
Scott Adams Answers Your Questions About Predicting President - devy
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152955248046/i-answer-your-questions-about-predicting-president
======
acjohnson55
Trump was elected president because it's like a movie? That's completely nuts.

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

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

[1] [http://uspolitics.about.com/od/Election-2016/fl/The-Most-
Out...](http://uspolitics.about.com/od/Election-2016/fl/The-Most-Outrageous-
Donald-Trump-Quotes-of-the-2016-Presidential-Race.htm)

[2]
[http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/donald-t...](http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/donald-
trump-scandals/474726/)

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

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

~~~
acjohnson55
Yeah, I read that. They had him, Carson and Cruz figured for it. That's
standard operating procedure. I would assume RNC would have loved to have
pulled that themselves, with Bernie as a pied piper, and a relatively sane
person like Romney as their nominee. They might similarly have been shocked by
what might have happened.

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

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

and:

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

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

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

[1]: [http://blog.dilbert.com/post/131552504961/trumps-third-
act-p...](http://blog.dilbert.com/post/131552504961/trumps-third-act-part-of-
the-trump-persuasion)

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

~~~
gragas
In the words of Peter Thiel

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

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

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

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

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

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

------
pcunite
>> The mainstream media backed Clinton.

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

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

------
return0
He should really teach that to european leaders. They went full-on Hillary
without even trying to keep up appearances.

~~~
orf
There could be a good reason for that

~~~
return0
They enjoy awkward meetings?

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

------
SCdF
> Did the United States Just Elect a Monster?

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

Wait, so which is it? Is he:

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

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

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

Unlike certain other(s) he hasn't:

* started a war yet

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

* cheated Sanders out of the primaries

That seems to count for something.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

