Silicon Valley Investor Peter Thiel Wins Bet on Trump
wsj.com
wsj.com
Describing the presidential campaign, Mr. Thiel said it was "between one candidate who says everything is more or less fine, or it’s as good as it can be. And then another one who says we’re on the Titanic, it’s about to sink. And so I prefer the second one."
Now, it's perfectly reasonable to question if Trump has an actionable plan to make things better. I question that too.
I also find it hard to ignore his remarks about ethnicity and women, but it seems clear to me that the media inadvertently helped Trump by screaming bigot, racist, sexist, etc. as loud as possible. When you call everything racist, it dulls the meaning of the word, and ends up hiding real racism.
Another thing I appreciate from this election is that people don't like being told who to vote for. I didn't appreciate the shrill tone of every single news outlet and media source I turned to (and I barely watch news and didn't follow the election until very late.)
I thought 538 would have "objective" coverage, but I didn't like that Nate Silver couldn't resist inserting petty personal insults about Trump in his articles. Even guys like Louis CK, Howard Stern, and Stephen Colbert turned out to have surprisingly little sense of humor about it.
There is no evidence to suggest that the largest proportion of the voters for these things were motivated by that. One side loses, then they scream racist/bigot at the other side and then because it's the mainstream media those labels stick around. That does not help anyone and does indeed only widen the divide.
Can you support your "no evidence" claim given the candidate Trump has openly said these things multiple times?
I voted third party, and those who disagreed with me doing so told me that voting for a candidate doesn't mean you align with all of the candidate's policies. I think most people in this camp knew of Trump's character issues, but thought that Clinton's character issues (corruption, e-mails) were more directly tangential to the office the two candidates were running for.
I don't doubt that racist folks voted for Trump because they identified with some of his rhetoric. But to label every Trump voter is unfair in the short term and may make them more likely to identify with the label in the long term.
And, personally, I consider voting for a person, a person who's entire election has been based on personality and rhetoric, is endorsing their character.
Which is also the problem with the lack of enthusiasm you could hear in a lot of Hillary voters as well but people would still vote for her because it'd be an incremental step forward (on some things) instead of a big step back (on a lot).
Remember when some people didn't vote for Bill Clinton because of the character issues in his personal life? Other people said that the stuff in private didn't matter if he was good at the job.
My perception was that in the case of Trump, those two arguments were the same but many of the people who said them flipped. I thought that was really interesting to watch.
I think in your mind, if a candidate says things that egregious, nobody could vote for him who didn't agree, amirite? I don't think the middle sees it like that. These campaigns seem to be about people on the two ends of the bell curve yelling extremities about each other, and they can't seem to grasp that people in the middle are interested in the same topics but don't see everything as so black and white.
Because saying that we are about to sink will attract more votes? So Thiel goes with Trump because he thinks he will win, not because he thinks Trump would be the better president? So Thiel knows where to invest his money?
That's one way of looking at the presidential election, I guess.
I don't happen to believe that, but I believe Thiel and others honestly believe it.
I would consider the possibility that there are things you don't understand here. Trump's victory is something that should cause people to reflect. It was certainly very surprising to me. Along those lines, Hillary and Obama's remarks about giving Trump a chance were gracious and sorely needed after such a noisy election.
I don't think it's necessarily doomsday soon, but if it isn't fixed, it could lead to very dark places.
Our interest payments are less than 1.5% of GDP (down from 3% of GDP a decade or so ago).
People always whine about not running government like a business...
I'd check how long that person had been claiming it was about to sink first. In Trump's case that goes back to the Reagan era.
> I’m no fan of Peter Thiel, the billionaire who put Gawker out of business by bankrolling a lawsuit by Hulk Hogan, the professional wrestler. In fact, I find him appalling.
> But when he spoke recently at the National Press Club, he said something that struck me as quite perceptive about Donald Trump.
> “The media is always taking Trump literally. It never takes him seriously, but it always takes him literally,” Thiel said. Journalists wanted to know exactly how he would deport that many undocumented immigrants, or exactly how Trump would rid the world of the Islamic State. We wanted details.
> But a lot of voters think the opposite way: They take Trump seriously but not literally.
> They realize, Thiel said, that Trump doesn’t really plan to build a wall. “What they hear is, ‘We’re going to have a saner, more sensible immigration policy.’ ”
> Trump, quite apparently, captured the anger that Americans were feeling about issues such as trade and immigration.
Thiel was completely correct on this. It's a sad(der) version of the stereotype of journalism just being uncritical transcribers of the powerful, except journalists were doing it (ostensibly) to hurt Trump.
It's a great example of the damage of unconscious bias. If someone I love tells me they'll climb the highest mountain and swim the widest ocean to make me happy, I'll love them even though I know that's a literal lie. If someone I hate tells me the sky is blue, I still look for a way to pedantically correct them.
I know it's popular for journalists to be opinionated and fight for the truth and all, but I can't help but think that if journalists even tried to just believe in that impossible ideal of idealism, more of them would have come to empathize with Trump's supporters -- not the wacky crazy ones that make for good TV -- and see Trump's promises as a signal of priorities, not a literal fulfillment that Americans want.
Back in 2007, South Korean candidate Lee Myung-Bak won presidency while prominently selling the concept of "Grand Korean Peninsular Canal", a construction project involving building a canal diagonally through the Korean peninsula, crossing mountain ranges ~1km high. It made zero economical sense (just take a look at the map), and was widely derided by opponents.
Many of his supporters still voted for him thinking "Come on, there's no way he would actually do that!"
Well, he almost did it in the names of "Four River Restoration Project", an Orwellian-named $20B project that kept the major part of the canal plan, plastering Korea's rivers with pointless dams, which inundated riverbanks, increased flood damage, decimated freshwater ecosystem, and polluted so much riverwater that you can't use it even for farming.
Trump is now free to realize any of his promises as he sees fit, and no one will be able to say "American's didn't approve this", because he did promise them and then won based on those promises. It will be a fun ride for him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Fence_Act_of_2006
Maybe some do want to build the wall.
I think Thiel might Trump a little too much credit in the planning, just because I feel that Trump seems erratic, like when he lied about the NFL commissioner sending him a letter about the debate schedule. Not so much that he lied but -- why would you lie about such an obviously disprovable thing that is of little consequence anyway? [0] So for all we know, maybe he doesn't even hate immigration that much.
On the other hand, Trump is always talking about how good he is at making deals. One of the most well-known parts of psychology when bartering is demanding a too-high/low price to set the others' expectations, and Trump could just have been doing that. But either way, he was making a clear call that he prioritized limited immigration and free trade in a way that Clinton only talked about in politically pleasing ways. I always thought it was annoying how he bragged about his deals, but if this was his mindset, then I'm impressed.
But my Trump will be Trump complacency is a little mitigated by the fact that we now also have a Republican-controlled congress, and very soon, a Republican-controlled SCOTUS. So the scenario of Trump actually doing the crazy things he promised is no longer just a far hypothetical.
[0] http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-denies-writing-letter-...
Well, the majority of American voters didn't approve this.
I totally disagree, they absolutely believe that he wants to build a wall and that Mexico will pay for it. See "End Illegal Immigration Act" outlined here: https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_landings/contract/O-TRU-102...
Peter Thiel is naive to think this is not literal.
Well, it supposedly was Salena Zito who "is board member of the Center for Media and Public Policy at the Heritage Foundation, and has worked for the campaigns of George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, and Rick Santorum" who was correct since she came up with it.
http://www.theatlantic.com/author/salena-zito/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/trump-ma...
Personally I'm not sure on the state of the US when it's controversial to ask someone with little political experience how they are going to accomplish the things they say. I thought part of the reason to not go with a politician was so they would actually do things like keep their promises?
Makes you wonder with all of Palantir's massive data-mining if Thiel knew something the public didn't.
I'd wager its not an 'if' but a certainty that he knew something few others did.
You didn't need Palantir to see the Trump result coming.
As I mentioned above, I was disappointed that he couldn't resist inserting petty personal insults about Trump into his articles. He was clearly invested in the outcome of the election, which isn't what you want from an analyst.
While he wasn't as bad as the NYTimes, and he hedged his language, he was pretty firm in claiming a likely Clinton victory for the 3 months before the election.
So I was honestly a bit surprised when Trump started winning, and then won decisively. I'm always interested in the areas where reality breaks models, where practice differs from theory, and this is an overt example.
Secondly, Trump won the nomination with a huge number of votes.
Thirdly, Brexit happened despite opinion polling being the other way.
Then I started paying close attention to crowd sizes at Trump rallies and when Hillary appeared in public. The crowds never got smaller for Trump despite the press and stories around him. I looked at Nate Silver's analysis and guessed the firewall could be breached. Yet the betting markets had incredibly long odds on Trump; so I bet. Modestly since I'm no (b|m)illionaire.
I didn't read much of what Nate Silver wrote, but I did listen to the podcast. Clearly, he would have preferred a Hillary win, but I'm not sure it biased the forecasts (he's said it's just an algorithm he wrote and they just plug in the polls). He and his team said many times, just because Hillary was ahead it wasn't a guarantee. Since the election they've said it's very difficult to convey probability to people and they're trying to get better at that. He also pointed out that he was less confident of Hillary than most other sources (even if they had her ahead). They were very clear that they had no expectations of correctly guessing all 51 states because it was so close. I'm not sure if this was because if him calling Trump wrong in the primaries or if he was objectively looking at the numbers.
Yes. At the time I placed my bet on a Trump win I simultaneously bet on Hillary with an amount that would cover my Trump bet. Thus Hillary win would have meant that I had neither lost nor gained money.
Sadly, its only going to get worse now.
People dont like being told what to do. They are sick and tired of public servants who have transmogrified into Lord- of-the-Manor type personalities and not just in America. Watch out as more establishment candidates fail across the world in the next couple of years.
But something else: with about a century of polling history my thesis is that wariness has set in and people are playing a more crafty game. They refrain from speaking their minds to pollsters especially if their positions are unpopular or contentious; there is nothing to be gained from honesty to strangers. This is the real cause of poll failures.
But then when I hear the popular vote, I SMH. Hillary should have won if every vote counted equally. It would have been a nail-biter since she re-surged at the end.
There should be nothing between each person, their vote and the total count which is the voice of the people. No delegates, no electoral colleges, no State borders, no nothing. Anything else is not a pure democracy.
We failed democracy.
This is the very definition of rigging.
The democratic primary was rigged to favor Hillary (the establishment), and Bernie lost. The national election was rigged to "balance" the voice of States and Trump won. That is the only reason. It's also the only reason Bush won in 2000.
The system is already adapted so it works best for "us" except where us is these bubbles of people.
If we were to make "us" all of us, then what we need is pure democracy. Otherwise it's the Divided States of America. Every election the State borders could not be more prominent.
I was making the distinction between a representative democracy (where we elect representatives to make day-to-day decisions for us, such as the President, Senators, and Representatives.) and pure democracy (where each of us would have to vote on every decision). The Electoral College is something else all together.
Your phrase "every election" indicates to me that you're in favor of representative democracy (as am I). I don't think pure democracy scales.
Have I understood you correctly?
Whenever we are measuring voice or volume, any "system" is rigging. That's the only point I am making.
Gerrymandering, a Senate who can say "Fuck you" to a supreme court nomination for a year, The person with the most votes not winning, brutal assaults on voter rights, etc...
> Every election the State borders could not be more prominent
A popular vote system for president would change that.
It's actually hard to say. Voter turnout would be radically different. Republicans in California now have a voice, Democrats in Texas do too.
> Republicans in California now have a voice, Democrats in Texas do too.
This sounds better to me. It sounds like how it ought to be.
If Hillary lost the popular vote, then I'd be content. It's just hard to fathom how "less popular candidate won" and "democracy" can be talking about the same thing (America).
Why do you assume pure democracy is desirable? Do you also prefer every law to be voted on by the entire population (it's a valid point of view, albeit one I disagree with)?
The whole point of a republic is to temper the will of the mob. Our electoral college — which represents the fact that the United States are a federal republic — forces candidates to campaign across the states, and the spend the most time in precisely those states which are most evenly-split (the swing states, which is another way of saying the political centre).
Eliminating the Electoral College — as, sadly, many wish to do — would do irreparable harm to the United States, perhaps even more severe than popular election of senators.
Your support for the electoral college is still support for all votes not being equal at the voter level. My claim is that there is nothing more important than the voices being equal if we are to claim we are a unity of equal people. Any system on top of that is a filter, and is tampering with what is most important. Why must entire States be colored red or blue. That's a filter, and an act of muddling. We're dividing States when what we need to be is United.
Even if we elected by popular vote, candidates will still have to campaign and they will still have to go somewhere. Their strategy can be State based, and certainly their choices may differ without this "system" but even with the system in place they are choosing specific States over others. I don't see how these specific States deserve more attention than those that are completely ignored. For there still are States completely ignored with the Electoral College.
Also, Trump was offering hope, Clinton was offering nothing but staying the same.
I get the sense that the American economy is bad for most people, Trump talked about that, he said it was a problem. If you were watching mainstream news all you heard was about how great everything is and how it should stay the same.... That is simply not what many people think or feel.
This is the classic gambler's approach to betting. Attempt to reduce the odds to a reasonable level where you can minimize losses and maximize your profits.
If you were paying attention to more objective polls, you would've known the mainstream media polls they were using were off. So much so, that Clinton started campaigning in red states and there were reports she wanted to make this a "historic" win. As in, it's not good enough to just win, she wanted to rub it in the faces of the Republicans (you know, because that's always good for bringing the country together - right?) when she did win.
- So he knew the polls were off.
- Then he probably knew there was a feeling of unrest considering the numbers Trump was getting. Not just in the primaries where he set several records for turnout and delegates.
- Then he probably heard about the Allan Lichtman's prediction that Trump would win based on the enthusiasm he saw in the primaries. It was greater for Trump then it was for Clinton. Add in the margin of victory in the primaries was greater for Trump then Clinton and he said because of that, the real voter enthusiasm is with Trump, not Clinton.
So here you have three things most people on the Left didn't want to hear. He also could probably see the media had gone 110% to shill for Clinton. Tamping down her email scandals, promoting the polls that say she's way ahead. If you listen to say Rush Limbaugh, or Hannity or Beck, you'd know it wasn't all rainbows and unicorns.
So he hedged his bet and put his money on Trump given the above information.
This is my thinking as well. Towards the end Nate Silver kept upping Trump's chances and other pollsters were baffled by Nate's changes. Nate kept arguing that due to curring polling methods, current models, the lack of young turnout, and a lot of disenfranchised voters coming out that Trump was doing better than he seemed. There was no "liberal media conspiracy" but the model changes you needed to make in what was an extremely oddball election year. Note, the pollsters that got Trump wrong got the last few elections right or wrong but within a respectable margin of error, so from a question of bias, the conspiracy theories just don't hold. Same with the Brexit, the pollsters just didn't see that silent majority voting yes.
Nate obviously didn't change his model enough but he certainly saw the winds of change here and clearly other people like Thiel did too. Also, being a libertarian there's really no reason for him to support a Democrat anyway, so if he's going to play this game he's going to pick the GOP candidate.
>He also could probably see the media had gone 110% to shill for Clinton.
I didn't see this. Instead, I certainly saw the media play both sides as being less terrible than they truly were. I think there's a narrative of "oh they're just like each other so it'll be tight" and promoting a moral equivalence of "questionable email server use is just as bad as saying celebrity lets you grab women by their crotches with impunity" that sells ad impressions.
I have no idea what to make of what Mr. Trump said. Am I to take him literally? Was this just posturing and he doesn't plan to do something like this? I have no idea.
See "End Illegal Immigration Act" outlined here: https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_landings/contract/O-TRU-102...
>Fully-funds the construction of a wall on our southern border with the full understanding that the country of Mexico will be reimbursing the United States for the full cost of such wall; establishes a two-year mandatory minimum federal prison sentence for illegally re-entering the U.S. after a previous deportation, and a five-year mandatory minimum federal prison sentence for illegally re-entering for those with felony convictions, multiple misdemeanor convictions or two or more prior deportations; also reforms visa rules to enhance penalties for overstaying and to ensure open jobs are offered to American workers first.
Having watched and listened to Thiel for several years now, I came up with a pet hypothesis I call 'The Wolfian World' that I feel describes what's going on more accurately than the newspapers.