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

21–30 of 59 posts

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

#21

Post by Animats »

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…

There were really no other compelling candidates in the race.

Last year, the 2016 GOP presidential candidates were referred to as a "Republican dream team" by Karl Rove. That was true only by comparison with the 2012 field, which was more like the Republican clown car.

Really, the disappointment here is that the candidates just weren't very good. The choices were a few second-rate governors (Bush, Kasich) and a bunch of far-right nuts. None of them would measure up to Eisenhower, or Reagan, or Bush I, or even Nixon.

This setup where you become President by raising your own money and running your own campaign isn't working.

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

#22

Post by omonra »

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 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).

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

#23

Post by newjersey »

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…

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.

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

#24

Post by Jtsummers »

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 correct.

> even without a fancy statistical model

Remarkably anti-intellectual statement.

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

#25

Post by panarky »

Here's why this post-mortem is so important:

  The distinguishing feature of the scientific method is not that
  it always gets the answer right, but that it fails forward by
  learning from its mistakes...

  I want to think through his nomination while trying to avoid
  the seduction of hindsight bias.
Kudos to Nate Silver for meticulously examining how he got it wrong, and publicly showing his work so we can all get better.

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

#26

Post by deweerdt »

Animats wrote: post #15

There are no good data sources for politics now. Gallup admits that well over 90% of the people they call for polls won't talk to them. They can't call cell phones for polls. They can try focus groups, but that gets you people who have time to waste.

The newyorker ran an interesting piece along those lines: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/16/politics-and-th...

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

#27

Post by Mendenhall »

Maxim 20 from the Art of wordly wisdom (A must read book)

"The rarest individuals depend on their age. It is not every one that finds the age he deserves, and even when he finds it he does not always know how to utilise it. Some men have been worthy of a better century, for every species of good does not always triumph. Things have their period; even excellences are subject to fashion. The sage has one advantage: he is immortal. If this is not his century many others will be."

This is the age of of the Troll and the response they elicit, Trump read it and understood it, ahead of most and definately ahead of his competitors. He understands the age and is taking full advantage of it. Some saw it coming, and others did not, many who even called themselves experts.

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

#28

Post by WalterBright »

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.)

Consider this - Trump took every opportunity for media interviews, while other candidates would avoid them. Trump's bombastic statements made for constant headlines. I read somewhere that he garnered billions in free publicity, and would often be the lead news story of the day.

This is marketing know-how.

Consider also his labeling of opponents with nicknames that had just enough truth to stick. Very effective.

Scott Adams' blog has a lot more interesting commentary on this.

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

#29

Post by rdtsc »

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…

An old school Republican (wealthy older white gentlement), told me at the begging of the campaign that Republican party is doomed. He considered Trump a bad joke at the time. And was talking about Cruz and others. He saw the target demographics of the Republican basically dying out, nothing to appeal to younger generation and predicted the party won't last too much longer.

It made sense to me. It seems funny enough the clown that everyone was laughing at might now be a new hope for the party.

I think what is going to be interesting is that there a lot of Republicans who hate Trump and would vote for Hillary instead. And also there are a good number of Democrats who will vote for Trump if they can't have Sanders (as both Sanders and Trump are seen as being anti-existing-political establishment).

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

#30

Post by EdSharkey »

newjersey wrote: post #23
thedevil wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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?
Post reply on HN