5 ms·
Firstly, looking at politics in the UK and France (two countries that I follow closely) it was clear that there were a large group of people disadvantaged by th
by jgrahamc 10y ago
Firstly, looking at politics in the UK and France (two countries that I follow closely) it was clear that there were a large group of people disadvantaged by the 2008 financial crisis who were outside the standard discussion seen in the media of politics.
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.
- thrill 10y agoThis was hardly a clear deal. Trump won the election with fewer votes than the last two candidates lost with.
- chubot 10y agoOf course it wasn't clear, but the point is that the odds were better than conventional wisdom. That makes it a good bet.
- chubot 10y agoOK thanks, that makes sense. I wasn't aware there were markets, but in retrospect, the piling on by the media should have been a signal of a "mispricing". I tend to buy stocks when I see this behavior. (I believe the media heavily influences the price of stocks, and it's probably even more true for elections.)