6 ms·

Peter Thiel’s Bet on Donald Trump Wins Big

74 points by stefap2 10y ago

liotier 10y ago
"Peter Thiel’s Bet on Donald Trump Wins Big" -> "Peter Thiel’s Bet on Donald Trump Wins Bigly" ... FTFY
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
civilian 10y ago
A similar discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12912608 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12912608
pmelendez 10y ago
I am ok with Thiel thinking Trump would win. What was a disappointment for me is that Thiel actually believes Trump was a good candidate and (I speculate) agrees with his platform. Also, apparently has no problem with the incendiary and hateful speech of Trump
- dsugarman 10y ago
  my best guess is that either A) He was putting money towards the fall of our government as we know it, I think that would be consistent with his previous stances or B) He was investing in a future political career in the Republican party but to be honest, hearing sama's comments on Thiel, it seems like he legitimately really likes Trump.
- return0 10y ago
  He explains his rational argument here[1]. Basically his argument is "don't take Trump literally, take him seriously". 1.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob-LJqPQEJ4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob-LJqPQEJ4
  - andrewchambers 10y ago
    edit: link no longer missing
    - sremani 10y ago
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob-LJqPQEJ4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob-LJqPQEJ4
  - kbenson 10y ago
    > Basically his argument is "don't take Trump literally, take him seriously". Which I guess is great if you're a billionaire and probably get some time with Trump or someone close to him that knows what he actually plans to do. In the meantime, all the rest of us are left with "I'm going to repeal Obamacare and replace it with something great." Forgive me if I would have preferred something a little more substantial. Then again, I would like other people to have preferred that as well. :/
    - ErikVandeWater 10y ago
      Can any politician be taken literally, though? How did Obama's promises on the revolving door between lobbyists and his administration work out? Or his promise on health insurance premiums? These promises aren't the exception, they are the rule. Politicians (almost) always have to lie to win. So Trump not being specific as to what he will do seems unlikely to be any different to interpret than if he made very specific plans.
      - kbenson 10y ago
        Well, I think there are differing levels of information that can be conveyed. You can say you want a healthcare system where everyone is insured. You can say you want a healthcare system where costs are lowered. You can say you want both. All these convey some information about the goals of the politician, and how they may or may not align with your own. What they eventually come up with, or not, will inform you how much they compromised on that position. I would hazard most politicians are less likely to compromise on specific goals they stated, and more likely to compromise on ones they didn't state. This allows you to steer yourself towards a candidate that may work for an outcome you want, even if there's obviously no guarantee. In this case, we have "I will make something great", as if every candidate wasn't implicitly setting out to to do the same and every voter wasn't hoping for the same. So, am I more or less likely to get the outcome I want in this situation? Who knows? I don't because there's no way to, but I would sure appreciate being empowered to at least try to figure that out.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >Also, apparently has no problem with the incendiary and hateful speech of Trump That's probably because that has been overplayed. The President, whatever his beliefs doesn't change America's racism (or lack thereof), in the same way there was a record of police shootings of blacks etc. under Obama. A president's economic platform is more important, and Hillary, as did most pundits, mostly retold the old wives tales that globalization necessarily means giving up factories, or that somehow having jobs and motives for building stuff in one's country is obsolete, etc. That approach might maximize enterprise profits, but not necessarily help middle and lower classes, and general societal wealth. A country can have huge companies, but not get out of them but minimal local jobs and infrastructure (because they outsource those), and not even taxes on their profits (since they use globalized subsidies and other schemes to avoid paying any). I don't believe that Trump will actually fix that, but he at least (as did Bernie Sanders) paid lip service to the notion, and that counted to a lot of people. There's also the foreign policy issues. Trump might be a "loose canon" or whatever, but Hillary has been constantly and vehemently pro war / invasion etc. She has threatened Russia and Iran, helped destabilize Syria, Libya, etc. The very real potential for wars and tons of deaths (on both sides) is more important than whether Trump made misogynistic comments, or spoke against illegal immigration, etc.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    > That's probably because that has been overplayed. The President, whatever his beliefs doesn't change America's racism (or lack thereof), in the same way there was a record of police shootings of blacks etc. under Obama. This actually touches on what upset me most about this election. It's not so much that I think Trump is going to be horrible. I think he's been vague enough and it's obvious enough that he was playing to his audience that he could roll out Clinton's exact plan tomorrow and I wouldn't be all that surprised. What really bothers me is the support he got based on the persona and values he projected. That people can equate breaking the rules using a personal email server with recorded audio of a candidate condoning and admitting sexual assault. That one was often brought out to even the score when tallying the reported sins of the candidates leaves me somewhat depressed about the state of my country. I'm left feeling that if a video was presented of Trump actually doing the things he talked about but denied, sure, Clinton would probably have won, but it still would have been close, and I'm left in the position of trying to reconcile what I thought were values most my country believed in with evidence to the contrary.
ktamura 10y ago
This is a stroke of genius by Peter Thiel. In hindsight, he was hedged. If Clinton won, his Trump endorsement would have been chalked up to his contrarian, eccentric bent. If Trump won -and he did- Thiel's bet would have a huge return. His self-interest aside, this is a huge deal for Palantir, the company that he helped found and has many federal governments as their client. Also, in a sense, Thiel ensured that Silicon Valley didn't completely lose touch with the White House and will have some leverage in influencing them. For starters, immigration is a key issue for Silicon Valley for which Thiel can be a voice of reason to influence the new administration. I don't agree with many things Thiel says or does. That said, this was a brilliant execution.
- objclxt 10y ago
  > For starters, immigration is a key issue for Silicon Valley for which Thiel can be a voice of reason to influence the new administration. I don't know if immigration is as much of an issue for Palantir, given many of its clients are clandestine and won't permit non-citizens to work on their projects.
  - ktamura 10y ago
    I wasn't talking about Palantir specifically but the valley in general =)
  - amasad 10y ago
    It's huge for FB, and he's on the board.
    - jgalt212 10y ago
      walk me through that one.
      - amasad 10y ago
        Simple: majority of FB employees are immigrants. And they want more, much more. Why do you think Zuck formed Fwd.us?
simplemath 10y ago
Fuck Peter Thiel and every last person who voted for Trump. Fuck all of you. Now hellban me.
- CptJamesCook 10y ago
  Thanks for helping the readers of Hacker News understand why Trump won.
  - chronic6l 10y ago
    I voted for Trump. I'm also a distinguished engineer at Google in Mountain View, CA.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - pg314 10y ago
      Can you share why you think he would make a good president?
      - reitanqild 10y ago
        Not GP, but maybe I can shed some light: The last 24 hours I have catched a glimpse of it as a number of people have emptied their heartfelt contempt for * uneducated white males, * every person who voted Trump * etc I don't like Trump. I was surprised at every step that he got so far. I wouldn't have voted for him myself. But since yesterday I might have started to understand why Americans did. Sorry to all reasonable democrats (I guess you are the vast majority) but I think your allies actually might have secured Trumps victory. Sincerely, Someone who lives in Europe Edit: won't answer your question on why he would be a good president, only the question you didn't ask about why he became a president-elect. Neither will I say that he won't become a good president, cause frankly at this point I don't get it more. I will continue to respect democracy and American people and their rules for choosing presidents.
logicallee 10y ago
trump is an idiot who has no business being president of the country, which marks the first time someone with zero (literally zero) political experience, not even military service, was elected to that position. That said, he speaks his mind and it's trivial to see what he's thinking. Had Hillary Clinton (who I and any sane person would like over Trump) become President, it would be impossible to know what she really thought of anything or to decipher anything she said: she's a career politician, who pauses before speaking and then speaks out of both sides of her mouth. listening to Trump is like listening to some random drunk idiot in a bar. he isn't pulling one over on anyone - he barely knows where he is. sometimes that has its advantages.
- oldmanjay 10y ago
  Very many sane people had no desire to see Hillary Clinton be the president of the United States. There's just no need to keep pretending that your opinion is the only rational choice when you've been repudiated so completely.
  - logicallee 10y ago
    Nobody thought Clinton was swell, most Democrats I've spoken with hated her. The alternative is someone (Trump) who never had any kind of political experience of any kind, period. Would you get in a plane flown by someone with 0 hours of flight training, literally zero? I'd rather get in a plane flown by a pilot who has spoken out publicly about being a Jihadi terrorist (in this analogy Hillary Clinton, and I make this analogy because I really, really disagree with a lot of her policies and I don't even like her and don't think she even wants what's best for me), than in a plane piloted by someone who literally has never piloted anything, not just a jumbo jet but not even sat in a student's seat, of any kind of plane. Who doesn't even have a driver's license. That is insane. Never in the history of the United States has someone with no political experience of any kind been elected to the Presidency. It's just insane.
    - oldmanjay 10y ago
      Your explanation of your thought process is appreciated, but no amount of your insistence that your opinion is the only acceptable one makes it so.
starik36 10y ago
"Trump voters were not being captured by the polls. A lot of the dynamics were very similar to the Brexit vote in the U.K.,” which also took many commentators by surprise." The media in both countries was outright lying. The only surprise here is that they believed their own lies.
seizethecheese 10y ago
A lot of speculation here about why Thiel backed Trump. If you're genuinely curious, just watch him in his own words https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob-LJqPQEJ4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob-LJqPQEJ4. You may not agree with him, but it makes sense, especially from the author of The Diversity Myth.
return0 10y ago
His bet was completely in line with what he has been saying the past few years (about flying cars and 140 chars etc). It resonates with Trumps "US doesn't win anymore". He may have realized that a large part of US population felt the same way, something that, apparently, went amiss from everyone else in SV.
boards2x 10y ago
What's really scary is having 2 Germans having a go at your democracy. Who knows how it'll turn out.
stcredzero 10y ago
A lot of the dynamics were very similar to the Brexit vote in the U.K.,” which also took many commentators by surprise. Hillary Clinton’s campaign, he said, forgot the motto that Bill Clinton had won the presidency with in 1992: “It’s the economy, stupid.” Donald Trump was a stealth 3rd party candidate, riding on a wave produced by demographic changes and the falling fortunes of a large demographic. He's down with OPP -- where OPP means "Other Person's Party." He's used other people's money to further himself. This time, he used the Republican Party, but historically, he should be compared to other 3rd party candidates. The media producing class in this country is out of touch with a whopping huge fraction of the populace which is going from majority middle class status to minority lower class. Not only is the media producing class out of touch, many of them on the political left actively villify and denigrate them. Seriously, what did they expect? The degree to which the upper-middle class is out of touch, concerned with fripperies, and denigrating of the lower classes in the Bay Area is starting to look like a bunch of tropes from French Revolution period dramas. Programmers and technorati -- This means you!
- leurfete 10y ago
  America has a lot of pent up energy right now. It's a good time to rewatch Les Deplorables. :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMYNfQlf1H8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMYNfQlf1H8
- wavefunction 10y ago
  I grew up in "flyover country" as it has been so lovingly labeled by the coastal urbanites, and I would agree that the media is completely out of touch with a huge portion of the country. Many of these people are decent but weren't offered even lip-service by the Democratic candidate or party. You have Hillary treating them like second class citizens offering them a lower minimum wage than urbanites, for example. Why should people who have been historically neglected maintain this situation? This isn't permanent though. I've mentioned in other posts on other subjects that the "New Economy" needs to align its interests with those who have been left behind. You get their kids into dynamic programs that offer them an opportunity to share in the largesse generated by innovation and they will become more generous and open and integrated with the rest of the country.
tedmiston 10y ago
> “His odds were very badly underestimated,” he said. “Trump voters were not being captured by the polls. A lot of the dynamics were very similar to the Brexit vote in the U.K.,” which also took many commentators by surprise. The real takeaway for me is figuring why this is the case — how could / can we change the polls to be more robust? To some degree, perhaps the polls influence the outcome of the election. For example, if people on the edge of voting or not think Clinton will win by a healthy margin, they might not actually bother to vote.
- pfranz 10y ago
  I've been listening to 538 for the past few weeks. I'll try and sum up what I've gleaned from their thoughts before the election and after. A few of the election night podcasts I didn't get to listen to until after the election, which helps to see what they were over-confident about or what they're backpedaling about today. While I think it was 70/30 for Clinton they were very explicit that this doesn't mean Clinton will win. They admitted it's very difficult to convey probabilities to the average person and it's something they're still working on. I feel like a lot of the pundits (honestly, on Trump's side, too) seemed to believe Hillary winning was inevitable and the night was just going to play out like the predictions, but the polls and analysts were saying it was going to be close (although, Hillary was favored). While Clinton had a confident lead in the popular vote, her electoral map was rocky. She had thin margins in a bunch of contentious states, but in states like California and Texas she got fairly large numbers in individuals that wouldn't translate into electoral votes. When it came to the vote she just lost the contentious states. Something else they said today is that pollsters see outliers (changes from the norm) as possible noise, so they tend to bias that back to historical values or neighboring values. This can hide pockets of change or make trends slower to show up. The last election was Obama obviously he appealed to different groups of people. Many assumed the areas he flipped would stay flipped. That's why pollsters were off almost as much as 10% in some areas instead of the expected 3%. Another thing I've heard toyed around is that public polls are funded by universities and newspapers--institutions who haven't had as much money lately. So while analysis of polls have gotten better, polls have gotten worse. There's also talk about landlines falling out of favor and online polling being worse. Campaign polls have gotten better since there's more money now. From what I've heard Romney's internal polls were way off, but Obama's polls were spot on. I've heard both Hillary's and Trump's internal polls had Hillary ahead...so all of that might be irrelevant. It was a close race and the unconventional nature made it difficult to honestly predict. But most predictions ended up close to the margin of error--they just guessed the winner with too much confidence.
EdSharkey 10y ago
I didn't vote for Trump nor Clinton. Although I'm right-leaning on most issues, I am in the perplexed camp of why 50% of voters selected Trump. I was sure Hillary was going to win. I'm especially bewildered why deeply religious, evangelical Christians I know were big on Trump. He's such a sinner by biblical standards, the love for the guy didn't make sense - I thought it'd be hypocrisy to support the guy. For most, they told me the single issue for them was the supreme court nominees that Trump was promising to put forward. But, in discussing what Trump was going to do once elected, the level of projection of their goodness onto Trump seemed to go to delusional, fantasy-land places. What I'm coming to realize is that, being upper middle-class puts me completely out of touch culturally with the 50% that voted for Trump. The book Coming Apart, by Charles Murray is really helping me understand what is going on in America and what a cloistered life I've led.
- return0 10y ago
  You would be wrong i believe, because it seems that everyone, and not just the deplorables voted trump. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/white-voters-victory-donald-trump-exit-polls https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/white-voters...
  - EdSharkey 10y ago
    > Among college-educated whites, 45% voted for Clinton – 39% of men and 51% of women (the only white demographic represented in the poll where the former secretary of state came out on top). But 54% of male college graduates voted for Trump, as did 45% of female college graduates. Fascinating, pretty strong turnout for Trump with college educated folks! Clinton's numbers reflect that she lost a ton of male votes to third party. > But among the 64% of American voters who earn more than $50,000 a year, 49% chose Trump, and 47% Clinton. Middle class came out for Trump too. I wish they'd break out higher income brackets, that's where I'm at. And I guess that Clinton's support there is much stronger - which reflects the disconnect Murray describes in cultures and political leanings between the urban wealthy classes and the rest of the population.
gwern 10y ago
I would say OP has begged the question. Just because Trump has won does not mean that Thiel's bet has paid off. As in cornering the market or making a killing on paper, 'how do you bury the body?' Indeed, more than one person on the betting sites or prediction markets (or Bitcoin exchange) has been burned when they thought they won something but the market resolved otherwise. Until you've withdrawn your cash, you haven't made any money and you are still vulnerable to counterparty risk. And Thiel has yet to cash out any of his supposed 'influence'. I noted when Thiel made his original donations, and then kept doubling down, that there was a good probability he would 'win' (Trump never falling below 10% in the prediction markets) but I felt that the more serious issue was whether he would benefit. Trump has a long history of using and discarding people as soon as they are no longer useful, including decades of simply not paying people who have done work for him (at least two examples in his campaign alone: the polling agency and the girls who sang at his rallies) and daring them to sue. Not to mention how often he loudly promises to donate to charity and then... doesn't. Narcissists are not known for their gratitude, generosity, reciprocation, or feeling bound by past promises or contracts explicit or implicit. Thiel donating to Trump and giving speeches in his support is merely Trump's due for being the greatest businessman in the world and the man who will make America great again. It does not follow that Trump will actually do anything for Thiel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Farmer_and_the_Viper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Farmer_and_the_Viper It will be interesting to see if Thiel's bet on Donald Trump ever wins big and he gets something out of it like a Supreme Court nomination. But it's not over yet, and his chickens have neither hatched nor come home to roost.
muad 10y ago
I think the real story here isn't that Thiel was right, but that the rest of SV and the MSM were so wrong. You have all the data in the world and you can't see what was staring you in the face the entire time. Get out of your bubble and get to know your neighbors, it is the only way forward.
hugh4life 10y ago
I wish Thiel would become more involved... Trump is likely to end up starting too many fights on too many fronts by myopic activists whose concerns don't matter to the average voter but that rile up a significant activist base in opposition. Trump can't win a 2nd term without triangulation to mollify that. He needs to pick his battles.

74 points by stefap2 10y ago

liotier 10y ago

"Peter Thiel’s Bet on Donald Trump Wins Big" -> "Peter Thiel’s Bet on Donald Trump Wins Bigly" ... FTFY

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

civilian 10y ago

A similar discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12912608 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12912608

pmelendez 10y ago

I am ok with Thiel thinking Trump would win. What was a disappointment for me is that Thiel actually believes Trump was a good candidate and (I speculate) agrees with his platform. Also, apparently has no problem with the incendiary and hateful speech of Trump

dsugarman 10y ago
my best guess is that either A) He was putting money towards the fall of our government as we know it, I think that would be consistent with his previous stances or B) He was investing in a future political career in the Republican party but to be honest, hearing sama's comments on Thiel, it seems like he legitimately really likes Trump.
return0 10y ago
He explains his rational argument here[1]. Basically his argument is "don't take Trump literally, take him seriously". 1.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob-LJqPQEJ4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob-LJqPQEJ4
- andrewchambers 10y ago
  edit: link no longer missing
  - sremani 10y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob-LJqPQEJ4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob-LJqPQEJ4
- kbenson 10y ago
  > Basically his argument is "don't take Trump literally, take him seriously". Which I guess is great if you're a billionaire and probably get some time with Trump or someone close to him that knows what he actually plans to do. In the meantime, all the rest of us are left with "I'm going to repeal Obamacare and replace it with something great." Forgive me if I would have preferred something a little more substantial. Then again, I would like other people to have preferred that as well. :/
  - ErikVandeWater 10y ago
    Can any politician be taken literally, though? How did Obama's promises on the revolving door between lobbyists and his administration work out? Or his promise on health insurance premiums? These promises aren't the exception, they are the rule. Politicians (almost) always have to lie to win. So Trump not being specific as to what he will do seems unlikely to be any different to interpret than if he made very specific plans.
    - kbenson 10y ago
      Well, I think there are differing levels of information that can be conveyed. You can say you want a healthcare system where everyone is insured. You can say you want a healthcare system where costs are lowered. You can say you want both. All these convey some information about the goals of the politician, and how they may or may not align with your own. What they eventually come up with, or not, will inform you how much they compromised on that position. I would hazard most politicians are less likely to compromise on specific goals they stated, and more likely to compromise on ones they didn't state. This allows you to steer yourself towards a candidate that may work for an outcome you want, even if there's obviously no guarantee. In this case, we have "I will make something great", as if every candidate wasn't implicitly setting out to to do the same and every voter wasn't hoping for the same. So, am I more or less likely to get the outcome I want in this situation? Who knows? I don't because there's no way to, but I would sure appreciate being empowered to at least try to figure that out.
coldtea 10y ago
>Also, apparently has no problem with the incendiary and hateful speech of Trump That's probably because that has been overplayed. The President, whatever his beliefs doesn't change America's racism (or lack thereof), in the same way there was a record of police shootings of blacks etc. under Obama. A president's economic platform is more important, and Hillary, as did most pundits, mostly retold the old wives tales that globalization necessarily means giving up factories, or that somehow having jobs and motives for building stuff in one's country is obsolete, etc. That approach might maximize enterprise profits, but not necessarily help middle and lower classes, and general societal wealth. A country can have huge companies, but not get out of them but minimal local jobs and infrastructure (because they outsource those), and not even taxes on their profits (since they use globalized subsidies and other schemes to avoid paying any). I don't believe that Trump will actually fix that, but he at least (as did Bernie Sanders) paid lip service to the notion, and that counted to a lot of people. There's also the foreign policy issues. Trump might be a "loose canon" or whatever, but Hillary has been constantly and vehemently pro war / invasion etc. She has threatened Russia and Iran, helped destabilize Syria, Libya, etc. The very real potential for wars and tons of deaths (on both sides) is more important than whether Trump made misogynistic comments, or spoke against illegal immigration, etc.
- kbenson 10y ago
  > That's probably because that has been overplayed. The President, whatever his beliefs doesn't change America's racism (or lack thereof), in the same way there was a record of police shootings of blacks etc. under Obama. This actually touches on what upset me most about this election. It's not so much that I think Trump is going to be horrible. I think he's been vague enough and it's obvious enough that he was playing to his audience that he could roll out Clinton's exact plan tomorrow and I wouldn't be all that surprised. What really bothers me is the support he got based on the persona and values he projected. That people can equate breaking the rules using a personal email server with recorded audio of a candidate condoning and admitting sexual assault. That one was often brought out to even the score when tallying the reported sins of the candidates leaves me somewhat depressed about the state of my country. I'm left feeling that if a video was presented of Trump actually doing the things he talked about but denied, sure, Clinton would probably have won, but it still would have been close, and I'm left in the position of trying to reconcile what I thought were values most my country believed in with evidence to the contrary.

ktamura 10y ago

This is a stroke of genius by Peter Thiel. In hindsight, he was hedged. If Clinton won, his Trump endorsement would have been chalked up to his contrarian, eccentric bent. If Trump won -and he did- Thiel's bet would have a huge return. His self-interest aside, this is a huge deal for Palantir, the company that he helped found and has many federal governments as their client. Also, in a sense, Thiel ensured that Silicon Valley didn't completely lose touch with the White House and will have some leverage in influencing them. For starters, immigration is a key issue for Silicon Valley for which Thiel can be a voice of reason to influence the new administration. I don't agree with many things Thiel says or does. That said, this was a brilliant execution.

objclxt 10y ago
> For starters, immigration is a key issue for Silicon Valley for which Thiel can be a voice of reason to influence the new administration. I don't know if immigration is as much of an issue for Palantir, given many of its clients are clandestine and won't permit non-citizens to work on their projects.
- ktamura 10y ago
  I wasn't talking about Palantir specifically but the valley in general =)
- amasad 10y ago
  It's huge for FB, and he's on the board.
  - jgalt212 10y ago
    walk me through that one.
    - amasad 10y ago
      Simple: majority of FB employees are immigrants. And they want more, much more. Why do you think Zuck formed Fwd.us?

simplemath 10y ago

Fuck Peter Thiel and every last person who voted for Trump. Fuck all of you. Now hellban me.

CptJamesCook 10y ago
Thanks for helping the readers of Hacker News understand why Trump won.
- chronic6l 10y ago
  I voted for Trump. I'm also a distinguished engineer at Google in Mountain View, CA.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - pg314 10y ago
    Can you share why you think he would make a good president?
    - reitanqild 10y ago
      Not GP, but maybe I can shed some light: The last 24 hours I have catched a glimpse of it as a number of people have emptied their heartfelt contempt for * uneducated white males, * every person who voted Trump * etc I don't like Trump. I was surprised at every step that he got so far. I wouldn't have voted for him myself. But since yesterday I might have started to understand why Americans did. Sorry to all reasonable democrats (I guess you are the vast majority) but I think your allies actually might have secured Trumps victory. Sincerely, Someone who lives in Europe Edit: won't answer your question on why he would be a good president, only the question you didn't ask about why he became a president-elect. Neither will I say that he won't become a good president, cause frankly at this point I don't get it more. I will continue to respect democracy and American people and their rules for choosing presidents.

logicallee 10y ago

trump is an idiot who has no business being president of the country, which marks the first time someone with zero (literally zero) political experience, not even military service, was elected to that position. That said, he speaks his mind and it's trivial to see what he's thinking. Had Hillary Clinton (who I and any sane person would like over Trump) become President, it would be impossible to know what she really thought of anything or to decipher anything she said: she's a career politician, who pauses before speaking and then speaks out of both sides of her mouth. listening to Trump is like listening to some random drunk idiot in a bar. he isn't pulling one over on anyone - he barely knows where he is. sometimes that has its advantages.

oldmanjay 10y ago
Very many sane people had no desire to see Hillary Clinton be the president of the United States. There's just no need to keep pretending that your opinion is the only rational choice when you've been repudiated so completely.
- logicallee 10y ago
  Nobody thought Clinton was swell, most Democrats I've spoken with hated her. The alternative is someone (Trump) who never had any kind of political experience of any kind, period. Would you get in a plane flown by someone with 0 hours of flight training, literally zero? I'd rather get in a plane flown by a pilot who has spoken out publicly about being a Jihadi terrorist (in this analogy Hillary Clinton, and I make this analogy because I really, really disagree with a lot of her policies and I don't even like her and don't think she even wants what's best for me), than in a plane piloted by someone who literally has never piloted anything, not just a jumbo jet but not even sat in a student's seat, of any kind of plane. Who doesn't even have a driver's license. That is insane. Never in the history of the United States has someone with no political experience of any kind been elected to the Presidency. It's just insane.
  - oldmanjay 10y ago
    Your explanation of your thought process is appreciated, but no amount of your insistence that your opinion is the only acceptable one makes it so.

starik36 10y ago

"Trump voters were not being captured by the polls. A lot of the dynamics were very similar to the Brexit vote in the U.K.,” which also took many commentators by surprise." The media in both countries was outright lying. The only surprise here is that they believed their own lies.

seizethecheese 10y ago

A lot of speculation here about why Thiel backed Trump. If you're genuinely curious, just watch him in his own words https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob-LJqPQEJ4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob-LJqPQEJ4. You may not agree with him, but it makes sense, especially from the author of The Diversity Myth.

return0 10y ago

His bet was completely in line with what he has been saying the past few years (about flying cars and 140 chars etc). It resonates with Trumps "US doesn't win anymore". He may have realized that a large part of US population felt the same way, something that, apparently, went amiss from everyone else in SV.

boards2x 10y ago

What's really scary is having 2 Germans having a go at your democracy. Who knows how it'll turn out.

stcredzero 10y ago

A lot of the dynamics were very similar to the Brexit vote in the U.K.,” which also took many commentators by surprise. Hillary Clinton’s campaign, he said, forgot the motto that Bill Clinton had won the presidency with in 1992: “It’s the economy, stupid.” Donald Trump was a stealth 3rd party candidate, riding on a wave produced by demographic changes and the falling fortunes of a large demographic. He's down with OPP -- where OPP means "Other Person's Party." He's used other people's money to further himself. This time, he used the Republican Party, but historically, he should be compared to other 3rd party candidates. The media producing class in this country is out of touch with a whopping huge fraction of the populace which is going from majority middle class status to minority lower class. Not only is the media producing class out of touch, many of them on the political left actively villify and denigrate them. Seriously, what did they expect? The degree to which the upper-middle class is out of touch, concerned with fripperies, and denigrating of the lower classes in the Bay Area is starting to look like a bunch of tropes from French Revolution period dramas. Programmers and technorati -- This means you!

leurfete 10y ago
America has a lot of pent up energy right now. It's a good time to rewatch Les Deplorables. :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMYNfQlf1H8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMYNfQlf1H8
wavefunction 10y ago
I grew up in "flyover country" as it has been so lovingly labeled by the coastal urbanites, and I would agree that the media is completely out of touch with a huge portion of the country. Many of these people are decent but weren't offered even lip-service by the Democratic candidate or party. You have Hillary treating them like second class citizens offering them a lower minimum wage than urbanites, for example. Why should people who have been historically neglected maintain this situation? This isn't permanent though. I've mentioned in other posts on other subjects that the "New Economy" needs to align its interests with those who have been left behind. You get their kids into dynamic programs that offer them an opportunity to share in the largesse generated by innovation and they will become more generous and open and integrated with the rest of the country.

tedmiston 10y ago

> “His odds were very badly underestimated,” he said. “Trump voters were not being captured by the polls. A lot of the dynamics were very similar to the Brexit vote in the U.K.,” which also took many commentators by surprise. The real takeaway for me is figuring why this is the case — how could / can we change the polls to be more robust? To some degree, perhaps the polls influence the outcome of the election. For example, if people on the edge of voting or not think Clinton will win by a healthy margin, they might not actually bother to vote.

pfranz 10y ago
I've been listening to 538 for the past few weeks. I'll try and sum up what I've gleaned from their thoughts before the election and after. A few of the election night podcasts I didn't get to listen to until after the election, which helps to see what they were over-confident about or what they're backpedaling about today. While I think it was 70/30 for Clinton they were very explicit that this doesn't mean Clinton will win. They admitted it's very difficult to convey probabilities to the average person and it's something they're still working on. I feel like a lot of the pundits (honestly, on Trump's side, too) seemed to believe Hillary winning was inevitable and the night was just going to play out like the predictions, but the polls and analysts were saying it was going to be close (although, Hillary was favored). While Clinton had a confident lead in the popular vote, her electoral map was rocky. She had thin margins in a bunch of contentious states, but in states like California and Texas she got fairly large numbers in individuals that wouldn't translate into electoral votes. When it came to the vote she just lost the contentious states. Something else they said today is that pollsters see outliers (changes from the norm) as possible noise, so they tend to bias that back to historical values or neighboring values. This can hide pockets of change or make trends slower to show up. The last election was Obama obviously he appealed to different groups of people. Many assumed the areas he flipped would stay flipped. That's why pollsters were off almost as much as 10% in some areas instead of the expected 3%. Another thing I've heard toyed around is that public polls are funded by universities and newspapers--institutions who haven't had as much money lately. So while analysis of polls have gotten better, polls have gotten worse. There's also talk about landlines falling out of favor and online polling being worse. Campaign polls have gotten better since there's more money now. From what I've heard Romney's internal polls were way off, but Obama's polls were spot on. I've heard both Hillary's and Trump's internal polls had Hillary ahead...so all of that might be irrelevant. It was a close race and the unconventional nature made it difficult to honestly predict. But most predictions ended up close to the margin of error--they just guessed the winner with too much confidence.

EdSharkey 10y ago

I didn't vote for Trump nor Clinton. Although I'm right-leaning on most issues, I am in the perplexed camp of why 50% of voters selected Trump. I was sure Hillary was going to win. I'm especially bewildered why deeply religious, evangelical Christians I know were big on Trump. He's such a sinner by biblical standards, the love for the guy didn't make sense - I thought it'd be hypocrisy to support the guy. For most, they told me the single issue for them was the supreme court nominees that Trump was promising to put forward. But, in discussing what Trump was going to do once elected, the level of projection of their goodness onto Trump seemed to go to delusional, fantasy-land places. What I'm coming to realize is that, being upper middle-class puts me completely out of touch culturally with the 50% that voted for Trump. The book Coming Apart, by Charles Murray is really helping me understand what is going on in America and what a cloistered life I've led.

return0 10y ago
You would be wrong i believe, because it seems that everyone, and not just the deplorables voted trump. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/white-voters-victory-donald-trump-exit-polls https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/white-voters...
- EdSharkey 10y ago
  > Among college-educated whites, 45% voted for Clinton – 39% of men and 51% of women (the only white demographic represented in the poll where the former secretary of state came out on top). But 54% of male college graduates voted for Trump, as did 45% of female college graduates. Fascinating, pretty strong turnout for Trump with college educated folks! Clinton's numbers reflect that she lost a ton of male votes to third party. > But among the 64% of American voters who earn more than $50,000 a year, 49% chose Trump, and 47% Clinton. Middle class came out for Trump too. I wish they'd break out higher income brackets, that's where I'm at. And I guess that Clinton's support there is much stronger - which reflects the disconnect Murray describes in cultures and political leanings between the urban wealthy classes and the rest of the population.

gwern 10y ago

I would say OP has begged the question. Just because Trump has won does not mean that Thiel's bet has paid off. As in cornering the market or making a killing on paper, 'how do you bury the body?' Indeed, more than one person on the betting sites or prediction markets (or Bitcoin exchange) has been burned when they thought they won something but the market resolved otherwise. Until you've withdrawn your cash, you haven't made any money and you are still vulnerable to counterparty risk. And Thiel has yet to cash out any of his supposed 'influence'. I noted when Thiel made his original donations, and then kept doubling down, that there was a good probability he would 'win' (Trump never falling below 10% in the prediction markets) but I felt that the more serious issue was whether he would benefit. Trump has a long history of using and discarding people as soon as they are no longer useful, including decades of simply not paying people who have done work for him (at least two examples in his campaign alone: the polling agency and the girls who sang at his rallies) and daring them to sue. Not to mention how often he loudly promises to donate to charity and then... doesn't. Narcissists are not known for their gratitude, generosity, reciprocation, or feeling bound by past promises or contracts explicit or implicit. Thiel donating to Trump and giving speeches in his support is merely Trump's due for being the greatest businessman in the world and the man who will make America great again. It does not follow that Trump will actually do anything for Thiel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Farmer_and_the_Viper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Farmer_and_the_Viper It will be interesting to see if Thiel's bet on Donald Trump ever wins big and he gets something out of it like a Supreme Court nomination. But it's not over yet, and his chickens have neither hatched nor come home to roost.

muad 10y ago

I think the real story here isn't that Thiel was right, but that the rest of SV and the MSM were so wrong. You have all the data in the world and you can't see what was staring you in the face the entire time. Get out of your bubble and get to know your neighbors, it is the only way forward.

hugh4life 10y ago

I wish Thiel would become more involved... Trump is likely to end up starting too many fights on too many fronts by myopic activists whose concerns don't matter to the average voter but that rile up a significant activist base in opposition. Trump can't win a 2nd term without triangulation to mollify that. He needs to pick his battles.