3 ms·

>> when he knows that his odds of winning are much better than most people think. This is the classic gambler's approach to betting. Attempt to reduce the odds

>> when he knows that his odds of winning are much better than most people think. 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.

drzaiusapelord 10y ago
>So he knew the polls were off. 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.
- ZeroGravitas 10y ago
  Nate wasn't changing his model, the polls changed. His model just accounted for the high number of undecideds and the correlation of errors between states, and the possibility of systemic polling errors which accounts for his divergence from other predictions.

drzaiusapelord 10y ago

>So he knew the polls were off. 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.

ZeroGravitas 10y ago
Nate wasn't changing his model, the polls changed. His model just accounted for the high number of undecideds and the correlation of errors between states, and the possibility of systemic polling errors which accounts for his divergence from other predictions.