Scott Adams Answers Your Questions About Predicting President | Hacker News Reader

Scott Adams Answers Your Questions About Predicting President

blog.dilbert.com

51 pointsdevy34 comments

Trump was elected president because it's like a movie? That's completely nuts.

> Clinton’s team of cognitive scientists and professional persuaders did a terrific job of framing Trump as scary.

Uh, no, Trump did that himself. He said the things he said [1] and did the things he did [2]. As I minority, I feel deeply alienated from people who take this as just theater, who have stood by as this man has fanned the flames of bigotry. That's an incredible privilege.

[1] http://uspolitics.about.com/od/Election-2016/fl/The-Most-Out...

[2] http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/donald-t...

Did you see the email released yesterday explicitly revealing HRC's campaign strategy? [0] They targetted framing Trump as a "pied piper" candidate going back to April 2015.

[0] https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/796222841612042240

Yeah, I read that. They had him, Carson and Cruz figured for it. That's standard operating procedure. I would assume RNC would have loved to have pulled that themselves, with Bernie as a pied piper, and a relatively sane person like Romney as their nominee. They might similarly have been shocked by what might have happened.

Scott Adams deserves some credit for recognizing how persuasive Trump has been going all the way back to August 2015. That said, his prediction wasn't totally on target. From "Trump's Third Act"[1]:

> I predict Trump gets at least 65% of the votes in the general election.

and:

> Trump will do what only Trump can do: He will change his mind based on better data.

Adams predicted a landslide assuming that Trump would have a third act in which he became a candidate that more people could relate to.

Credit to Scott Adams for recognizing Trump's ability to pull this off when many were still considering him to be a joke candidate. I didn't really see the change in Trump that Adams predicted, and this election was no landslide... Trump had a solid margin in the electoral college but appears to have lost the popular vote.

[1]: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/131552504961/trumps-third-act-p...

Why are people posting this self-important joker? He didn't just predict a Trump presidency, he predicted a landslide--where in fact it's possible Trump doesn't even have the popular majority. And to top it off, he predicted that Trump would do it with his magic hypnotism powers.

In the words of Peter Thiel

"Trump's supporters take him seriously, but not literally. The media takes him literally, but not seriously."

If you actually think Scott truly believes Trump won with magic, you're just as wrong as the media.

That's just a self-important way to sound superior. You shouldn't look down on people for actually listening to what someone says.

>That's just a self-important way to sound superior.

No, it's called understanding that not everything everyone says is meant to be taken literally.

Not taking everything they say literally isn't the same as taking nothing he says literally, which is what your quote said.

Thiel plagiarized that quote from Salena Zito. [1]

[1] http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/trump-ma...

Sure. That doesn't change the meaning of the quote.

He may be describing himself and other affluent Republicans, but all you need to do is watch interviews and read comment boards to see that the base he turned out takes him both seriously and literally.

I voted for Trump. I take him seriously. I don't take him literally. He's obviously not going to build a physical wall on our Southern border.

I've encountered about a dozen people who are friends of friends on Facebook for whom the wall was a major selling point for voting Trump.

And then predicted Hilary would win, then "supported" Hilary, then Johnson, and then finally back to full Trump.

If I call out that Trump wins big in 2020, then the independents, and then a couple of Democrats, well I think I'll be in good shape.

Follow his blog posts all the way back, you will see why he did what he's done. All well reasoning to me.

>> The mainstream media backed Clinton.

This should be big wakeup call. Is this the kind of media you want? They need to stick to the facts, real news, and letting us know what people are thinking ... not what they would like us to think.

Important to keep in mind: the results shouldn't change the narrative significantly http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/07/tuesday-shouldnt-change...

He should really teach that to european leaders. They went full-on Hillary without even trying to keep up appearances.

There could be a good reason for that

They enjoy awkward meetings?

Or you could actually think and come up with a reason why a huge group of your biggest allies might be horrified by this choice. Seriously, try it, it's really not too difficult. There are plenty to choose from.

> Did the United States Just Elect a Monster?

> No. Clinton’s team of cognitive scientists and professional persuaders did a terrific job of framing Trump as scary. The illusion will wear off – albeit slowly – as you observe Trump going about the job of President and taking it seriously. You can expect him to adjust his tone and language going forward.

Wait, so which is it? Is he:

a) sometime who was actually OK because everything he said that was horrible was manipulated into my brain by Clinton's cognitive scientists

b) someone who actually said horrible things and so is actually horrible, but who is now going to adjust his tone (from horrible to presumably not horrible) going forward?

I don't like him, won't defend him, but in the interest of understanding why this might have happened I post my explanation here:

Unlike certain other(s) he hasn't:

* started a war yet

* told American voters that 50% of Americans are too stupid for their own good.

* cheated Sanders out of the primaries

That seems to count for something.

Stuff he didn't do or say doesn't make up for all the things he did and say.

Not saying it does. As I point out again and again: I don't like that man. I do like Americans though and feel I have reason to be thankful for many of them.

I'm just offering a different narrative istead of "50% of the voters - conveniently enough those who disagree with us - are stupid racists."

Did you reply to the correct post? I'm not sure what you're saying has to do with what I'm saying.

It's a good thing for Trump that Clinton cheated Sanders out of the primary ... Sanders sid a better chance of beating him.

I should also note that it shouldn't be surprising that the tea party supporters who lost their candidate in 2008 and 2012 were so drawn to Trump.

well im shocked trump swept the blue firewall. Its clear the alt right has taken control of the gop. Scott Adams seems like an oracle now.

>I ask Trump supporters not to gloat too much. Be good to your fellow citizens. Be inclusive. Be useful. The country needs you at your best.

The best from people with sub 100 IQ just really isn't that much to appreciate. I know this doesn't meet the usual HN post requirements, but that's what we're dealing with. You can consult state by state election data, and compare it to state by state IQ/education data.

"The social bullying coming from Clinton’s supporters guaranteed that lots of Trump supporters were in hiding. That created the potential for a surprise result, so long as the race was close."

This contradicts the "disgruntled blue collar white support base" narrative, and I'm interested in seeing evidence that figures out the difference. E.g. Did Hillary underperform in cities? Is there social pressure from progressives within the social circles of Trump voters? Did young college educated voters vote differently than expected?

  This contradicts the "disgruntled blue collar white support 
  base" narrative

Why would it have to contradict? It could be a hybrid.

We obviously won't know until all the data is in, but looking at the county by county results seems to suggest that rural voters (who are predominantly working class whites) in swing states turned out for Trump in much greater numbers than anyone anticipated. Combine that with the fact that Clinton often underperformed or outright lost some number of counties in these states that Obama carried in 2012, and a picture starts to emerge. This was especially prevalent in Michigan and Wisconsin where she won in the cities and democratic strongholds but lost spectacularly outside of them.

If Trump truly did have masterful powers of persuasion, you'd think he would have been able to win a majority of the popular vote. Which he didn't.

Trump's victory owes a lot more to a system that gives extra weight to rural voters than it does to anything Scott Adams has ever claimed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com