Hacker News Reader

Comment by overcast | Hacker News Reader

This is seriously hilarious. Now that's he's won, against seemingly all odds, we have to find some other reason for why EVERYONE ELSE, was completely WRONG. Every media outlet, everyone in politics, all the polls, completely shit on Trump. Now look who is the most powerful person in the entire world.

The Democrats, and the rest, did it to themselves. Overconfidence, smear campaigns, and all of the morons doing the polls.

We are all sick of politicians, and the people have spoken, let's just see what happens. Get over it already.

View on HN

The polls weren't that off actually. They missed the mark overall by about 2%, which is actually pretty similar to the error in past elections. That's not very surprising because without being able to sample the actual distribution you need to make some assumptions for the statistics to work.

I presume that pollsters did their job well. There is a pattern here, they got it wrong both with Brexit and with Trump. I think bad polling was not the reason. The media, the government and academia have created an atmosphere of militant orhodox liberalism, where dissenting voices are not only silenced, but often ridiculed, doxxed, forced to resign etc. These people will choose to disappear from the polls. They will "Think as they want, but behave like others", until they are given the chance to fight back.

Thankfully, in democracies we have elections to release those tensions. And setbacks in democracies are inevitable.

He is in charge of the EPA now but he tweeted that global warming is a conspiracy created by the Chinese. He is in charge of the State Department but he thinks that Mexico will pay for a border wall. He is charge of the FDA and he thinks that vaccines cause autism. Some of his views are deeply disturbing on a level much deeper than just "orhodox liberalism"

The response to people who are wrong should be to engage and argue with them. By tossing them as deplorables they will keep to themselves until they can get back at you.

The use of "deplorables" is presumably a reference to Clinton's remarks and it's really interesting you reference that here because her point of that comment is similar to yours in that you can't just lump all Trump supporters into the racist and xenophobic basket that many people did. I agree with you and I will gladly argue politely with people who are willing but I don't think it's unfair to criticize such damaging views in a presidential candidate.

Regardless of how you feel about him, you can't deny that he knows his audience. He's a salesman par excellence.

When you take wildly changing vote count estimates (from +10 to +2 within two weeks) and turn that into more than 80% of probability of a specific candidate winning, that's a completely special level of stupidity.

Nassim Taleb also wrote about this https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/796357059813974017

Nate Silver had an excellent response to this on one of the "Model Talk" editions of the FiveThirtyEight Elections Podcast[1]. TL;DR of the problems with Taleb's critique:

1. "Volatility" in the model is not random, as Talib asserts -- it happens at predefined points in the time. For example, the accuracy of polls jumps greatly after the conventions complete.

2. Volatility at a previous point in time does NOT mean there must be similar volatility going forward, as Talib implies.

3. Taleb's quickie models that he posted for explanation don't remotely match empirical data.

I respect Taleb, but he seems to have fallen into a trap really smart people often fall into: being right with limited data, but wrong with complete data (in this case, he creates assumptions from his knowledge in other areas like options pricing, which are wrong in this domain).

[1] Skip to 13:30 remaining http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-makes-a-tipping-poi...

EDIT: formatting

> They missed the mark overall by about 2%

This is misleading. Only on a national level were the polls that close. In the actual swing states that gave Trump the presidency, the polls were off well outside the margin of error.

For instance, in Wisconsin no poll ever showed Trump winning that state, and the closest IIRC showed Client winning by 3%. The average was significantly higher than 3%.

I will give you that they were wrong in Wisconsin in a pretty spectacular way.

>we have to find some other reason for why EVERYONE ELSE, was completely WRONG

>and the people have spoken

Trump lost the popular vote, so this isn't true. He got about 25% of the total voting population overall.

Irrelevant. This is a republic, not a democracy.

If you want to cherry pick small percentages by comparing to the voting age population.

Clinton got 25.5% and Trump got 25.4%

Voting population 235,248,000

99% reporting per Google Polls.

Trump 47% 59,821,874

Clinton 48% 60,122,876

I agree that just because Trump won the election doesn't mean the people gave him a mandate, or have spoken, but looking at popular vote in a system that doesn't even focus on popular vote is incorrect IMO.

If the rules were to get popular vote then campaigning would be done totally differently. The candidates are doing everything they can to win states, not win popular vote.

Regarding popular election, "mandate" and "only 25% voted for him", it seems that all people who are now dissatisfied have voted for Clinton. Which suggests that the 50% who didn't vote maybe don't oppose Trump that much.

I observed that leftists have a tendency to systematically overestimate their numbers, influence and the amount of agreement or even familiarity with their ideas among the public.

> He got about 25% of the total voting population overall.

Clinton got about 24% of the total voting population in 1992 and 1996. What is your point?

Trump didnt loose the popular vote yet, until the final vote is counted, it seems CNN and others are still shitting.

> Trump lost the popular vote, so this isn't true. He got about 25% of the total voting population overall.

Since the "popular vote" doesn't elect the president but the Electoral College, each candidate must campaign to win the Electoral College. That is the strategy to win presidency. If you change it to "popular vote" you will see campaign strategy change to optimize towards that metric. It's not something you can look at "in retrospect". Trump would have played the game slightly differently if that was the case.

So actually everyone crying about the fact that he didn't win "popular vote" are just displaying their own ignorance on campaign strategy every time they bring up this point.

> the people have spoken

many marketing and propaganda people would smile knowingly seeing this, knowing that the will of the people is very shapeable. It's been known for 90 years now...

So because Trump was elected, it was shaped by marketing. If Hillary was elected, it was their will alone. Even though the Clinton campaign spent twice the amount of money.

This article would not have been written had the election outcome been different.

There's no way to no for sure. We can suspect, and presume based upon our political leanings, but there is no way to know.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com