
Peter Thiel’s Bet on Donald Trump Wins Big - stefap2
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/technology/peter-thiel-bet-donald-trump-wins-big.html?hpw&rref=technology&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well
======
ktamura
This is a stroke of genius by Peter Thiel. In hindsight, he was hedged. If
Clinton won, his Trump endorsement would have been chalked up to his
contrarian, eccentric bent. If Trump won -and he did- Thiel's bet would have a
huge return.

His self-interest aside, this is a huge deal for Palantir, the company that he
helped found and has many federal governments as their client. Also, in a
sense, Thiel ensured that Silicon Valley didn't completely lose touch with the
White House and will have some leverage in influencing them. For starters,
immigration is a key issue for Silicon Valley for which Thiel can be a voice
of reason to influence the new administration.

I don't agree with many things Thiel says or does. That said, this was a
brilliant execution.

~~~
objclxt
> For starters, immigration is a key issue for Silicon Valley for which Thiel
> can be a voice of reason to influence the new administration.

I don't know if immigration is _as_ much of an issue for Palantir, given many
of its clients are clandestine and won't permit non-citizens to work on their
projects.

~~~
pen2l
> > For starters, immigration is a key issue for Silicon Valley for which
> Thiel can be a voice of reason to influence the new administration.

> I don't know if immigration is as much of an issue for Palantir, given many
> of its clients are clandestine and won't permit non-citizens to work on
> their projects.

So, Palantir is actually in trouble for _not_ hiring certain immigrants /
races. See [http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/27/technology/us-accuses-
tech...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/27/technology/us-accuses-tech-firm-of-
bias-against-asian-software-engineers.html)

And my worthless personal single data point: I personally know a Pakistani guy
who was rejected from Palantir. Sure, every other person gets rejected from
every other place. The thing is, this guy is one of the best programmers I
know of, has great charisma, has great communication skills, and has a star-
studded pedigree. Yeah I know I'm going off on a single data, but I was just
stunned to see _anyone_ reject this guy because I happen to personally know of
his genius.

~~~
wavefunction
I expect there to be a prohibition against foreign nationals at a lot of
defense contractors. Consider his country of origin: it's one of the last
places our government wants technology transfer or espionage to occur with.

And I mean no offense to your friend, but that's how those folks think.

~~~
pen2l
So, I should not have said "Pakistani". He's actually an American-born, his
parents came here in early 80s. Is that still a problem you think? Would a
defense contractor be hesitant in hiring native-born citizens with parents
from a different country of origin?

~~~
dragonwriter
> Would a defense contractor be hesitant in hiring native-born citizens with
> parents from a different country of origin?

Foreign contacts (including family) may be a complication in security
clearance background investigations, IIRC, but AFAIK discriminating directly
on that basis (rather than simply requiring the clearance if necessary for the
specific job) would be a bright-line violation of the law.

------
stcredzero
_A lot of the dynamics were very similar to the Brexit vote in the U.K.,”
which also took many commentators by surprise._

 _Hillary Clinton’s campaign, he said, forgot the motto that Bill Clinton had
won the presidency with in 1992: “It’s the economy, stupid.”_

Donald Trump was a stealth 3rd party candidate, riding on a wave produced by
demographic changes and the falling fortunes of a large demographic. He's down
with OPP -- where OPP means "Other Person's Party." He's used other people's
money to further himself. This time, he used the Republican Party, but
historically, he should be compared to other 3rd party candidates.

The media producing class in this country is out of touch with a whopping huge
fraction of the populace which is going from majority middle class status to
minority lower class. Not only is the media producing class out of touch, many
of them on the political left actively villify and denigrate them. Seriously,
what did they expect?

The degree to which the upper-middle class is out of touch, concerned with
fripperies, and denigrating of the lower classes in the Bay Area is starting
to look like a bunch of tropes from French Revolution period dramas.
Programmers and technorati -- This means you!

~~~
wavefunction
I grew up in "flyover country" as it has been so lovingly labeled by the
coastal urbanites, and I would agree that the media is completely out of touch
with a huge portion of the country.

Many of these people are decent but weren't offered even lip-service by the
Democratic candidate or party. You have Hillary treating them like second
class citizens offering them a lower minimum wage than urbanites, for example.
Why should people who have been historically neglected maintain this
situation?

This isn't permanent though. I've mentioned in other posts on other subjects
that the "New Economy" needs to align its interests with those who have been
left behind. You get their kids into dynamic programs that offer them an
opportunity to share in the largesse generated by innovation and they will
become more generous and open and integrated with the rest of the country.

~~~
ethbro
Absolutely agree with your opinion of the decency of non-urban America and
also the amount it's had to put up with.

Curious what revitalization looks like in an increasingly automated economy
though. Not sure Trump has his finger on the pulse of where the world's going
to aim ahead of that trend. Although he might, and honestly, is probably more
likely to than Hilary.

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

~~~
return0
He explains his rational argument here[1]. Basically his argument is "don't
take Trump literally, take him seriously".

1.[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob-
LJqPQEJ4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob-LJqPQEJ4)

~~~
kbenson
> Basically his argument is "don't take Trump literally, take him seriously".

Which I guess is great if you're a billionaire and probably get some time with
Trump or someone close to him that knows what he _actually_ plans to do.

In the meantime, all the rest of us are left with "I'm going to repeal
Obamacare and replace it with something great." Forgive me if I would have
preferred something a little more substantial. Then again, I would like other
people to have preferred that as well. :/

~~~
ErikVandeWater
Can any politician be taken literally, though? How did Obama's promises on the
revolving door between lobbyists and his administration work out? Or his
promise on health insurance premiums? These promises aren't the exception,
they are the rule. Politicians (almost) always have to lie to win. So Trump
not being specific as to what he will do seems unlikely to be any different to
interpret than if he made very specific plans.

~~~
kbenson
Well, I think there are differing levels of information that can be conveyed.
You can say you want a healthcare system where everyone is insured. You can
say you want a healthcare system where costs are lowered. You can say you want
both. All these convey some information about the goals of the politician, and
how they may or may not align with your own. What they eventually come up
with, or not, will inform you how much they compromised on that position. I
would hazard most politicians are less likely to compromise on specific goals
they stated, and more likely to compromise on ones they didn't state. This
allows you to steer yourself towards a candidate that may work for an outcome
you want, even if there's obviously no guarantee.

In this case, we have "I will make something great", as if every candidate
wasn't implicitly setting out to to do the same and every voter wasn't hoping
for the same. So, am I more or less likely to get the outcome I want in this
situation? Who knows? I don't because there's no way to, but I would sure
appreciate being empowered to at least _try_ to figure that out.

------
gwern
I would say OP has begged the question. Just because Trump has _won_ does not
mean that Thiel's bet has _paid off_. As in cornering the market or making a
killing on paper, 'how do you bury the body?' Indeed, more than one person on
the betting sites or prediction markets (or Bitcoin exchange) has been burned
when they thought they won something but the market resolved otherwise. Until
you've withdrawn your cash, you haven't made any money and you are still
vulnerable to counterparty risk. And Thiel has yet to cash out any of his
supposed 'influence'.

I noted when Thiel made his original donations, and then kept doubling down,
that there was a good probability he would 'win' (Trump never falling below
10% in the prediction markets) but I felt that the more serious issue was
whether he would benefit. Trump has a long history of using and discarding
people as soon as they are no longer useful, including decades of simply not
paying people who have done work for him (at least two examples in his
campaign alone: the polling agency and the girls who sang at his rallies) and
daring them to sue. Not to mention how often he loudly promises to donate to
charity and then... doesn't. Narcissists are not known for their gratitude,
generosity, reciprocation, or feeling bound by past promises or contracts
explicit or implicit. Thiel donating to Trump and giving speeches in his
support is merely Trump's due for being the greatest businessman in the world
and the man who will make America great again. It does not follow that Trump
will actually do anything for Thiel:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Farmer_and_the_Viper](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Farmer_and_the_Viper)

It will be interesting to see if Thiel's bet on Donald Trump ever wins big and
he gets something out of it like a Supreme Court nomination. But it's not over
yet, and his chickens have neither hatched nor come home to roost.

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

------
return0
His bet was completely in line with what he has been saying the past few years
(about flying cars and 140 chars etc). It resonates with Trumps "US doesn't
win anymore". He may have realized that a large part of US population felt the
same way, something that, apparently, went amiss from everyone else in SV.

------
EdSharkey
I didn't vote for Trump nor Clinton. Although I'm right-leaning on most
issues, I am in the perplexed camp of why 50% of voters selected Trump. I was
sure Hillary was going to win.

I'm especially bewildered why deeply religious, evangelical Christians I know
were big on Trump. He's such a sinner by biblical standards, the love for the
guy didn't make sense - I thought it'd be hypocrisy to support the guy. For
most, they told me the single issue for them was the supreme court nominees
that Trump was promising to put forward. But, in discussing what Trump was
going to do once elected, the level of projection of their goodness onto Trump
seemed to go to delusional, fantasy-land places.

What I'm coming to realize is that, being upper middle-class puts me
completely out of touch culturally with the 50% that voted for Trump. The book
_Coming Apart_ , by Charles Murray is really helping me understand what is
going on in America and what a cloistered life I've led.

~~~
return0
You would be wrong i believe, because it seems that everyone, and not just the
deplorables voted trump. [https://www.theguardian.com/us-
news/2016/nov/09/white-voters...](https://www.theguardian.com/us-
news/2016/nov/09/white-voters-victory-donald-trump-exit-polls)

~~~
EdSharkey
> Among college-educated whites, 45% voted for Clinton – 39% of men and 51% of
> women (the only white demographic represented in the poll where the former
> secretary of state came out on top). But 54% of male college graduates voted
> for Trump, as did 45% of female college graduates.

Fascinating, pretty strong turnout for Trump with college educated folks!
Clinton's numbers reflect that she lost a ton of male votes to third party.

> But among the 64% of American voters who earn more than $50,000 a year, 49%
> chose Trump, and 47% Clinton.

Middle class came out for Trump too. I wish they'd break out higher income
brackets, that's where I'm at. And I guess that Clinton's support there is
much stronger - which reflects the disconnect Murray describes in cultures and
political leanings between the urban wealthy classes and the rest of the
population.

------
tedmiston
> “His odds were very badly underestimated,” he said. “Trump voters were not
> being captured by the polls. A lot of the dynamics were very similar to the
> Brexit vote in the U.K.,” which also took many commentators by surprise.

The real takeaway for me is figuring why this is the case — how could / can we
change the polls to be more robust?

To some degree, perhaps the polls influence the outcome of the election. For
example, if people on the edge of voting or not think Clinton will win by a
healthy margin, they might not actually bother to vote.

~~~
pfranz
I've been listening to 538 for the past few weeks. I'll try and sum up what
I've gleaned from their thoughts before the election and after. A few of the
election night podcasts I didn't get to listen to until after the election,
which helps to see what they were over-confident about or what they're
backpedaling about today.

While I think it was 70/30 for Clinton they were very explicit that this
doesn't mean Clinton will win. They admitted it's very difficult to convey
probabilities to the average person and it's something they're still working
on. I feel like a lot of the pundits (honestly, on Trump's side, too) seemed
to believe Hillary winning was inevitable and the night was just going to play
out like the predictions, but the polls and analysts were saying it was going
to be close (although, Hillary was favored).

While Clinton had a confident lead in the popular vote, her electoral map was
rocky. She had thin margins in a bunch of contentious states, but in states
like California and Texas she got fairly large numbers in individuals that
wouldn't translate into electoral votes. When it came to the vote she just
lost the contentious states.

Something else they said today is that pollsters see outliers (changes from
the norm) as possible noise, so they tend to bias that back to historical
values or neighboring values. This can hide pockets of change or make trends
slower to show up. The last election was Obama obviously he appealed to
different groups of people. Many assumed the areas he flipped would stay
flipped. That's why pollsters were off almost as much as 10% in some areas
instead of the expected 3%.

Another thing I've heard toyed around is that public polls are funded by
universities and newspapers--institutions who haven't had as much money
lately. So while analysis of polls have gotten better, polls have gotten
worse. There's also talk about landlines falling out of favor and online
polling being worse. Campaign polls have gotten better since there's more
money now. From what I've heard Romney's internal polls were way off, but
Obama's polls were spot on. I've heard both Hillary's and Trump's internal
polls had Hillary ahead...so all of that might be irrelevant.

It was a close race and the unconventional nature made it difficult to
honestly predict. But most predictions ended up close to the margin of error--
they just guessed the winner with too much confidence.

------
civilian
A similar discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12912608](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12912608)

------
hugh4life
I wish Thiel would become more involved... Trump is likely to end up starting
too many fights on too many fronts by myopic activists whose concerns don't
matter to the average voter but that rile up a significant activist base in
opposition. Trump can't win a 2nd term without triangulation to mollify that.
He needs to pick his battles.

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

------
logicallee
trump is an idiot who has no business being president of the country, which
marks the first time someone with zero (literally zero) political experience,
not even military service, was elected to that position.

That said, he speaks his mind and it's trivial to see what he's thinking.

Had Hillary Clinton (who I and any sane person would like over Trump) become
President, it would be impossible to know what she really thought of anything
or to decipher anything she said: she's a career politician, who pauses before
speaking and then speaks out of both sides of her mouth.

listening to Trump is like listening to some random drunk idiot in a bar. he
isn't pulling one over on anyone - he barely knows where he is. sometimes that
has its advantages.

~~~
oldmanjay
Very many sane people had no desire to see Hillary Clinton be the president of
the United States. There's just no need to keep pretending that your opinion
is the only rational choice when you've been repudiated so completely.

~~~
lingben
> There's just no need to keep pretending that your opinion is the only
> rational choice when you've been repudiated so completely.

You do realize that Clinton won the popular vote, right? the majority of
Americans agree with her policies and voted for her. Trump won because of the
arcane 18th century election structure unique to the US called an electoral
college.

~~~
oldmanjay
Ahh, is it time to cry about the electoral college again? I suppose if no one
knew going in that it was the way things were done, I'd care. Since everyone
knew, it's just the worst kind of monday-morning quarterbacking.

The thorough repudiation is that Hillary Clinton was anointed the next
president, anointed the "only" "sane" choice, and lost. It's a fact, no matter
what tears people dredge up now.

I say this with no love or support for Donald Trump, just open eyes in a
process that most people enter willfully blind.

~~~
kbenson
> Since everyone knew, it's just the worst kind of monday-morning
> quarterbacking.

To be fair, it's not like this only gets brought up after the election. The
last 3-6 months have been filled with people complaining about how our voting
system works, different systems and their own problems, etc.

~~~
oldmanjay
Sure, that's totally fair. I don't even particularly like the electoral
college system personally.

------
starik36
"Trump voters were not being captured by the polls. A lot of the dynamics were
very similar to the Brexit vote in the U.K.,” which also took many
commentators by surprise."

The media in both countries was outright lying. The only surprise here is that
they believed their own lies.

------
boards2x
What's really scary is having 2 Germans having a go at your democracy. Who
knows how it'll turn out.

