December 27, 2016

The experts got blindsided by what happened on Election Day, so why should we care how they try to explain it now?

I'm noticing an article in The New Yorker by Maria Konnikova, "The Psychological Research that Helps Explain the Election," and it just seems so pathetic. I mean, I know the political writers need to keep writing. It's their livelihood. But why are we supposed to keep reading? It's been established that you don't know what you're talking about. Your game is a fraud.

But Konnikova's piece at least has the virtue of digging up old research papers that were written without trying to influence/explain this election. She then uses them to attempt to explain the election.

The first article was about confirmation bias, which Konnikova says "can help explain why Trump supporters remain supportive no matter what evidence one puts to them—and why Trump’s opponents are unlikely to be convinced of his worth even if he ends up doing something actually positive."

The second article was about the polarization effect, which Konnikova tells us helps explain why Trump supporters declined to take instruction from the media: The more negative the press got, the more Trump supporters perceived that media as biased.

The third article was about cultural cognition, the tendency to select information that protects your idea of your own identity. Trump fed people some things that they liked. Konnikova mentions opposition to the left, the establishment, and political correctness. People absorbed that. The rest, not so much.

The fourth article was about authoritarianism — "the desire for strong order and control." People are pretty tolerant, but at some point, they flip. They feel threatened and need protection.

The fifth article is from evolutionary psychology. We evolved to cooperate within a coalition and to fight outsiders when provoked by outrage. Outrage was used to motivate us.

The sixth article is about how people who feel stressed and threatened go for "tighter rules, greater strength, a more authoritarian approach." Trump acted like he knew this, didn't he?

The seventh article is about optimism bias. Konnikova thinks this explains why Hillary Clinton supporters were so inert.

140 comments:

David Begley said...

How about the fact that the so-called experts all supported Hillary and live in a bubble? The Pauline Kael effect.

And let's put aside the fact that Hillary was a failure in foreign policy and a criminal to boot.

Original Mike said...

Althouse said..."It's been established that you don't know what you're talking about. Your game is a fraud."

Ohhh, so close, but no cigar. The polls are purposefully fraudulent, designed to influence the election.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

The fifth article is from evolutionary psychology. We evolved to cooperate within a coalition and to fight outsiders when provoked by outrage. Outrage was used to motivate us.

Which would not have worked had the leftist that dominate the Democrat party not provided things to be outraged about.

The left appears to be the faction that is doing its best to promote an "us vs all them evil others" mentality. Most people just want to be left alone to live their lives without being remade into the new Soviet Man.

I personally do not care for NASCAR and have never seen a single episode of Two Broke Girls. However, it would never occur to me to ridicule someone for liking NASCAR or the TV show, probably because I know people who do.

But to the new class disparaging those who like them is a way of signaling to other members of the new class that they are indeed members of the preferred in group.

mccullough said...

The voters who made the difference were those who voted for Obama and voted for Trump in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Maine district 2. How does this research explain those voters?

Arthur James said...

Don't you see the beauty of Christ, through mercy, and the beatitudes, seriously the strength of Christ is his life.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

@mccullogh

It couldn't possibly be that they were motivated by devastation visited on their communities by globalization because that might mean that free trade and unrestricted immigration might have a bad side and that can't be right.

Darrell said...

Can he dig up something explaining why the Democrats support a crazy, lying, incompetent cocksucker like Hillary?

madAsHell said...

The theme today is tortured prose.

AmIrite?

Chuck said...

Althouse are you now committing precisely the same sin as the writers you are assailing?

Let's start with the notion that the pollsters didn't get a whole lot wrong in this election. Particularly the internal pollsters (who really count).

Dems must have known how close Michigan was in the closing days. That is why they were all coming here in the last 72 hours, again and again. They knew clearly, which states were close.

And the national polling was mostly correct. Certainly within accepted margins of error. Hillary got more votes than Trump, nationally, consistent with national polling.

If people are trying to find the right words to express the nature of the "Id" represented by Trump, I have no problem with that. It might not be easy to do.

I have never heard you once try to explain whether you think Trump was the best choice for president, or even an acceptable choice for president, and certainly not any "why" in connection with any answer.

chickelit said...

I still maintain that the 2016 election was about repulsion and clingier hanger-ons.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

My opinion on why leftist so often are invested in the believe that all opposition to them is racist/sexist/homophobia/etc is that they don't want to admit to themselves that the reason they support policies that benefit them is based on their own economic interests.

Free trade and cheap labor provides them with cheaper goods and servants. But, if they admitted that then they wouldn't be able to feel virtuous, and as we all know, virtue comes from believing the correct things. And making sure everyone knows you believe the correct things. Virtue has nothing to do with actually doing anything to help others. Just believing the correct things helps others.

David said...

Just where is the evidence that Trump is authoritarian? He certainly is hierarchical to a significant extent, but that is far different than being authoritarian.

Most of his so called authoritarian stances are either made up or ambiguous hints that he has since abandoned. The "Muslim Registry" comes to mind.

It is certainly possible that Trump could turn out to be authoritarian but little basis for that conclusion now.

Mary Beth said...

The fourth article was about authoritarianism

Then why didn't Hillary win?

David said...

"Let's start with the notion that the pollsters didn't get a whole lot wrong in this election. Particularly the internal pollsters (who really count)."

It's true. The only thing they got wrong was the result. Everything else was near perfect.

Darrell said...

Hillary responded to her loss by throwing punches at Mook and Podesta and throwing a bottle of vintage champagne worth nearly six figures at a one-of-a-kind OLED big screen television/monitor worth just under $1 million that was a present from the Saudis.


Sounds like a reasonable person that you would want to lead your country into the future.

Michael K said...

Chuck doesn't understand it yet attempts to explain.

How about the reality that many of us were fed up with the leftist theme of Obama and Hillary ?

It seemed to appeal to about 25% of the population and another 20 to 25% were along for the goodies.

That leave half of us who are trying to live our own life and leave the others alone but they keep forcing us to see the crap they spew.

One factor that probably influenced a lot of people was the intrusiveness of the PC types, like the lesbians who sued the Oregon cake bakers. There were repeated examples in other places. I am very far from a fundamentalist Christian but it pissed me off.

The NFL and the NBA are running test cases with defying the national anthem and the basic reality of sex. It goes on and on.

Trump, for all his crudities, and maybe because of them, was obviously defying the PC crowd.

Terrorism is another factor and the blindness of the elites. Mexican illegal immigration is yet one more.

It added up.

Roger Sweeny said...

Your summary seems to boil down to: The people who voted for Trump really are deplorable.

William said...

Hillary had any number of defects and deficits. The writer did not take inventory of all the pathologies within the Democratic Party that led to them choosing her. I haven't read the article, but my guess is that it demonstrates rather than explores confirmation bias.

traditionalguy said...

Japan's head man is visiting Pearl Harbor today, the scene of the crime. He is celebrating the Great Japanese Victory there. But he remembers thathe next 4 years taught the world all it needs to know to understand DJT's style of winning.

Trump simply told us to remember the last 25 years of the slow Pearl Harbor defeat after infamous defeat directed on the USA from DC itself. And suddenly, no one could stop the Retribution that hit Japan.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

The writer did not take inventory of all the pathologies within the Democratic Party that led to them choosing her

I just assume that she knows a lot of dirt that the DNC would not want publicized and black mailed them into supporting her. When Obama beat her in 2008 she extracted the SofS job as a payoff to go along and the assurance that she would be the nominee in 2016.

Of course, I can't prove that. But it seems to fit the facts pretty well. Why else would you nominate someone as obviously unsuited to run for president?

Ron Winkleheimer said...

I mean, Bernie Sanders would have beat her if the fix wasn't in. In retrospect, that should have been a tip off that she was going to lose the general.

Quayle said...

"Althouse are you now committing precisely the same sin as the writers you are assailing?"

I sense that Chuck is closer to the truth.

The "polls" and the "media predictions" were not really intended to predict the outcome so much as to create the outcome.

They were all stampede techniques.

But Ann does ask the salient question. The problem and challenge now for the media is how to reset the stampede triggers, the cattle being all disillusioned with the last one.

Chris N said...

Visiting the buffet of social science, the pop-neuro-science nugget, this month's new profound discovery that all the people in the suburbs think all the people in the big city are talking about....cultural criticism...doesn't need to involve overt political ideology.

That said, a lot of people have always believed in such activism, especially in New York.

Ah well...

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Bernie Sanders, who opposed free trade and wanted to stop the flow of illegal immigrants because it was hurting the American worker.

But Trump is RACISSSS, because.

rhhardin said...

It's too bad Obama couldn't run again. The "He means well" vote would push him over the top.

exhelodrvr1 said...

"Why else would you nominate someone as obviously unsuited to run for president?"

They had to nominate a woman, or they would have infuriated their feminist support. The only possibilities were Warren or Clinton. Warren was far enough left that they couldn't trust that Hillary supporters/donors would also provide support/donations for her campaign.

tds said...

Wasn't there an article on low energy people available?

Paul said...

The fact that the left sees the right as the authoritarians is pure delusion. Of the two candidates the one most likely to embroil us in war was the democrat too. When your whole worldview is based on faulty assumptions both your prognostications and your analyses are worthless.

Chuck said...

Roger Sweeny said...
Your summary seems to boil down to: The people who voted for Trump really are deplorable.


I certainly would never agree with that. As a Trump voter myself, I would not agree.

I think some Trump voters liked his rough edges.

I think some other Trump voters hated the Obama Democrats, and especially the Obama-friendly federal judges.

I think some other Trump voters had a calculus in mind, that he was the least-worst option.

I think some other Trump voters were Republicans for whom Trump was their last choice as a nominee, and who never would have polled as Trump supporters, but who reverted to their party as the campaign came to a close and election day was upon us.

n.n said...

The reasons why the Left were rejected:

Progressive wars.

Trials through assassination.

Immigration "reform".

Class diversity.

Social justice adventurism.

Redistributive change.

Perpetual smoothing functions that sponsor corruption and destroy the human spirit.

Catastrophic Anthropogenic Government Whoring.

Selling America to the highest bidder.

Anti-nativism.

Devaluation of capital and labor.

WaterCloset and PhishingGate that confirmed their character.

Reset of a cold war with Russia, China, etc.

Pro-Choice/inclusion.

Pro-Choice/abortion.

Establishment of the Pro-Choice Church.

rehajm said...

It's true. The only thing they got wrong was the result. Everything else was near perfect.

Heh. Probabilistic Prediction Models mean never having to say you're wrong.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

They had to nominate a woman, or they would have infuriated their feminist support. The only possibilities were Warren or Clinton.

Why would those be the only choices? Warren hasn't even been a senator for that long. I'm no fan of hers, but Debbie Wasserman would have been a better choice than Hillary. For that matter, the party has other female senators. Why not one of them? Hillary is a horribly untalented politician with a boat load of baggage. The mail server business alone should have disqualified her. I still think she strong armed the DNC. Now perhaps the DNC rationalized her choice as not being a problem because Trump and they had trounced the GOP in the previous two elections, and they had all the money and ground game and data so they thought they could drag her over the finish line. But the fact of the matter is they could have had all those advantages and they could also have selected a better candidate.

Chuck said...

I should add;

I think there were some Trump voters who believed the impossible bullshit about how he would lower taxes, reduce the national debt, preserve entitlements, replace Obamacare with something great, save jobs across the Midwest and in coal country, crush ISIS, and build a border wall.

I expect that the Trump years will have some success with some things, but almost none of his great list of promises.

Trump, I expect, will have some successes, with congressional support. They won't be any of the things that got whooped up in Trump rallies. They will be the kinds of things that a President Rubio or a President Kasich or a President Bush would have accomplished.

Paul said...

Some of us Trump voters believe, like Ann Coulter, that he actually will be a great president and was the best choice availabile, as opposed to the least worst. In fact there were many huge rallies filled with just such people.

I include Chuck with the people laboring under many false assumptions and who has proven his prognostications and analyses to be worthless.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

@Chuck

In which case the people will select someone else who will get those things done.

I know you don't believe it, but the election of Donald Trump to the Presidency is not some accident. People are profoundly dissatisfied with the people who are running the country and want change.

Trump's election is a signal to the ruling class. Half of the country is not happy and is not willing to be sacrificed so that the other half can be self-righteous prigs about race and class while exploiting brown people and preening about how virtuous they are.

Politicians who cannot or refuse to understand this are toast.

Henry said...

I believe in mechanics more than psychologists.

Hillary lost because the Democrats didn't get people to the polls. Logistics.

Chuck said...

Paul said...
Some of us Trump voters believe, like Ann Coulter, that he actually will be a great president and was the best choice availabile, as opposed to the least worst. In fact there were many huge rallies filled with just such people.

I know there are some people like you. And in fact, I think that within your subgroup, there are people who, while thinking that Trump is exactly the right man at the right time for America, would also privately concede that Trump is a rather low-information, impulsive vulgarian.

I really wish I knew how big a group you are. You aren't anything like a majority. I just don't know how big or small a group you really are.

Unknown said...

Perhaps the key word id bias. Maybe the reporters weren't inaccurate, they just weren't reporting. They were doing advocacy.

Hagar said...

So Chuck, how do you get more vulgar than the Clintons?

Chuck said...

Ron Winkleheimer said...
@Chuck

In which case the people will select someone else who will get those things done.

When?

I know you don't believe it, but the election of Donald Trump to the Presidency is not some accident. People are profoundly dissatisfied with the people who are running the country and want change.
Why would you suggest that? I never once thought that Trump was any "accident." He is in part the product of the worst Democratic nominee since Al Smith; I said that from before the Republican nomination was settled.

Trump's election is a signal to the ruling class. Half of the country is not happy and is not willing to be sacrificed so that the other half can be self-righteous prigs about race and class while exploiting brown people and preening about how virtuous they are.
Blah-di-blah-blah-blah. Who is in your "ruling class." Ted Cruz? Mike Lee? Justice Thomas? Justice Alito? Rand Paul? What about the members of the Trump cabinet? Is GOP SuperDonor Betsy DeVos (a Bush/Rubio/Cruz supporter and donor) part of "the ruling class"? Is Rush Limbaugh in "the ruling class"? He is a millionaire media pundit. Is Charlie Sykes in "the ruling class"? Are the Clintons, who no longer hold any public office and have no hope of ever holding such office again, part of "the ruling class"?

Politicians who cannot or refuse to understand this are toast.
Bullshit. Every "ruling class" GOP candidate who's gone up against a TrumpParty primary opponent has kicked ass.

tcrosse said...

A lot of ink is spilled explaining why people supported Trump in spite of his many faults. Maybe somebody should explain why so many more supported Hillary in spite of her many faults. It's as if support of Hillary is a given, but support of Trump must be analyzed and explained.

Chuck said...

Hagar said...
So Chuck, how do you get more vulgar than the Clintons?


B-b-b-b-ut what about Hillary? And what ab-b-b-bout Obama?

Yeah; whatever. Who cares about them anymore? Not me.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Every "ruling class" GOP candidate who's gone up against a TrumpParty primary opponent has kicked ass.

What? This doesn't even make sense. Did JEB! kick his ass? Cruz?

Anyway, all those people you mentioned, yes they are definitely in the ruling class.

I don't have a problem with the ruling class existing, so long as it is actually meritocratic. Somebody has to be in charge. I just want those people to not be sneeringly condescending and to take into account the concerns and needs of all of the people they represent. I do oppose technocratic governance where the ruling class feels no need, and indeed is opposed to, consultation with the governed because the technocrats feel they are best suited to govern using SCIENCE!

JaimeRoberto said...

Let me get this straight. Democrats want to regulate every aspect of the economy. They want to force small businesses to serve customers they don't want to serve. They want to second guess hiring decisions to enforce diversity. They want to overturn the First Amendment by overturning Citizens United. And it's Republicans who are authoritarian?

harkin said...

You keep hearing from these jackals that Trump voters wanted more authoritarian government. These are the same idiots who said the Tea Party was violent (less than 10 arrests total) and based on racism and the Occutards were peaceful (thousands of arrests) and grounded in free speech (mic check!! mic check!!).

These same petulant children were cheering Obama on as he used govt. agencies to target conservatives and impeded same in their sworn duty to enforce our immigration laws and combat terrorism (did you hear the latest? he released an ISIS fighter from Guantanamo to Bosnia and reportedly sent him $100K. When attempts were made through NFOI, his admin said the records were shredded).

mockturtle said...

Your headline says [asks] it all.

khesanh0802 said...

Most of this is intuitively obvious - like so much in the social sciences and "psychology". Hasn't Scott Adams done a pretty good job of explaining confirmation bias for the last 6 months? I got a kick out of the guy from Yale - Pinker - who gave a recitation of all the reasons Trump should have alienated certain classes of voters. Speaking of confirmation bias!

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Four star generals in line to be Secretary of Defense, ruling class. ExxonMobil CEO in line for SoS, ruling class. Supreme Court Justice, ruling class. Indeed, any Judge anywhere can be considered ruling class.

Rush Limbaugh is not actually in the ruling class. Having a lot of money does not mean you are in the ruling class. He can't put anyone in jail or order force used against people or otherwise exercise power over people because of his position (other than his employees who are free to quit.) If he was appointed to a government position, then he would be part of the ruling class. The Clintons were in the ruling class, but their position now is rather ambivalent.

Trump of course was not in the ruling class, and had to do a lot of sucking up to the petty barons of New York and elsewhere in order to make himself successful, but is now at the apex of the ruling class, which is why so many people in the ruling class hate him so. They consider him an arriveste.



khesanh0802 said...

Chuck said "I have never heard you once try to explain whether you think Trump was the best choice for president, or even an acceptable choice for president, and certainly not any "why" in connection with any answer." Chuck, it is not Ann's role to tell us whether or not either candidate was the best choice. If she started doing that most of us would probably stop reading her. She has pointed out many of the characteristics of each candidate - some funny, some startling, some obnoxious - and left it up to us to hammer out our own opinions as to their suitability.

If you're looking for advice on making your choices or judgements as to suitability you have come to the wrong place.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Petty bureaucrats at the IRS who use their position to prevent citizens from organizing and engaging in political activism, ruling class. Especially when they face no repercussions for doing so.

David said...

"The seventh article is about optimism bias. Konnikova thinks this explains why Hillary Clinton supporters were so inert."

Who was inert, Hillary or her supporters? But optimism bias? More like snobbish cluelessness.

Drago said...

Chuck: "Yeah; whatever. Who cares about them anymore? Not me."

You didn't care about them during the primaries and you didn't care about them during the general election campaign.

And now your excuse is that you don't care about them anymore because the election is over.

Uh huh.

Original Mike said...

"Hillary lost because the Democrats didn't get people to the polls. Logistics."

People get themselves to the polls. You have to give them a reason to make the trip.

bagoh20 said...

I thought that I knew why I voted for Trump, but after reading your article I find that:

"Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter."

Chuck said...

Rush Limbaugh is not actually in the ruling class. Having a lot of money does not mean you are in the ruling class. He can't put anyone in jail or order force used against people or otherwise exercise power over people because of his position (other than his employees who are free to quit.) If he was appointed to a government position, then he would be part of the ruling class.


Good. So the following people are NOT part of your Ruling Class:
The New York Times editorial board;
Tom Steyer;
Al Gore;
George Soros;
Jeff Bezos;
Jamie Dimond;
Barbra Streisand;
Lawrence O'Donnell
E.J. Dionne
Lawrence Tribe
Cecille Richards
Ralph Neas
Jesse Jackson
Al Sharpton

Right? None of those people can put anybody in jail, and none of them can issue an order to force anyone to do anything against their will.

Chuck said...

khesanh0802 said...
Chuck ...
...
If you're looking for advice on making your choices or judgements as to suitability you have come to the wrong place.

I am looking for neither. I am curious, why an intelligent, informed, highly socialized person like Ann Althouse would appear to be so tolerant and even solicitous of Donald Trump's steady stream of stupidities and social depredations.

My working theory about Althouse has been that of all the Republican candidates, Trump was the most pro-gay in her personal view (looking through everyone's rhetoric).

Michael K said...

I know you don't believe it, but the election of Donald Trump to the Presidency is not some accident. People are profoundly dissatisfied with the people who are running the country and want change.

Trump's election is a signal to the ruling class.


Yes and chuck is clueless as usual.

n.n said...

Evolution = chaos. They pretended to be God, an extra-universal entity, who is both omniscient and omnipotent in our domain. The Left is merely human like the rest of us, trapped withing the limited boundaries of the scientific domain. Their ideological pretense to godhood is historically a first-order cause of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change and a leading cause of infant mortality.

William said...

I don't think that it is possible for a Democratic elected official to strongly and publicly criticize Lena Dunham or Colin Kaepernick. If such a thing happened, the New Yorker writers would blast them to hell........In totalitarian societies, the artists and intellectuals worry about falling afoul of the government. In this country, the elected officials worry about falling afoul of the artists and intellectuals.

Fernandinande said...

The experts got blindsided by what happened on Election Day, so why should we care how they try to explain it now?

"We" continue to not care - because experts:

In detailed studies, in which "experts" were asked to make forecasts about the future (predicting which of three possible futures would occur), it was found that the "experts" did no better than well-informed non-experts! As Tetlock says, “We reach the point of diminishing marginal predictive returns for knowledge disconcertingly quickly,” he reports. “In this age of academic hyperspecialization, there is no reason for supposing that contributors to top journals—distinguished political scientists, area study specialists, economists, and so on—are any better than journalists or attentive readers of the New York Times in ‘reading’ emerging situations.”

Michael said...

This article, like all of the others, spends zero time on HRC as candidate. The people disappoint.

Paul said...

Anyone who thinks Trump is stupid is a fool. The kind of person who would predict confidently that he could never win the nomination let alone the general election. The kind of fool who never learns and will continue to make faulty predictions. The kind of fool who shows up and repeatedly inserts his foot into his big arrogant stupid mouth and is repeatedly mocked for it. He claims to be a republican but has the ugly personality profile of a leftist.

Chuck said...

William said...
...
... In this country, the elected officials worry about falling afoul of the artists and intellectuals.


It's much worse than that. Not only to elected officials feel that fear; corporate leaders in all sectors fear it. Exquisitely. And of course, it is hard to even tell, in the world of academia, if they are responding to that fear, or leading it. Probably both.

So every large corporation extends same-sex partner benefits, appoints affirmative action board members, and employs minority outreach executives. Universities devote whole departments, and set aside places in the student body, for minorities and other special-interest groups. And if they fail to do so, they are the subject of activist protests and boycotts.

exhelodrvr1 said...

"Why would those be the only choices?"

Those were the only two women that had any possibility of being nominated by the Democratic Party. That's different than saying there weren't other women who would be better candidates.

hombre said...

Interesting that the lefties have to paint the results with negativity.

Somehow, "making America great again" and "draining the swamp" occur to me as positive things.

tim maguire said...

Which article talked about soberly reviewing policy and direction and making a thoughtful choice between two options? Which article discussed declining to double down on failure?

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

(1) On the road, recently, I was listening to some lecture series where the guy claimed, rather nonchalantly, that very smart people tend to be more close-minded because they're so very good at generating post hoc rationalization for what they already believe.

Sounded like crap to me.

I think it was called "Skepticism 101 - An Introduction to Critical Thinking." My experience has been that pretty much any reference to "101" in popular culture implies that crap is about to follow. It was a cliche back in the 80s. I don't know whether colleges still use that designation for intro courses.

(2) I think some experiment was done by which adding increments of food coloring to wine specimens totally bolloxed up experts something fierce.

It's on the internet, probably.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Good. So the following people are NOT part of your Ruling Class:

Followed by list of lickspittles and entertainers for the most part with a few "captians of industry" activists and thugs thrown in.

Some are, some aren't. A lot of them think they are, but aren't. Entertainers are never part of the ruling class, but think they are which is why they are such assholes.

Is it your contention that there is no ruling class? That people just show up to work for the IRS on a voluntary basis? That no mechanism exists for selecting people to exercise authority? That connections and social position cannot influence who is selected to exercise authority?

Owen said...

Michael K @ 9:41: "One factor that probably influenced a lot of people was the intrusiveness of the PC types, like the lesbians who sued the Oregon cake bakers. There were repeated examples in other places. I am very far from a fundamentalist Christian but it pissed me off."

What you said. The fatal combination was economic stress/uncertainty and that smug aggressive blamecasting on social issues. If I am doing well economically, I can put up with a lot of virtue-signaling nonsense. If I am not being hectored but instead feel we are all pulling together, I can accept a lot of economic sacrifice.

But not both at once.

mockturtle said...

Having just hired a series of contractors, I would say that plumbers are probably the ruling class.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Those were the only two women that had any possibility of being nominated by the Democratic Party. That's different than saying there weren't other women who would be better candidates.

Why are those the only two who could be nominated? If the DNC could fix it for Hillary, why not fix it for someone else?

If I was running the DNC, and I wasn't being strong armed by the Clinton machine, I would have been reaching out to women politicians the day after Obama's election. I would encourage these women to consider running for president. I would be doing things to develop viable candidates. I would not just be accepting that Hillary was the candidate because she was married to Bill.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

The fact of the matter is that Obama is the President because he showed up.

Both he and Michelle made remarks indicating that he didn't think he was going to win the primary in 2008 when he threw his hat in the ring. The thinking was that it was necessary preparation for a 2016 run. A way to build up name recognition and make him a national player.

Both he and the DNC were shocked that he did so well. There has never been any desire among the Democrat base for Hillary Clinton to be the President. The leadership decided that she was going to be the nominee, and then forced her on the base. Some other woman could have been nominated.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

The RNC planned to force JEB! on its base, but failed because the current GOP base would rather cut off their balls with a rusty knife than vote for another Bush. And there wifes would encourage them to do so, in fact they would help.

That's why we know that Donald Trump's election to the Presidency of the US in no way indicates that any changes to the political landscape have taken place and that everything can continue as it has with only minor changes, around the margins. Cautiously.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Chuck said...12/27/16, 9:27 AM

Let's start with the notion that the pollsters didn't get a whole lot wrong in this election. Particularly the internal pollsters (who really count).

Dems must have known how close Michigan was in the closing days. That is why they were all coming here in the last 72 hours, again and again. They knew clearly, which states were close.


They knew not so much that Michigan was close - it wasn't sreing for trump than Pennsylvania - but that a victory that was in the bank could be reversed. Donald Trump was calling upon, and actually causing, early voters to retract their votes (which they could in Michigan)

But they didn't know Wisconsin was close, because nobody polled it.

Now you could say the Hillary campaign should have gnored Michigan and just campaigned in Pennsylvanoa, but they were planning recounts and expecting them if Donald trump had won by a very small number of electoral votes.

About pre-eelection polls:

http://www.businessinsider.com/polls-wrong-trump-clinton-why-2016-11

"Polls might not be capable of predicting elections," Patrick Murray, the head of Monmouth University's polling institute, told Business Insider....

,,,,But Murray already had developed a theory for what happened: "Non-response among a major core of Trump voters."

.... in Pennsylvania and Michigan, Clinton's total percentage of the final vote fell within 2 points of what had been predicted for her in the polling average. In Wisconsin, Clinton wound up with a near spot-on level of support as the polls had forecast, outperforming the polling average by 0.1 points.

But Trump outperformed his polling average by 4.5 points in Pennsylvania, 5.6 points in Michigan, and an unheard-of 7.6 points in Wisconsin. Underperformances by Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson and Green Party nominee Jill Stein may have contributed to that result, but it didn't account for such a large discrepancy.

"It's not that they lied to pollsters, but they didn't even pick up the phone," Murray said.

In his final Pennsylvania poll, Murray said, he was accurate around the Philadelphia metro area through Scranton and in the Pittsburgh metro area. But he missed the central, rural part of the state by 20 points: He had polled a 10-point Trump lead while Trump ended up winning that area by 30 points.







Ron Winkleheimer said...

With a complacent and incurious Trump being carefully managed by wise advisors who understand the necessity of not rocking the boat.

mockturtle said...

One big reason Obama did so well is that he passed himself off early on as a family-values type of moderate, which he clearly is not. If voters had foreseen the radical agenda he would implement in his 'flexible' second term, he would have lost to Romney.

Rusty said...

n.n @ 10.08

And the number one reason the left lost the election!

Hillary Clinton

SteveR said...

Running against a candidate of any normalcy (even an Obama), Trump loses, but against HRC, there was enough room. Its crazy and people deserve the world they've created.

Thou shall not fool thyself

Mike said...

Trump was smart enough to run on issues that matter and as usual the progressive mob overplayed a very weak hand. She had no accomplishments, no message, no energy, no optimism, and engendered no enthusiasm except from performers paid to fake enthusiasm. She was the preferred candidate of institutions that have pissed away the trust Americans used to have for them and she perfectly personified the rot and decay of popular culture, the Press, old-world religion, and the political parties.

Earnest Prole said...

In any other industry but journalism, catastrophic failure would result in a deadly-serious investigation culminating in the firing of everyone responsible. If America’s journalists and editors were pilots and air-traffic controllers on Election Day 2016, virtually every plane in the air that day would have crashed.

Roger Sweeny said...

(1) On the road, recently, I was listening to some lecture series where the guy claimed, rather nonchalantly, that very smart people tend to be more close-minded because they're so very good at generating post hoc rationalization for what they already believe.

Sounded like crap to me.


Having spent a lot of time in high-powered higher education, it sounds very plausible to me. There's even an Orwell quote, something like, "You have to be really smart to believe something that stupid."

The Cracker Emcee said...

Pffft. The margin of victory is one of a thousand thin slices from the boiled egg that is the electorate.

Hillary bagging on Heller in the debates cost her the election.

Democrats treating Obergefell like the Jubilee, alienated socially conservative Blacks who didn't vote, and cost Hillary the election.

The sniper in Dallas amped the fears of racial anarchy among White voters and cost Hillary the election.

Colin Whatshisnuts not standing for the anthem brought SJW repulsiveness to the attention of millions of otherwise apolitical couch potatoes and cost Hillary the election.

All no doubt true and I could do this all day long. The bottom line is though, that the electorate could be made up entirely of Afro-Cuban lesbians and the Democrats, without the promise of Free Stuff, would lose every time.

Michael K said...

Entertainers are never part of the ruling class, but think they are which is why they are such assholes.

The end of the "studio system" in the early 60s made movie actors rich and they began to think they were smart. A great example is Kim Bassinger who decided to negotiate her own movie deal. The result was bankruptcy.

Having known a few, they are best managed by agents and some even were kept on allowances by financial managers. The smart ones knew they needed help. A very few were cunning and made a lot of money outside the movie.

Both he and Michelle made remarks indicating that he didn't think he was going to win the primary in 2008 when he threw his hat in the ring.

My impression at the time was that he was running for VP and was surprised that Hillary was so incompetent.

wildswan said...

"The fatal combination was economic stress/uncertainty and that smug aggressive blamecasting on social issues"

Agree. And also the blamecasting was ruining lives as in the case of the Christian bakers and like the men accused of rape on college campuses. Diversity people didn't care.

I'm watching election night reruns - ABC, CNN etc. on election night. It's low level schadenfreude but it's mainly an interesting unfiltered view of liberal minds at work. They did not see this coming which makes the early part of the evening interesting as they blather on without seeing the thunder clouds gathering above their heads. But the main point is THEY DID NOT SEE IT COMING. For all the talk about big data and marketing and mind control and elites - these elite people just did not see what was happening.

Then you watch them trying to deal with it. Here you see that these are pretty smart people(not because they see a Trump victory forming, we all did) but because they get at what is happening in the vote very quickly - namely Hillary is underperforming in terms of turnout in the Obama coalition and Trump is overperforming in terms of Republican turnout and doing better with minorities than Mitt Romney.

But you also see the bubble at work. They simply can't explain. They flounder. And soon the insults toward Trump voters begin. And "everyone is sad" when Trump voters were ecstatic. And the idea of not accepting Trump as President. And "Hillary was not a good messenger" rather than "The message was not good."

"Socialism is past its sell-by date" or "Cities are a mess, no one wants city ideas deciding the future", "Christians don't intend to give up Christianity" - not discussed.


AllenS said...

Sammy Finkelman said...
But they didn't know Wisconsin was close, because nobody polled it.

I live in west central WI, a long way from Milwaukee and Madison. We knew something was up for Trump and not for Hillary, just because the amount of Trump lawn signs, and the very few Hillary signs. Also, I know a lot of union men who had never voted for anyone but the Democrat, and they were very supportive of Trump. They never poll people where I live.

harkin said...

"I am curious, why an intelligent, informed, highly socialized person like Ann Althouse would appear to be so tolerant and even solicitous of Donald Trump's steady stream of stupidities and social depredations."

I was curious why she voted for Barack T Firefly.

Jay Elink said...

Any discussion regarding the ruling class that does not refer to Angelo Codevilla's seminal essay is useless:

https://spectator.org/39326_americas-ruling-class-and-perils-revolution/

Dust Bunny Queen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dust Bunny Queen said...

The psychological babble aside, the main reason the 'experts' were blindsided is because they tend to live in their own insulated bubble. The live among people who think like they do. Believe in the same things. Use the same types of products, cars, watch the same shows. The feed back that they get is a comfy cozy feeling because they are never challenged to see another point of view. Why should they? Those other points of view are invalid, substandard, incorrect and couldn't possibly be held by more than a few outliers. The Pauline Kael effect.

The experts live in their own world and don't visit outside of it unless they are taking a trip or vacation to some other location. Then they treat the occasion as if they were going on safari or to a strange and exotic land with strange natives with odd customs. Instead of realizing that it is just another part of the country in which they live and which is populated by citizens with viewpoints a valid as their very own.

I know this because I used to live in the "blue bubble". My family lives in the "blue bubble". II don't live there anymore, and haven't for decades, but I can span both worlds because.....practice and practicality.

So, when the bubble popped this election cycle the sheltered inhabitants of the elite think tanks, the blue bubble were shocked shocked shocked because they never have deigned to remove their blinders or even thought that the WERE wearing blinders.

None so blind as those who will not see.

Gk1 said...

I am still waiting to read a "soul searching" article on how terrible and undeserving Hillary! was as a candidate. The outcome is really not that hard to understand if you are allowed to speak openly about it. And why no step by step recounting on what Hillary! was doing on election night? A candid accounting is usually forthcoming almost 2 months after a general election, right?

Drago said...

Gk1: "I am still waiting to read a "soul searching" article on how terrible and undeserving Hillary! was as a candidate."

Leftists (and some "lifelong republicans") are leftists precisely because they are incapable of introspection.

Gk1: "A candid accounting is usually forthcoming almost 2 months after a general election, right?"

We are still waiting for a candid accounting of why the NYTimes covered up Stalins mass murder (and the mass murder by every other leftist totalitarian). I wouldn't hold my breath for any soul searching amongst the dems and, in fact, each step taken by the dems (and some "lifelong republicans") since the election demonstrates their fundamental inability to adapt.



Matthew Sablan said...

"I just assume that she knows a lot of dirt that the DNC would not want publicized and black mailed them into supporting her."

-- It is much simpler than that. For all the complaining about Republicans nominating someone who's turn it is, they right usually has nomination fights that are issue based and focus on how far right the party wants to go.

The left has coronations, hence their set up with super delegates and willingness to interfere with the system. The left is amazingly top-down, managerial, authoritarian, whatever you want to call it, while the right is significantly less so.

That's how you got Trump and how you got Hillary. The people wanted Trump, the elites wanted Hillary.

Fernandinande said...

khesanh0802 said...
I got a kick out of the guy from Yale - Pinker - who gave a recitation of all the reasons Trump should have alienated certain classes of voters. Speaking of confirmation bias!


I stopped following Pinker's tweeterings - the only tweeterings I've ever followed - after he posted a bunch of cartoonish Trump stuff apparently purloined from DailyKos, NYT, and their ilk. Perhaps he's an example of the supposed tendency of "experts" to succumb to the Earned Dogmatism Hypothesis.

The NewYorkWhaterver article under discussion makes more sense if one replaces the string "Trump" with "Obama".

Matthew Sablan said...

"Warren hasn't even been a senator for that long"

-- That's what we said about Obama.

vicari valdez said...

i find it curious how so many republicans are quick to place the blame on trump's election on liberals. bigots often talk about how liberals need to put on their 'big girl panties,' stop complaining, and stop being triggered.

bullshit.

that’s an excuse to mask over 'i’ll make you seem like the weak one so you’ll feel like you have no choice but to put up with my harassment.'

it’s a way to make YOU feel like the one responsible for THEIR harassment.

don’t fall for it.

you already have 'big girl panties,' or you wouldn’t be advocating for social justice in the first place. you do not need to put up with abuse and harassments from bigots. period.

Matthew Sablan said...

Please don't devalue the word bigot like that.

Gk1 said...

Drago, true enough but still all I have heard about Hillary's election night from the MSM was she called up a ling time friend in the morning sobbing uncontrollably. Thats it as far as details. If I remember correctly I think 3 weeks after Mittens lost in 2012 we had a down to the minute recounting of where he was when he and his family heard Florida was collapsing and that Ohio wouldn't turn the tide. I am curious whether Hillary really did have a "Downfall" esque melt down or if the press is brave enough to even print something close to that.

Matthew Sablan said...

Gk1: I believe she had a meltdown of some sort, which is why Podesta was sent out to dismiss the troops and tell them that she wouldn't be conceding.

Basically, even in her final moments when she could have lost with some dignity, she flipped off her own team.

Paco Wové said...

Could you please try to be a little more coherent, v.v.?

You seem to be asserting that anyone who tells you that you're being thin-skinned and hysterical is ipso facto a bigot. That's certainly a convenient way to short-circuit introspection, but I'm not sure what it has to do with Trump.

Joe said...

Are there articles on confirmation bias and psychological projection?

Jack Sherman said...

Not a Trump supporter but you have to respect the guy for putting down the Bush, Clintons and Obamas like the dogs that they are

Ron Winkleheimer said...

You seem to be asserting that anyone who tells you that you're being thin-skinned and hysterical is ipso facto a bigot.

It makes sense if you realize that harassment is defined as disagreement.

"I think voter ID laws are discriminatory."

"I disagree."

"Stop harassing me bigot! Can I get some muscle here!"

rehajm said...

All that's left are hypotheticals and counterfactuals.

rehajm said...

Please don't devalue the word bigot like that.

Also that wall switch isn't to code.

gerry said...

... would also privately concede that Trump is a rather low-information, impulsive vulgarian.

Chuck's virtue-signaling antenna twitches in a crossband communication with a deplorable.

Chuck suffers Trump blindness, and even more intense version of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Chuck said...

Ron Winkleheimer said...
...
Is it your contention that there is no ruling class? That people just show up to work for the IRS on a voluntary basis? That no mechanism exists for selecting people to exercise authority? That connections and social position cannot influence who is selected to exercise authority?

No, Ron, it is my contention that your vision of a single monolithic "ruling class" is mostly nonsense.
Barbara Boxer and Mike Lee aren't part of the same ruling class. Jim Inhofe and Tammy Baldwin aren't part of the same ruling class.
We both understand that the IRS and the Department of Justice -- hell, ALL of the federal bureaucracy -- is suffused with liberal functionaries who try to expand government, and enforce liberal orthodoxy. They will rightly be brought to heel, by a Republican administration in concert with a Republican congress and a fresh dose of lots of Republican-nominated federal judges.
I'm just not buying your vision of a uniparty "ruling class."

Ken B said...

Did they do a side by side analysis of Obama's election? As sort of a bullshit/bias test?

Ron Winkleheimer said...

I'm just not buying your vision of a uniparty "ruling class."

Where did I say it was uniparty?

Birkel said...

Chuck, who supported Hillary Clinton: "They will rightly be brought to heel, by a Republican administration in concert with a Republican congress and a fresh dose of lots of Republican-nominated federal judges.

So Chuck is advocating the nuclear option in this thread? The Senate cannot pass legislation curtailing the activities of administrative agencies unless it has 60 Republican votes, otherwise. Right, Chuck?

And if not the nuclear option, then it will be President Trump acting on his own authority as Chief Executive who accomplishes the task of defanging so many Progressive functionaries.

Think clearly, Chuck.

Matthew Sablan said...

To be fair to Chuck, he says he voted Trump, no matter how begrudgingly. So I think saying he supported Clinton is a bit unfair.

I'm Trump agnostic, but I wouldn't want people to say I supported Clinton just because I have my reservations about the Trump Train.

Birkel said...

In word and deed, Matthew Sablan, Chuck supported Hillary. He can type any lies he wishes at his own discretion.

Even if Chuck did vote for Trump - which I doubt - he supported Hillary.

Birkel said...

Matthew Sablan,

Look above at his 2:41 post. He cannot bring himself to admit it will be Trump nominating federal judges. Trump has no agency. It will be the anthropomorphized Republican Party.

Chuck is wrong-footed.

Mick said...

It wasn't that hard to see. Trump had massive grassroots support and enthusiasm, and the Crooked Old Lady had none.
Trump's message resonated strongly with the rust belt, which had lost the most by the globalist agenda of the last 35 years. He was going to win Mich., Oh., Penn., and Fla.--- Game Set, Match.
The kids go with Strong DADDY every time when the going gets tough, or when there is fear of loss, and not with Weak MOMMY (especially when Mommy shows signs of physical deterioration, and Daddy flies around the country doing 3-4 rallies to full houses EVERY DAY).

IT WAS OBVIOUS (if you see with your eyes, not with your ears).!!!!!!!

The MSM did NOT "get it wrong". They purposefully got it wrong in order to try and demoralize Trump support that they knew was strong. They are traitors and propagandists, and now they have been exposed.

wildswan said...

Gk1 and Drago
I am curious whether Hillary really did have a "Downfall" esque melt down.

So am I. I read she punched Robbie Mook and John Podesta and threw a champagne bottle through a giant screen TV donated by Saudi Arabia, then fell to the floor sobbing and screaming and was carried off elsewhere to recover. Then Bill sent out John Podesta to the Democrats at the "victory party". But I think that is fake news aka rumor. But what did happen?

mockturtle said...

Wildswan, I don't believe we will ever know what really happened that night. In view of some documented previous behavior, though, I think it is possible that she got drunk and violent.

Margaret and George said...

Mick's final paragraph hits the nail on the head. The MSM must now convince us that they were lamebrains rather than liars. In recent UK elections the pollsters have played the same roll as the MSM in the US.

These people will not change. They will tell the big lie until everyone believes them, they hope.

wildswan said...

Hillary's meltdown (if it happened) is very understandable, in a way. It's like the old song:

After the ball is over,
After the break of morn –
After the dancers' leaving;
After the stars are gone;
Many a heart is aching,
If you could read them all;
Many the hopes that have vanished
After the ball.

Yet they say "We'll never know what happened" after the ball was over Election Night 2016. Maybe not but only if it was so strange it would discredit the Democrats for choosing a nut to handle the nuclear codes. Then that would be something the public should know but it would only get out as rumor. As is happening. Meanwhile a new song:

After the ball was over, Bonnie took out her glass eye,
Put her false teeth in the water, hung up her wig to dry;
Placed her false arm on the table, laid her false leg on the chair;
After the party was over, Bonnie was only half there!

Chuck said...

Birkel said...
Matthew Sablan,
Look above at his 2:41 post. He cannot bring himself to admit it will be Trump nominating federal judges. Trump has no agency. It will be the anthropomorphized Republican Party.
Chuck is wrong-footed.


Matthew, don't try to reason with Birkel. Because he has nothing on which to attack me, apart from a bland accusation that I supported Hillary.
I didn't, of course. Birkel has been challenged straight-up on this before. I taunted him, to find one word of support from me, toward any Democrat. He's never done that. I challenged him to find anything I've written on this blog's comments in support of any Democrats. When I still cared, I linked to some of my countless pro-Republican writings. It didn't matter to Birkel. Birkel wants me to stop saying nasty things about Donald Trump. Drago wants me (?!) to write something critical of Hillary Clinton. These assclowns aren't worth your bother. They are both liars, and fabricators and pussies.

Michael K said...

The left has coronations, hence their set up with super delegates and willingness to interfere with the system.

The exception, which is interesting, was Bill Clinton. 1992 was Mario Cuomo's year but he was convinced that Bush was unbeatable after Gulf War I. He passed and the unknown governor of Arkansas (Arkansas !) got the inside track. Then all his faults began to surface and Hillary had to swallow hard and play her good wife role.

George Mitchell managed to bring on a recession by killing the capital gains tax cut and Bush had already been maneuvered into a tax increase by Rostenkowski in order to get Democrats to support Gulf War I.

Suddenly the Democrats nomination was worth something. Then Perot. I don't know what the animus between Perot and Bush was but it was enough.

Bill Clinton was the most unlikely president since Wilson was elected by Teddy Roosevelt in a fit of pique at Taft.

vicari valdez said...

Paco Wové said...
You seem to be asserting that anyone who tells you that you're being thin-skinned and hysterical is ipso facto a bigot.

12/27/16, 1:49 PM


no that's not what i'm asserting at all. sounds like you're the one being thin-skinned, to be honest.

jrapdx said...

@Fernandinande - 11:27

By virtue of training and licensure I'm legally an "expert" in my domains of practice. When I'm asked to predict what is going to happen, how somebody will behave, my response is "I can't tell you". I can give you my best guess based on the track record, but when we're discussing a phenomenon characterized by high levels of randomness, like human behavior, it's dishonest to pretend we can do more than guess.

Any expert who says otherwise is accurately a liar or hardly an expert. And unfortunately, a lot of what passes for "expertise" in the media would fail the simple test. Even the quality of discourse in science is falling into the trap of confusing "politically correct" views with the observations grounded in fact.

The nature of information is such that given a large enough data set, it's usually possible to "prove" any point one desires. Hence the troublesome issue of "confirmation bias", which is hardly a new thing. It's a product of the way our brains work which is dependent on the ability to imagine possibilities. But that's the trap. When we believe the stuff we make up over seeing the facts plainly we lead ourselves away from solving problems into creating them.

Social systems are inordinately complex, accounting for all unknown variables let alone unknowable unknown variables is obviously impossible. We are left with most likely approximations as the best we'll do, at same time knowing we are in some measure always wrong.

Steven said...

Okay, here's the actual truth.

First, the whole election was structurally against the Democrats, as Megan McArdle noticed in 2013.

Second, there's what seems to be a fifty-year pattern where a Republican presidential candidate benefits by the media hating him. (People who have long memories for what I've said know I previously misread this pattern as one where the Republican wins when he is perceived as conservative, but now I think that was a misread on my part. The hated get called extremist conservative in any case, regardless of actual policies.) In the elections of the last 50 years, we have:

Media-hated Nixon wins.
Media-hated Nixon wins.
Not particularly objectionable Ford loses.
Media-hated Reagan wins.
Media-hated Reagan wins.
Bush, hated as a third "Reagan" term, wins.
Bush, as the compriomiser on tax policy and victor of the Gulf War, loses.
Dole, the not-particularly-objectionable tax collector for the welfare state, loses.
W. Bush, Compassionate Conservative and Texas Bipartisan, maybe dull but not all that much worse then Gore, wins (but barely).
W. Bush, Warmonger Extrordanaire, wins convincingly.
McCain, long lauded as the media as a maverick and moderate, loses.
Romney, the decent guy and moderate in the primaries, loses.
Trump, Satan incarnate, wins.

Birkel said...

Chuck, who supported Hillary Clinton, thinks that if another person with agency does not do what Chuck demands they do, that the other person is a pussy.

Name calling is a sure-fire determinant of solid argumentation.

Anglelyne said...

David: Just where is the evidence that Trump is authoritarian?

Or rather, where is the evidence that Trump (or non-leftist voters in general) are more "authoritarian" than Dem candidates or leftists in general? As in "[t]he fourth article was about authoritarianism — 'the desire for strong order and control.'"

Seems it all depends on what it is you're trying to control. If it's the "correct" things, or control by the "correct" people, I guess letting your control-freak flag fly doesn't make you an "authoritarian".

I've always been annoyed by the very sloppy and uncritical use of this term by people like this writer.

Anglelyne said...

Hagar: So Chuck, how do you get more vulgar than the Clintons?

Chuck is a vulgar man himself, and thus only recognizes the type of vulgarity against which his own vulgar preciosity defines itself.

Freder Frederson said...

The polls are purposefully fraudulent, designed to influence the election.

And how, exactly is this supposed to work. Towards the end of the campaign Clinton had a lead in most polls, but it was hardly insurmountable and mostly within the margin of error. You would have to be a complete moron to look at the polls and say "well there is no point in voting, Trump can't win", especially in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, which put him over the top. If anything, the small, but consistent, lead in the polls enjoyed by Clinton, made her do stupid things like spending time in Texas and Arizona when she should have been rallying her troops in the upper midwest.

mockturtle said...

Anglelyne, good point. I'd say Trump is not authoritarian but rather is inclined to listen to others and to take sound advice. Unlike, of course, his authoritarian rival.

Comanche Voter said...

The best line that I have heard about the various magazine articles, blog postings, op ed pieces that various "experts" and "pundits" publish is that they are all essentially private letters to other poltroons in the pundit/expert circle. So there's not a whole lot of point in listening to any of that "garbaghe".

Michael K said...

You would have to be a complete moron to look at the polls and say "well there is no point in voting, Trump can't win",

I'm not sure Democrat voters will appreciate your opinion of them.

The Media could not imagine that the proletariat could be so rebellious as to ignore their wisdom.

Robespierre was wise enough to guillotine Danton, who in my opinion resembled Trump.

Hillary, of course, is Robespierre.

JamesB.BKK said...

Konnikova is confused about which political group has authoritarians.

Yancey Ward said...

"And the national polling was mostly correct. Certainly within accepted margins of error. Hillary got more votes than Trump, nationally, consistent with national polling."

I don't think the national polls were nearly as "correct" as some are claiming after the election- show me the national poll that picked up on the fact that 150% of Clinton's national vote lead came from California alone?

In the future, it might be wise to do some national polls that exclude, for example, California. To go even further, why waste the resources doing national polls- do you really need to poll New Yorkers, Texans, Kentuckians, or Californians to get a read on the presidential race?

I would love to see the internal polls the campaigns themselves paid for. Someone got paid too little for the work, and some got paid far too much.

Original Mike said...

"And how, exactly is this supposed to work. Towards the end of the campaign Clinton had a lead in most polls, but it was hardly insurmountable and mostly within the margin of error. You would have to be a complete moron to look at the polls and say "well there is no point in voting, Trump can't win","

Just because it was a failing strategy doesn't mean it wasn't a strategy.

At the beginning of the game both teams have multiple strategies to win. Only one team ultimately does.

Jon Ericson said...

William said...

In totalitarian societies,
the artists and intellectuals worry about falling afoul of the government.

In this country,
the elected officials worry about falling afoul of the artists and intellectuals.

Good insight, William.

Jon Ericson said...

Where's Pedro?

Jon Ericson said...

"It's not that they lied to pollsters,
but they didn't even pick up the phone,"
Murray said.


I had tons of pollsters calling me.
Why would I tell a stranger that I'm deplorable?

Jon Ericson said...

Did Pedro call someone a bad name again?
Poor Pedro.

Koblog said...

You're telling me that the Election Night NYT prediction that Hillary had a 94% chance of winning was wrong?

Tom Bowler said...

How progressive, to view the adverse election outcome in psychological terms in an article that never once mentions an issue. There is only one issue, though the author never explicitly mentions it: the presidential glass ceiling. Naturally, any who don't see the glass ceiling as the single issue of paramount importance are sadly in need of psycho-analysis.

ken in tx said...

So-called Liberals have been trying to smear their political opponents as mentally defective Authoritarians since at least the early 60s. I remember reading articles in 'Psychology Today' with those claims.

Unknown said...

This type of article is useful only if the theories are used to make a prediction, and that prediction is then subject to experiment. This is the scientific method. So perhaps she could have written this before the election, and then predicted these things would happen. We all know she would never subject herself to such scrutiny, being in the media.

Should she have done so, her predictions would carry more weight now, she would have left open the possibility to be falsified. Instead, by writing these conclusions after the fact, they are essentially worthless.

Anyone can take any event and ascribe reasons for it after the fact. Most people will make the wrong conclusions when doing so, without attempting any real scrutiny of their ideas.