I didn't reject her:

1) At this point in her life she seemed like a fairly well-behaved woman who was unlikely to make history.
2) I kept seeing shots of Nazi slogans/iconography at his rallies. So it felt like a vicarious chance to put oneself back in 1932 and not vote for the embarrassing buffoon just because you felt pessimistic. This is the purest narcissism, I realize, but what is voting at the individual level but an exercise in narcissism?
3) I'm a single issue voter, that issue environmental conservation. Immigration is central existential threat but I didn't trust DT on it. From a public land standpoint, Clinton offered best chance at another distinguished Interior Secretary like Bruce Babbitt.
4) Perhaps shallow reason, but we do have to look at these people a lot: I'm very impressed with how she's improved her looks since she was a younger woman. She may not suit y'all, but her hair, makeup, clothes - all so much better since she was First Lady. I don't know if you understand how hard that is. Meanwhile, how can a hotel baron like Trump, with a style maven daughter, turn out in such ill-fitting suits? What is under there?

The loose talk about women played no part in it, except insofar as it made him seem like a man without much conversation.

Evan Soltas falls as Michigan goes to Trump.

Tyler, Timur Kuran aside, the rise category seems to be missing the following names: Camille Paglia (weren't her perscipacious pieces in Salon de facto prophecies of a Trump win?), Roberto Mangabeira Unger (Thiel's rival for the soon-to-be-created Department of Strategic Affairs?), David P. Goldman a.k.a. Spengler (aren't some of the Asia Times pieces testimony to his having a good grip on the Zeitgeist?), Slavoj Zizek (did't his 11th-hour endorsement allow hipsters and most of academia to vote for Trump in droves? then again, he may have fallen in status because Melania has now become the most influential Slovenian).

Also, while economists as a whole might fall, econometricians should rise since they outperformed both the polls and the markets:

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/275084-models-predict-gop-white-house-even-with-trump

And The Simpsons, since they predicted this years ago.

I expect the notion of the press as being called to actually challenge the powers that be, instead of cheerleading for them, will gain in status. And that strikes me as a very good thing.

This happens every time an R gets into office and resets when a D does.

Exactly right. For the first time in 8 years, the press will start doing its job, and challenge the notion of imperial presidency.

And hey, there will be a anti-war movement again! Time to dust of those cliched slogans and pretend to care about Syrians.

Some of this is just the charisma of a politician, but some of it is also just internalized cheerleading:

https://twitter.com/hale_razor/status/772957134401089536/photo/1

Is it that there's no antiwar movement under Democrats, or that the antiwar movement gets no press coverage under Democrats? Both are possible.

The US anti-war movement completely vanished as of January 2009. No more people holding signs in downtown Boston, and no more endless reposts on Facebook. Obama has bombed seven countries (so far) this year -- and not a peep.

I am actually happy for these people now. They will get an email next Jan 21 saying "DID YOU KNOW THAT THE US IS AT WAR IN YEMEN???" and it will put a big spring into their step, knowing that they are suddenly useful again.

It makes sense if you realize that anti-war movements are chock-a-block with people motivated to make noise and display their tail feathers, full stop. BO is a manifestation of everything this sort of bourgeois is and identifies with, and that generates enough internal dissonance to shut the whole exercise down. The protesters had a different target ("the 1%") which made no reference to BO.

Fall: Rosie O'Donnell

LOL. Actually you gotta have some sympathy for that poor woman. She's having the worst day of all of us.

On your Fall list, I would add Washington DC. Whether you are a Democrat or Republican you should be worried about the bubble that is DC:
Washington, D.C. (3) 100.0% reporting
VOTES PCT
Clinton (D) 260,223 92.8%
Trump (R) 11,553 ​ ​4.1 %

DC amounts to about 14% of the metropolitan settlement. You have neighborhoods in most cities of any size where the Democratic Party will roll up a margin near to that. DC's quite affluent, and a margin of that size is unusual, but I'll wager you that there's a complex of neighborhoods in Manhattan with that kind of margin: the Village, Chelsea, the Upper West Side, and points in-between. BO won Manhattan and the Bronx by a margin of 87% to 12% in 2012.

True, common across many urban settings. But, DC is the Capital?

Greater Washington has very little manufacturing. About 20% of employed persons in the commuter belt work for the federal government. Otherwise, it's a generic American city, just with a more agreeable climate, more affluence, more foreigners milling about, higher real estate prices, and worse traffic. Another oddity: higher education is strongly biased in favor of research universities, of which there are seven, with a census ranging from 7,000 to 39,000). Only a few teaching institutions, and these might have 15,000 enrollment in sum.

Rise

Julian Assange
Edward Snowden
Dotcom

A Trump government might not prioritize extraditing them . No?

Patronage, right?

Fall: those who say that a large percentage of males are brutes.

Nah, that's a Rise position, since it seems that a good chunk of men don't care about genteel or polite politial or social norms (or at least didn't sanction their vote on the basis of a man violating them).

That's the definition of brute.

If the Brutes don't care that the Effeminates are calling them Brutes anymore, then it's a Fall for the Effeminates.

Exactly, you articulated it better than I would have.

Maybe a fall in that sense but not a fall for those who hold that position in terms of being right.

Being right doesn't matter much though, I suppose.

Also, I know grand worldviews tend to have only binaries but people can be more than a brute or a effiminate.

"Maybe a fall in that sense but not a fall for those who hold that position in terms of being right."

Wouldn't both sides consider their point of view as being right?

Fall: Democracy.

Fall: Feminism.

Rise: The alt-right (though that supposes there is a "right" to be alternative to... I am reminded of alternative rock just becoming "rock").

Democracy, really? I think this restored a lot of faith in democracy, unless you're a nutter that believes democracy means things always go your way (better known as totalitarianism).

Feminism isn't going anywhere. It didn't after women achieved equality, and it sure as hell isn't going anywhere now that it has a more tangible boogeyman.

Yea Democracy.

Think about what you're saying. How would Democracy fall in your view? If our math skills got so bad we lost the ability to properly count votes? If your only standard for saying Democracy works is the guy who wins the election takes office then it's always going to work (by definition a coup would cease to be a democracy).

But saying Democracy works means the policies and people that should win do win. That hasn't happened here. Is it fatal? Might things still work out? Sure that could happen. If instead of paying the mortgage your wife took the money and went to the casino its quite possible she might win and your family incurs no financial damage. But that's not what should happen and in many universes doing that results in disaster. Will this produce disaster? Odds are it will, but we may luck out. Lucking out, though, is not vindication.

I guess since you have a time machine and access to parallel universes, and an unflinching moral code, you can say with certainty that "the policies and people that should win do win. That hasn’t happened here."

Cool. You really understand democracy better than me. I'd retardedly say that whenever democratic socialism fails, it was the socialist and not the democratic part that failed. No?

I guess I can prove monarchy works. Monarchy says when the king/queen dies their kid takes over. Did the kid take over? Yes, then monarchy worked. Did someone else cease power? Well then it's not monarchy anymore.

But when people say monarchy doesn't work, they don't usually mean monarchs sometimes die without heirs, they mean it does not generate the optimal set of policies. Do they say this because they have access to time machines or are capable of sampling parallel universes from the multi-verse?

"I’d retardedly say that whenever democratic socialism fails, it was the socialist and not the democratic part that failed. No?"

I'll let you know if we ever have an election about that.

Ah! You want to play THAT game! A monarchy and democracy have different strengths and weaknesses. You want stability and decisiveness? A monarchy works best, 9 times out of 10. You want liberty and debate? A democracy is more effective! You want effective policy? Try a philosopher king or an educated republic. Your underpants don't fail just because you put them on your head, it was you who failed.

Again, how's that time machine working out for you? You are so certain that the public chose poorly, what does 2020 look like with Killary instead of Trumpster? And why haven't you killed Hitler yet???

These are just assumptions. No one wants debate for it's own sake, we assume debate leads to better policies. But did we generate a lot of debate in the last election? Do we really think people even thought they were voting for any particular policy or even views of policies?

Even if it's true that on average democracy works more often than not, that doesn't change the question of whether it really always works. One view which I think you toyed with is to assume it does always work and whatever result it produces is the best for 'liberty and debate'...or at least the best of all possible worlds. I'm not convinced and I don't think this election produced that.

Mm, yeah, strawman. Democracies aren't perfect. That wasn't claimed. The process worked, and we're going to see how the results turn out.

Much like the scientific method. Just because your hypothesis is wrong, or your test (and conclusion) are outliers, doesn't debunk the scientific method.

Do you think the results are bad for you personally or for the nation? Do you believe Trump voters voted against their own interests? Do you know the optimal amount of risk tolerance when upsetting the status quo? There's a lot to unpack with the rise of neoreactionary thought.

Otherwise it sounds like someone's upset their side lost. Them's the rules. Give better rules (borda votes, etc) if you don't like it, but a tantrum is counterproductive.

Well Tyler provides us with a possibility of what we might see:

If there is any common theme to my predictions, it stems from Trump’s history in franchising his name and putting relatively little capital into many of his business deals. I think his natural instinct will be to look for some quick symbolic victories to satisfy supporters, and then pursue mass popularity with a lot of government benefits, debt and free-lunch thinking. I don’t think the Trump presidency will be recognizable as traditionally conservative or right-wing.

It occurs to me this could be a pathway for democracy failure. Rather than actual government, we get a reality show of flashy symbolic actions The electoral process becomes about ratings and flash while actual policy is enacted elsewhere or isn't enacted at all (proceeding in a mishmash and random fashion).

I am sympathetic to your questions. I don't have an alternative system to propose, no method of selecting a philosopher king or committee of wise men or supercomputer to print out a score. Likewise if GDP drops 50% by the end of Trump's term, I have no time machine to demonstrate that a Hillary administration wouldn't have otherwise blown up the world.

And unlike Trump and his ilk, I'm not pretending the system didn't work. I am not proposing Russia somehow hacked the vote counting. Democracy worked in the sense that the guy who got the most electorial votes won the election. But it's an open question IMO of whether it worked in the sense that it is helping us as a nation now as it did in the past.

Needless to say, how to explore these questions is something that won't be accomplished here. What happened last night requires a lot of thought and discussion.

I don't know, it sounds like you are saying Democracy doesn't work because it is turning into majority-rule instead of an aristocracy that decides who will win for the voters, which is kind of a weird way to look at it.

You seem to be saying that we should accept whoever wins an election represents some type of mystic 'wisdom of the masses' that will ultimately either produce a good result or at least produce the best possible of all possible worlds hence 'democracy works' by assumption....which of course cannot be proven as you also have no access to time machines or parallel universe telescopes. We are both making judgments or educated guesses....which I grant we probably cannot prove to each other or even to ourselves. Nevertheless, I suspect I'm right.

And actually it doesn't seem to be turning into majority rule. The majority here voted for Clinton. In terms of what will happen over the next few years, odds are a lot of the policies enacted will actually not be supported by the majority. A lot of the politicians who are set to rise on Trump's name (Christie, Rudy, Palin, Gingrich) are ones who could never win another election on their own in their lifetimes.

I don't have any alternative system to offer you. I'm not propose a system of finding a philosopher king or anything like that (although a Parliamentary system might not be so bad...I suspect David Frum is onto something when he says parties need to be stronger.

No majority voted for Clinton. She has a plurality as we speak of 0.16% of the ballots, something which could be explained by vote fraud.

The parties are vastly stronger than they were 40 years ago. That's not the problem. The problem is to be found in institutional deficits and the insider cultures which sustain them: parliamentary rules and the ever officious appellate judiciary. AM McConnell will never do a thing about either.

No majority voted for Clinton. She has a plurality as we speak of 0.16% of the ballots, something which could be explained by vote fraud.

And yet four years from now I guarantee you not a single case of vote fraud will be brought by the President you elected...the one who promised you that he would 'drain the swamp' and put Hillary in jail. Nope, won't even be attempted despite having control of every branch of government. And I also guarantee you, you and your ilk won't give a damm. It doesn't even make sense to say you lie as you are at a point where truth simply is not even a theoretical reality anymore.

I'm not sure democracy would have been better off with two families controlling the White House for 24 out of 32 years.

Yea it would have been in this case.

No it wouldn't. The Democratic nominee is part of the criminal class. The rancid culture of rank-and-file Democrats is manifest in the fact that they make excuses for this or deny this.

Fall: Mitt Romney. Guy that was being held up as the consumate candidate by GOPe was exceeded on every demo by Trump. After the Clintons he might be the most humiliated person in America now-especially as Trump shows a rich guy can win.

Add to that the Bush family.

"Fall: Mitt Romney. Guy that was being held up as the consumate candidate by GOPe was exceeded on every demo by Trump."

I think that's true, but with the caveat that it was the irrational treatment of Romney by the media that led to Trump. The media demonized Romney. Far, far out of proportion to his actual demeanor and record. He was a classic establishment Republican with a successful record as a governor of a very blue state and a history of working with Democrats to write bipartisan legislation.

The result was a classic case of "The Boy who cried Wolf". I suspect that a lot of voters who voted for Trump didn't buy into the narrative that he was a terrible person and would be a terrible President, specifically, because they had heard the same arguments in the last election.

So, in some ways, the election of Trump was a result of the mistreatment of Romney.

As of now, it looks like Trump flipped five states that went for Obama last election (plus maybe Michigan) and may well lose the popular vote. This tendency to fit grand narratives into the decisions of a small percentage of the American voting public who live in five or six states is a bit much. Moreover, the caveat to your caveat is that there was, of course, a long and agonizing primary in which it was not just the media but almost every single establishment Republican -- including Romney -- who took turns excoriating Trump.

"This tendency to fit grand narratives into the decisions of a small percentage of the American voting public who live in five or six states is a bit much. "

The grand narrative is that Trump will be President, he'll appoint the next Supreme court justice, overturn Obama's Executive Orders and Republican's will control Congress for the next two years. That's the "grand narrative".

So in the theme of the thread:

Fail: Partisans who claim that elections don't matter.

Fail: Partisans who claim that elections don’t matter, when the other side won.

Baskets, Tyler?

As in the show?

E. Harding indeed, but keep in mind just before the election even he lost faith and predicted a small 1% Clinton win. It always happens that way. Recall Hayek post-WWII lost faith in capitalism and predicted a socialist road to serfdom.

Rise: Michael Moore

He called the Mid-West surprise.

I came to the comments to add this one but you beat me to it. 100% agree.

I have to say that of all I've read today this post and thread are my favorite.

Rise: Sarah Palin, Jan Brewer, Jeff Sessions

Fall: Paul Ryan, Kelly Ayotte.

Because the Republicans will end up with majorities in both houses, I think Paul Ryan comes out of this still quite powerful. And both he and Trump have strong incentives to find common ground and work together, because they'll be able to accomplish a lot more that way than fighting. On the other hand, who knows whether that will actually happen--I suspect Ryan can't stand Trump, and up until now, Trump hasn't exactly been reticent about letting the world know when he doesn't like someone, even if that hurts him politically.

It feels like a lot of the Trump win was backlash against a lot of stuff, some government policies that had been effectively taken off the table in terms of major party candidates (immigration, endless wars), some social phenomena that weren't ever exactly things anyone voted on, but that reflect a huge disagreement between the coastal elites that produce most popular culture, and the rest of the country (public shaming of anyone who disagrees with gay marriage, various notions of transgender rights, white privilege, structural racism, etc.).

Fall: HuffPo, Krugman

Current front page headline at HuffPo: "MARKETS FALL OFF A CLIFF!"
In the Reality-based Community: Dow, SP500, NASDAQ all up over 0.5%

The same way we spent the last 8 years listening to right-wing media make factless claims about the opposition because they lost the election, it is the left-wing media's turn to whine. And it didn't take long as Krugnuts already called for a Trump presidency "global recession" + caveat "unless we get lucky". Guess Krugnuts knows how to be a good religious zealot and refrains from making falsifiable claims.

More academic,

What's up with polls?

Mathematics has not been overturned. The central limit theorem still holds. If you take a random sample from a large population the expected value of the average of the sample will be the average of the population. I'm going to dismiss the 'rigged' theory that pollsters simply didn't want to do random samples because they didn't want to produce bad news to Hillary fans.

Two families of possibilities I see:

1. Science: We are missing an element here that matters. For example, there's two aspects you need to care about in a poll. How a population will vote and how it will turnout. Urbanites voted for Clinton, women voted for Clinton, white guys voted for Trump, rural people voted for Trump. That wasn't shocking per the polls but their turnouts matter just as much. Were people so focused on the top line poll numbers that they missed questions further down the line like "are you planning to vote?"?

2. Something deeper: George Soros (I guess I'm in danger citing him but he isn't on the list of forbidden authors yet!) had his reflexivity theory....Taleb has his 'black swan' events. Polling is assumed to be a measurement activity that doesn't change the nature of what it measures. That's fine if you're sampling a bunch of metal screws done in a production run to see if they are coming out with errors within the accepted tolerance of the specs, but if you are measuring people then people can take the results of your measurements and change themselves. The measurement becomes a cause and generates a new effect rather than simply trying to measure cause and effect.

Say by hearing Clinton was ahead in the polls, people's perspectives changed. They became more critical of her, more nitpicky over her while ignoring Trump's flaws, even though the choice was still between Trump and Clinton, not Clinton and hypothetical ideal candidate. As a result the polls themselves become a change agent making it less possible to use polls for accurate measurements. Social Heisenberg principle here.....you can use polls to accurate measure where someone is today but you loose the ability to see where they will be tomorrow. This applies too to financial markets. Taleb's 'Black Swans' come from the error of assuming the normal distribution of the Bell Curve is the norm and you can rely on it. Observations of things like past stock and bond prices or mortgage default rates are in that sense like a poll.

An argument for #1 is Nate Silver. Silver's model ended with only a 70% chance for Hillary to win. It's easy to confuse 70% with winning 70% of the vote. 70% is an odds and 70% is only a bit better than a coin flip. He had her chance of winning Florida at only 55% (coin flip) and PA 75% (Trump's odds were 1 in 4 which is not impossible). The result is consistent with that. For Trump to win, it didn't require the equivalent of him winning the lottery, it just required the equivalent of him winning a hand of blackjack against the house. Odds somewhat against him but hardly super unlikely.

#2, of course, implies something much more subtle about social science.

It's much simpler than that. It might be a random sample of people contacted (doubtful), but it's definitely not a random sample of respondents. With response rates south of 10%, for polling to converge to a population average relies a priori post-stratification and/or weighting to make the responding sample resemble the population of voters. A 90% missingness rate in the medical sciences would get you laughed out of the room if you tried to argue that you had measured anything of interest.

You're implying non-responders are different types of people than responders. So like rural people who responded may say they went for Trump 60% but non-responders were 80% and together rural votes break 70% as the actual vote reflects both the type of rural person who responds as well as those who wouldn't. I think we could detect that, though.

"You’re implying non-responders are different types of people than responders. "

Yes.

"I think we could detect that, though."

We did detect that.

When did the population split into poll responders vs non-responders? Remember we had multiple primaries before this point so in theory there was plenty of opportunity to detect a difference in the poll data versus results. If you say the population split sometime close to election day and then came back together so going forward polls will 'work' again....well that sounds more like option #2 where the polling itself alters the population....well actually not the polling itself but the publishing of poll results alters the population.

"When did the population split into poll responders vs non-responders?"

Poll response rates have been declining for decades. Pollsters claim that the two groups are identical. Of course it's in their financial interest to make that claim. Here's a link on the subject:

http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/content/70/5/759.full

Declining response rates in themselves are not a problem if responders are more or less the same as non-responders.

But it's not obvious to me pollsters become less useful if they don't. As they say in advertising half my money is wasted, I just don't know which half. I'd rather know how half the voters in a state are going to act than for it to be a complete mystery. Non-responders do actually respond to one poll, the actual election itself. If non-responders act different from responders, you can assemble a profile of what non-responders do and then use that information. For example, if non-responders more often break for the candidate favored less by the media, then a decline in response rates in one state indicates that candidate is gaining. But how are you going to know what response rates are unless you pay pollsters to poll.

Topping the Rise list: Matt Drudge. The NYTimes and the rest of so-called "MSM" sold him the rope he used to hang them.

And then laughed at him for being such a Rube as to pay for the 'worthless' rope.

RISE: James Buchanan, Gordon Tullock, Bryan Caplan

If this result doesn't highlight the need for constraints on government power, I don't know what does.

Fall: Smith & Wesson. The rush on guns in anticipation of a Hillary presidency was going to be huge....

Rise:

This Woman

http://www.eonline.com/news/689322/hide-your-kids-donald-trump-is-scaring-babies-left-and-right-during-his-presidential-campaign

Rise:
Greg Cochran
https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2016/11/08/social-desirability-bias/
Peter Turchin
https://www.amazon.com/Ages-Discord-Peter-Turchin/dp/0996139540/

My own humble thoughts on winners and losers: https://medium.com/@deepishthinker/winners-and-losers-28f83b213999#.w9kghwjdz

Kellyanne Conway should be at the top of the rise list.

+1, she may be the person with the largest relative rise.

Yes, she has a nice rack. Not too big, not too little. Just the right size.

It's so liberating that starting today we can say things like that.

I know you're trolling but this is the main problem with Trump right here.

If the worst we get frim a Trump presidency is a furth coarsening of public discourse, perhaps moving toward being more able to offend women/minorites/gays/transpeople/etc., it will be a bargain. A whole lot worse can come of a bad president.

This analysis is way too complicated. Most people who voted for Trump,including myself, don't even know who these people are. Instead of Scott Adams, why not say the Dilbert guy and instead Peter Theil, why not say Pay Pal? This would simplify it a little but still: The important thing is that it is a rejection of the globalist Democrats and the neo-con Republicans ( the globalist wing of the Republcan Party) - in short the Establishment that is smug, self-righteous,know it all, intellectually proud, and tries to impose its worldview on everyone else censoring everyone that disagrees with them. It is a vindication that most academics, pollsters, the media,and many highly paid economists that work for a command economy are out of touch, anti- American, anti-Christian, anti- western civilization, anti-constitutional, and anti- capitalist in their outlook just like we thought. It once again indicates that they are not at all interested in the truth or in learning but only concerned with their careers and pushing their agenda down ordinary people's throats while they bask in all the benefits of going along with the politically correct progressive program that was laid down in the 19th century and based upon godless philosophers that thought they knew better and were wiser than the ancients. Glad to see that most are on the Fall list.

Baskets

Those who pushed for market circuit-breakers

Martin Gurri

Donald Trump

Fall

Most intellectuals and academics

Pollsters

Economists

Progressives who suggested Hillary Clinton shouldn’t compromise with Republicans or reach out to them with significant policy concessions

Lots of other people too

People who denied the “backlash” worry about high levels of immigration

Ruth Ginsburg

The media, in multiple ways

Yet even more people

People

Taleb: up vote.

Taleb goin' off.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-09/nassim-taleb-explains-who-just-got-buried

400+ comments and not one mention of Publius Decius Mus (if ctrl f is correct).

Because presumably no one here thinks Trump will crash the country and kill everyone in it.

I don’t know about rises but I do think there was plenty of falls and that’s why you got to be very careful when it comes to reacting on such events and is the reason why we see people suffering badly. I always keep it simple and due to OctaFX broker, I get plenty of advantage and that’s especially with small spreads from 0.1 pips for all major pairs while they also have swap free account available making it so love able!

Add free Syrian army to the second list

Rise:

http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com.br/2016/01/donald-trump-and-politics-of-resentment.html

Comments for this post are closed