He may have flaws but as far as I can say, he represents a much better direction for the future of America – and the West – than his competitor. His victory – 306 to 232 electoral votes or so (or 30-to-20 states) – is sound and the difference in the popular vote is just 0.2 percentage points in Hillary's favor. And as Ann Coulter has observed, if only people whose grandparents already lived in the U.S. were voting, Trump would have safely won all 50 states in a landslide.
A 20-minute victory speech with some fancy music. I think that the boy (Barron) Trump is rather annoyed by all this stuff. ;-) Later, Clinton's concession speech was relaxed, generous, professional, and maybe even more peaceful or friendly than Trump's victory speech. Obama's comments were also wise and a clear sign that the civil war has abruptly ended.
Only a few people say it here – like Klaus' aide Weigl – but the newly elected president is also the father of three half-Czech kids, a detail that could bring Czechia an exemption when Europe needs to be nuked. (Jokes aside: I do think that Trump is a better news for the world peace than Hillary would.)
He's been the most visible candidate for more than a year and this visibility made it unavoidable for him to be repeatedly mentioned on this part-time political blog. In August 2015, I decided that the Trump phenomenon would naturally make him the GOP nominee. I agreed with him concerning the behavior of Muslims after 9/11 attacks, suggested that his refusal of PC may be enough to win. And I repeatedly disagreed with him concerning bubbles and the independence of the central banks. These disagreements on these issues – and free trade – shouldn't obscure the fact that he's otherwise a rather standard advocate of lower taxes, trickle-down economics, and other insights that I consider essential in economics.
So in most posts, I defended him – against weird vicious attacks by Tao, Susskind, Aaronson, Woit, and those who blamed him for the passengers' ignorance of calculus.
But a recurring theme were my opinions about the bold claims by lots of people – in very many influential environments, very clear majorities – that Trump had no chance to win. In December 2015, I argued that those who mock Trump are detached from reality.
Now it looks simple and obvious. My claims that the polls were "just like in the case of Brexit" were totally right. The whole media and polling machinery systematically tried to make the "politically incorrect" choice look weaker in both cases. The differences of percentages differed by almost 10% between the average forecasts and the reality.
In the long run, I did think that Trump would win the presidency but just 9 hours ago when I went to bed, I was persuaded by groups such as (especially) Votecastr that they're doing a fair job and they can't be wrong by 5 percentage points. They were predicting Hillary's victory in virtually all swing states and the predictions claimed to take some real votes into account according to a mathematically sophisticated algorithm I found rather reasonable. Well, even these seemingly impartial and bipartisan "data experts" were completely wrong and worthless.
At the end, I think that even seemingly impartial groups like that were badly contaminated by dishonest people.
If you looked at many agencies and polls and if you averaged their forecasts, you haven't improved the accuracy of your knowledge about the outcome of the elections at all – just like in Feynman's story about the length of the Chinese emperor's nose. An overwhelming majority of sources were trying to convince you about a wrong answer. In the jargon of experimental physics, the errors of various agencies and pundits weren't independent from each other. They weren't statistical but rather systematic, i.e. correlated with each other – because they were coming from a "single source", so to say.
So polls showing a Clinton victory were almost everywhere, especially in the media. Fox News was the only major U.S. TV that avoided the mandatory "news" that Clinton's victory was a sure thing. But we could hear this certainty – backed by nothing – from lots of people around us, too. For example, a far left Romanian interpretational pseudoscientist Florin Moldoveanu picked a bold face font to tell us some bold things:
By now the election outcome is all but certain: Trump will lose, and Clinton will win, but what is the basis for this prediction?These are just two example sentences – he has written whole kilobytes where this absolute garbage was being repeated all the time.
But by now is is clear Trump's chances of election are virtually zero and this has the potential to split the Republican party.
He wrote it on October 14th. Just try to recall how many important events affecting the outcome have taken place since October 14th – from irrelevant new accusations about grabbed pußies to a restarted FBI investigation and the second interruption of it. Where can someone get such a mixture of arrogance and myopia to be this certain about similarly clearly uncertain things – and do so such a long time ahead of the event? (Well, 3 weeks are still shorter than 100 years, the typical period for which the climate hysterics "predict" the weather.) The subjective certainty of hacks like Moldoveanu is absolutely amazing. I was explaining to him why the whole basis of his thinking has been shown to be a house of cards but it's like speaking to a wall. My attempts to explain basics of quantum mechanics to him seem similarly hopeless.
But lots of other people were acting in almost the same way as Moldoveanu. Well, Hillary herself declared Trump a "sore loser" weeks ago and she decided that she could erase him from his life because he was guaranteed to lose and become irrelevant. A typical arrogant bitch. But I am primarily talking about "seemingly impartial" people around us. On October 12th, our Gene Day told us:
Re. Donald Trump, the number one rule in life is, when you find yourself in a hole, to stop digging. Trump doesn't get it.So I asked him: What hole? What the hell are you talking about? Trump wasn't digged in any hole. He was running a vigorous campaign which turned out to be successful. Gene may disagree with Trump's goals, methods, and style but Gene isn't the dictator so this disagreement in no way means that Trump is digging a hole for himself. Gene, would you agree that despite your big mouth, you were wrong? Would you agree that to amplify your guesses by describing them as "the number one rule of life" was just painfully arrogant and stupid?
We could really see that Trump's was a good strategy. Dilbert's creator Scott Adams who predicted Trump's victory – and he was really a rare Trump-win believer among pundits who are comparably famous (if we omit some "possibly mandatory optimism" of the members of the Trump campaign itself) – gave us some explanations of the logic of Trump's campaign and why it was destined to be a winning one. We must be careful: Adams' correct prediction of the outcome does not imply that all the details in his argumentations were right. But I was sort of persuaded by them, too.
I've mentioned that the errors of the forecasts – which underestimated the Trump-Clinton difference by 5-10 points – obviously cannot be statistical errors. This mistaken forecast can't be due to some accidental noise, isolated random mistakes in the agencies' prediction of the voters' behavior. Trump was heavily underestimated in virtually every group that claimed to provide us with the information. The large inaccuracies have to be due to a systematic error.
We may ask whether the systematic error is due to something "morally neutral" or "something evil". I am absolutely convinced that it's the latter. Without evil, many agencies would be capable of reducing the inaccuracy to a few percent by applying adjustments that are clearly needed. They would be able to figure out what the people actually think.
The claims about Trump's low chances were obviously due to the anti-Trump activists' efforts to intimidate Trump supporters and convince them that they are a part of a minority that is bound to lose and face some trouble. Contemporary leftists love to whine all the time – for example, women collectively suck in mathematics, so it must be due to some evil men etc.! – and this whining brings them various advantages either because people around are fooled, gullible, compassionate human beings; or, more often, because people just don't want to listen to this whining which is amplified by a community of brownshirts who can really harm you.
But in the elections, the whining just doesn't help your side to win. The ballots are secret and no one can force the voters to vote in one way or another. It's more helpful for the activists to adopt a muscular tone. We're crushing the enemy, the anti-Trump activists were screaming, and be careful not to be crushed as well. All of this has always been pure rubbish and lies.
All of it would be sort of fine. There are people who manipulate because they consider a particular big outcome to be more important than the cleanness of the methods – which may sometimes be sensible. The real problem is that liars and bullies like that basically control the political sections of newspapers, polling agencies, universities, and many other important spots. So they collectively guaranteed that their ideological goals were always more important than the cleanness of the methods – and that would mean the end of democracy. In many environments, they are clear majorities; in others, they may be minorities but they are majorities among those who dare to speak. They don't find lies troublesome for a simple reason. They have been lying (and harming inconvenient people around them) pretty much 24 hours a day for many, many years and they have never faced any tangible backlash. Whether you like it or not, most truth-telling people avoid lies because they may face some problems when they're caught lying. If there's no God and no human who takes care of the punishment, most people find lies OK for them.
I hope that this will stop. One of the most well-defined examples of a persistent lie that is being defended by dishonest bullies like that is the climate hysteria, the claim that the climate is going to change dangerously and it will be because of the human activity, especially one involving CO2. Most people know this claim to be rubbish. And among those who have honestly studied this question using scientific tools, the fraction of those who realize that the worries are not backed by any evidence adds up to a very healthy majority.
Nevertheless, we still hear the indefinitely repeated lies about those 97% who support the climate hysteria. They're pretty much the same people as those who have been assuring us that Trump couldn't win. A deceitful, completely corrupt movement of mostly far left activists. I hope that President Trump will have the muscles to eradicate this climate hysteria movement not only in the U.S. but in the whole world. Dismantling of the U.S. role in the "Paris Agreement" should be the beginning.
Clinton's supporters openly weep and I think that President Clinton has at most weeks left to become a fugitive (perhaps to Venezuela? Probably to Saudi Arabia or Qatar where she has true allies) instead of a prisoner because the politically distorted claims that she hasn't done any crime are probably going to crumble, too. Hillary, you really don't have too much time left. (Thankfully, after some hints that she wouldn't concede, she did concede by phone.)
There is some hysteria in the world including the markets. A similar one lasted some two days after the Brexit referendum – except for the exchange rate of the pound that has significantly weakened in the long run. The idea that Trump is a tragedy for the U.S. or the world economy is a crazy fairy-tale, too. (I think that the 10% weakening of the Mexican currency is irrational, too. Trump will mainly hurt the prosperity of those who have illegally escaped or who want to illegally escape Mexico but if they don't escape or if they're returned, Mexico may enjoy a greater economic activity that would otherwise take place in the U.S.)
[Update in the afternoon: Wow, Dow goes up 1% in the day, DAX by 1.5%. The overnight –750 points drop in DJIA futures was more than undone.]
Will the people get it? How much time do they need for that? Those of you who trade things, have you noticed that the post-Brexit stock market hysteria was based on a lie (about a non-existent tragedy), much like the predictions were based on lies?
Trump has built huge skyscrapers at many places of the U.S. and the globe. You really shouldn't expect that he is some contrarian who can't work with the system. He can work with it very well. Where he differs is that he has used some of his wealth to build a huge, beautiful wall that shields him from the political correctness (and a few related things) and the petty jihadists who spread it. The petty politically correct jihadists have ruined many people's lives and they have forced many other people to be silent and apologize for things they should be proud about.
But these petty PC jihadists were too weak to beat Donald Trump. Trump's supporters suspected that it would be the case and that was a reason why the support was so massive. It wasn't the only group but tens of millions of Trump's voters were folks who were materially and unfairly harmed by the politically and ideologically motivated bullies who chose Hillary Clinton as the defender of their power.
Congratulations to Donald Trump once again. I hope that the circumstances will be favorable for him and that the real or hypothetical flaws will turn out to be harmless signs of his personality. For one, I think it's obvious that Trump will become – or has already become – relaxed and conciliatory and we will quickly learn he is a source of smile rather than tension. Just play the incredibly conciliatory speech at the top! What Václav Klaus predicted about Trump's "changing roles" is already taking place 100%. (But Klaus was mostly wrongly betting on Hillary's victory.)
The current Czech president's well-known spokesman has said that the Trump victory shows that lies, hatred, media, and pseudoelites may be defeated. Like Klaus, Zeman previously endorsed Trump. See also a new delighted reaction by ex-president Klaus who also enumerates many of those who have lost – and hopes that after Brexit and Trump, a similar wave will arrive to the continental Europe.
By the way, the propaganda was also seen in the reporting of the opinions in countries like mine. Look at this chart in the Economist. The whole world is much more anti-Trump than America itself. Except that countries like most of the post-communist world – where Trump was ahead, especially in Russia – were completely omitted in the graph. Clearly, it was a deliberate distortion.