Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How I Acted Like a Pundit and Screwed Up on Donald Trump

fivethirtyeight.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 59 posts

Re: How I Acted Like a Pundit and Screwed Up on Donald Trump

#31

Post by robotresearcher »

sverige wrote: post #14
goodcanadian wrote: post #4

Trump's (presumptive) nomination was a big surprise to me. However, in retrospect, it looks less surprising. Trump was always going to attract a sizable minority, and there were really no other compelling candidates in the race. While I'm sure that the majority of Republican voters would prefer "not Trump," who that "not Trump" candidate could be was never clear. At the end, well, I am not certain that I wouldn't pic…

> While I'm sure that the majority of Republican voters would prefer "not Trump," who that "not Trump" candidate could be was never clear. Why are you sure of that? He's gotten a record number of votes for a Republican primary. It's very clear that, in fact, the majority of Republican voters want Trump, along with a sizable percentage of independents who voted in some of the primaries. It's this kind of wishful think…

> in fact, the majority of Republican voters want Trump

He does not have a majority of the primary vote.

Re: How I Acted Like a Pundit and Screwed Up on Donald Trump

#32

Post by robotresearcher »

isidoreSeville wrote: post #12

Worth noting that pundit Carl Diggler has not had any trouble predicting results even without a fancy statistical model

There are lots of pundits. It's quite likely that one of them would get lots of correct guesses by chance.

Re: How I Acted Like a Pundit and Screwed Up on Donald Trump

#33

Post by mc32 »

EdSharkey wrote: post #30
newjersey wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Say whatever you will but I will take solace in the fact that no matter how badly Trump does, it would be worse under Cruz.

How do you figure?

Not the OP but Cruz was an ideologue (would apparently not compromise) engaged in risky tactics (shut down government) , was disliked by colleagues and religion was above all else.

The country does not need a priest or pastor in chief.

Re: How I Acted Like a Pundit and Screwed Up on Donald Trump

#34

Post by carsongross »

thedevil wrote: post #20
douche wrote: post #19

Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) called it months ago[1] [1] http://blog.dilbert.com/post/131749156346/the-case-for-a-tru...

Not only did he call it, he explained and predicted in detail. For example, he predicted the Megyn Kelly interview. Edit: He predicted the interview and that it would mark a turning point where Trump softens his image, destroys Clinton's image, and coasts towards a landslide victory. The interview happened and the polls are turning now, on cue. He also predicted Trump would use the word love and possibly be seen hugg…

Unfortunately?

Re: How I Acted Like a Pundit and Screwed Up on Donald Trump

#35

Post by [deleted] »

dragonwriter wrote: post #17
WalterBright wrote: post #3

I've watched Trump years ago on The Apprentice. What he brought to politics was business sense and marketing know-how, which has been surprisingly absent from political campaigns before.

Neither business sense nor marketing know-how have been absent from political campaigns before; plenty of politicians (and many of their close advisors, as well) have been quite successful in business before or between political campaigns, and the people running campaigns are generally experts in marketing (many of them quite successful in that in the commercial realm before and between political campaigns as well.)

[deleted]

Re: How I Acted Like a Pundit and Screwed Up on Donald Trump

#36

Post by imron »

joshgel wrote: post #6
WalterBright wrote: post #3

I've watched Trump years ago on The Apprentice. What he brought to politics was business sense and marketing know-how, which has been surprisingly absent from political campaigns before.

and also racism, sexism and xenophobia, with an authoritarian bent.

I think that's something that someone who doesn't really understand Trump and Trump supporters would say.

As far as I can tell, most Trump supporters want someone who is outside the system to go in and shake it up, because they see the system is failing them, and the other candidates are just extensions of the status quo (see also why Bernie Sanders is popular).

This is why it doesn't matter what Trump says or does, because people don't care about single sound bites of the current news cycle.

Note, also that many (but not all) of the 'racist, sexist and xenophobic' comments attributed to Trump are things taken out of context, and then blown up via the media and various social networks.

If you go back to the source and look at what Trump actually said, it's often quite different from what the anti-trump headlines and tweets imply.

He also has an entire career full of actions that refute many of the accusations of sexism, racism, xenophobia and whatever else.

Note: I am not a Trump supporter, and not even eligible to vote in US elections. This is just what I have gathered from following more than once source of news and trying to get a balanced understanding of what's happening in US politics at the moment.

Re: How I Acted Like a Pundit and Screwed Up on Donald Trump

#37

Post by mcphage »

isidoreSeville wrote: post #12

Worth noting that pundit Carl Diggler has not had any trouble predicting results even without a fancy statistical model

Step 1: set up a whole bunch of pundit blogs.

Step 2: for each election, have 50% predict one winner, have 50% predict the other winner.

Step 3: after the election, close all of the blogs that predicted incorrectly.

Step 4: repeat with a dwindling pool of more and more "accurate" pundit blogs.

Re: How I Acted Like a Pundit and Screwed Up on Donald Trump

#39

Post by mcphage »

omonra wrote: post #22
joshgel wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and also racism, sexism and xenophobia, with an authoritarian bent.

I think it's actually quite interesting - as a non-insignificant number of people are probably supporting Trump because they are tired of being told that holding a particular belief is 'racist' or 'xenophobic' (something they clearly would disagree with).

So a bunch of racist, xenophobic people are tired of being told that they're racist and xenophobic? I can believe that. Of course, I thought they also want a "straight shooter" who "isn't afraid to tell it like it is"... well, I guess something's gotta give.

Re: How I Acted Like a Pundit and Screwed Up on Donald Trump

#40

Post by isidoreSeville »

Jtsummers wrote: post #24
isidoreSeville wrote: post #12

Worth noting that pundit Carl Diggler has not had any trouble predicting results even without a fancy statistical model

> In any race where Silver didn't make a pick — again, he isn't playing the pick-every-contest game — Diggler's numbers treat the non-prediction as a wrong prediction. So Silver's accuracy rate through May 7, according to Diggler, was just 55 percent, while his own was 89 percent. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/12/so... So the comparison counts non-predictions by Silver makes your statement co…

I think that you would agree that null is not a correct prediction, so clearly the Silver model has failed for those votes.
Post reply on HN