4 ms·

how can you be so sure after what just happened in 2016? that was the "showing anyone can win" event su generis. trump winning makes zuckerberg winning infinite

how can you be so sure after what just happened in 2016? that was the "showing anyone can win" event su generis. trump winning makes zuckerberg winning infinitely more realistic to me.

maxerickson 9y ago
Trump has absolutely huge name recognition and is quite charismatic. Zuckerburg is not really that well known and as you say, not very charismatic. I certainly agree that dark horse candidates can come out of nowhere, I just don't think that Zuckerburg is one of them.
- the_cat_kittles 9y ago
  pretty sure a year ago you wouldn't have given trump much of a chance. i feel more qualified to say that than average because i've followed political futures markets for about 10 years, and watched as people consistently do what i suspect you are doing. when you follow / invest in the markets you are forced to translate your vague guesses into real records of your estimated probability at the time. it keeps you much more honest. you'll find its harder to mistakenly see unpredictable events as obvious after they happen, since you were trying to predict them before they happened. also, its occasionally a valuable reference when talking politics, for instance: comey was fired and lots of people tried to say this was normal and expected, but there was a market that had being fbi director on 6/30 at 95%. pretty much throws cold water on that theory. not that it was anything other than an obvious deflection to begin with, but still kind of interesting. i encourage you to follow the political futures markets, its a worthwhile endeavor. predictit.com is the standard now that intrade died. my apologies if you are actually speaking from some greater experience though.
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    watched as people consistently do what i suspect you are doing. What is it you think I'm doing? I didn't really think Trump would get the R nomination, that's true. I don't see how that informs the comparison to Zuckerburg.

how can you be so sure after what just happened in 2016? that was the "showing anyone can win" event su generis. trump winning makes zuckerberg winning infinitely more realistic to me.

maxerickson 9y ago

Trump has absolutely huge name recognition and is quite charismatic. Zuckerburg is not really that well known and as you say, not very charismatic. I certainly agree that dark horse candidates can come out of nowhere, I just don't think that Zuckerburg is one of them.

the_cat_kittles 9y ago
pretty sure a year ago you wouldn't have given trump much of a chance. i feel more qualified to say that than average because i've followed political futures markets for about 10 years, and watched as people consistently do what i suspect you are doing. when you follow / invest in the markets you are forced to translate your vague guesses into real records of your estimated probability at the time. it keeps you much more honest. you'll find its harder to mistakenly see unpredictable events as obvious after they happen, since you were trying to predict them before they happened. also, its occasionally a valuable reference when talking politics, for instance: comey was fired and lots of people tried to say this was normal and expected, but there was a market that had being fbi director on 6/30 at 95%. pretty much throws cold water on that theory. not that it was anything other than an obvious deflection to begin with, but still kind of interesting. i encourage you to follow the political futures markets, its a worthwhile endeavor. predictit.com is the standard now that intrade died. my apologies if you are actually speaking from some greater experience though.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  watched as people consistently do what i suspect you are doing. What is it you think I'm doing? I didn't really think Trump would get the R nomination, that's true. I don't see how that informs the comparison to Zuckerburg.