# Was the Trump Election a "Black Swan?"



## Marauder06 (Nov 12, 2016)

I'm considering writing a short article on whether or not the election of Mr. Trump was a true "Black Swan" event, or if it was merely bad analysis and media misreporting.  Any thoughts on the subject?


----------



## Grunt (Nov 12, 2016)

I, for one, would be interested in your thoughts. I think a lot of people simply didn't provide accurate polling information. Again, personally, I think a lot of Trump voters refused to overtly support him because they were afraid of having to explain themselves as to why they preferred him over HRC. To many that I have talked with, they felt it was "unpopular" to openly support him.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 12, 2016)

I disagree with the Black Swan idea, although I will admit that I see many articles attempting to rationalize the election.

There is the Lena Dunhum version, where she is literally calling out white women who voted for Trump as traitors to all of woman kind. (Bullshit)

The more common theory I have read, (and one I have been preaching for months) is that the Dems took for granted the black, Latino, and especially "poor" white vote.  Trump spoke to them, Hilary spoke at them, if at all.  Hell, even that bafoon Michael Moore is admitting to this. 

Many/most of these folks either voted for Obama last time around, or haven't voted in years. They are at a point of desperation, and Trump gave them acknowledgment, which in turn gave them hope.  Many of these voters were never even polled, and if they were, what would be the upside to admitting support for Trump?

One of the best articles I have read on Trump and his potential voter pool I read months prior to the election.

Trump: Tribune Of Poor White People


----------



## Grunt (Nov 12, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> ...the Dems took for granted the black, Latino, and especially "poor" white vote.  Trump spoke to them, Hilary spoke at them, if at all.



I believe that was one of the largest factors in his victory. His speech resonated with them and many in HRC's camp took their votes and support for granted.


----------



## 104TN (Nov 12, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> The more common theory I have read, (and one I have been preaching for months) is that the Dems took for granted the black, Latino, and especially "poor" white vote.  Trump spoke to them, Hilary spoke at them, if at all.  Hell, even that bafoon Michael Moore is admitting to this.



I have a different theory. The DNC's collusion with HRC to put her on the ballot instead of Bernie cost Dems the election. While I don't know how it could be quantified, I have a hunch that a lot of center-right Republicans would have voted for Sanders over Trump. However, with Hillary's name on the ballot the GOP could have run Harambe (God rest his soul) and conservatives would have voted for him.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 12, 2016)

To add -

While a known comedian, I think he hits this out of the park.  I agree with almost everything he says in regards to "why Trump"

Warning- lots of British accented f-bombs, you've been warned.


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 12, 2016)

I really liked that video.


----------



## Brill (Nov 12, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> I'm considering writing a short article on whether or not the election of Mr. Trump was a true "Black Swan" event, or if it was merely bad analysis and media misreporting.  Any thoughts on the subject?



Be prepared for a frontal assault on the racist front. Maybe call it a swan of different color, special swan, or unique swan that is still valued because every swan is special.

It seems there is a body of evidence that it was merely circular reporting and analysis. Few seemed to bothered to ask what middle America wanted but those that did completely discounted their feelings.

Americans are NOT framed by Trump's comments and ideology: that's insulting. Trump simply said things that Americans could relate to more so than what Clinton said, that if you think like Trump you're deplorable.

Sanders, like Trump, was the populist candidate who was able to motivate supporters. A Trump V. Sanders election season would have been very interesting indeed, one which would have focused on issues instead of Clinton's platform of "at least I ain't Trump".

It seems the information was there...just nobody was listening to "the cesspool of group think".

Americans have long been anti-PC language and culture but after so many years of name calling, it's only natural that they would cease being vocal and just "go along to get along" until they are in a booth where they could voice an opinion without repercussions, criticism, etc.

EDIT: @Marauder06 , how many times did your HUMINTers go  ask USMIL what they thought of the Taliban and then write reports on local atmospherics of Taliban? That is EXACTLY what the MSM did: ignored the people who were directly affected by X policies in order to support an ideology. The more I read about this, the more I'm convinced this is the greatest Emporer Has No Clothes story ever.

Democrats should be protesting and rioting at Clinton's house and DNC HQs because THEY are the ones who fucked those voters over.


----------



## Totentanz (Nov 12, 2016)

rick said:


> I have a different theory. The DNC's collusion with HRC to put her on the ballot instead of Bernie cost Dems the election. While I don't know how it could be quantified, *I have a hunch that a lot of center-right Republicans would have voted for Sanders over Trump.* However, with Hillary's name on the ballot the GOP could have run Harambe (God rest his soul) and conservatives would have voted for him.



Maybe I'm picking nits but I don't think you need to specify republicans- there are a lot of voters who wanted to vote against Trump (for a myriad of reasons) but didn't because Hillary. Given the alternative of Sanders we'd have seen a very different outcome.


----------



## AWP (Nov 12, 2016)

I think it is, but I also think he didn't win as much as she lost. I think the media believed its own spin and the polls/ projections became a self-fulfilling prophesy. I agree that some probably didn't admit to voting for Trump because his supporters are painted with a very broad, very negative brush. Trump's election was a perfect storm of political and social events. I was completely wrong about the outcome and the Jaguars' season, so maybe I'm not the best "predicticator" right now.

I think the British gent's video is probably one of the best out there right now.

As an aside, the irony and hypocrisy coming from the left is staggering. Some Trump supporters are acting like dicks and they don't receive a pass, but the "peace, unity, hope" crowd are so screwed up right now it is almost funny. The election won't change anything because people don't want to change.


----------



## amlove21 (Nov 13, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I disagree with the Black Swan idea, although I will admit that I see many articles attempting to rationalize the election.
> 
> There is the Lena Dunhum version, where she is literally calling out white women who voted for Trump as traitors to all of woman kind. (Bullshit)
> 
> ...


Wait a second....

I seem to remember making these points and absolutely getting smashed here like, 2 days ago.

Is this en vogue now?


----------



## amlove21 (Nov 13, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> As an aside, the irony and hypocrisy coming from the left is staggering. Some Trump supporters are acting like dicks and they don't receive a pass, but the "peace, unity, hope" crowd are so screwed up right now it is almost funny. The election won't change anything because people don't want to change.


Agree and also a comment. 


I dislike the extreme left crowd right now just as much, possibly more than most.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 13, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> Wait a second....
> 
> I seem to remember making these points and absolutely getting smashed here like, 2 days ago.
> 
> Is this en vogue now?


Well I've been deer hunting for 3 days or I'd have had your back in a heartbeat. In fact I think I posted that article in the now locked Presidential Election thread some time ago.


----------



## Grunt (Nov 13, 2016)

Personally, I have no use for the extreme right or left. They are both detrimental to their cause and end up losing more support than gaining.


----------



## Brill (Nov 13, 2016)

Politico stole your idea.

The Black Swan President


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 13, 2016)

Thanks for the link, that was a good read.  Fortunately they didn't explain what a "Black Swan" was (the author probably doesn't know) so I'll still have a different twist.


----------



## Isiah6:8 (Nov 14, 2016)

I would think it would not make sense to consider it a Black Swan event.

If you look at the betting lines pre-election for the President Elect the probabilities are not low enough for Trump in my view.  It showed that there was still considerable money in place betting on Trump.  If we look at the tail ends of the distribution we would not consider something with greater than a 3% probability a tail event ( I could argue a 3% event is still maybe a little large to call a BSE).  On August 5th he was roughly +2500 and by Nov 1 he was at +190.  Clearly the market was taking into account a real probability of being elected, despite what polls would show.  The final forecast from FiveThirtyEight had Trump at 29% chance of winning the electoral college.

If you are analyzing it based on the poll events then I think you could mistakenly call it a BSE.  But I would argue that the algorithms were not effective and therefore would be mislabeled as a BSE because they were inherently biased or those analyzing the data did not account for the downside of what the algorithms were set to account for.

In my opinion, this would be a surprise but not a BSE.


----------



## Etype (Nov 14, 2016)

I believe there's an uncategorized demographic at work here.

The traditional Obama voter is immersed in social media- social media has grown to involve polling, so social media users are likely to participate in polls.

The people who showed up to tip this election in Trump's favor were not these aforementioned people.  Therefore, it was unable to predict through polls.

Trump didn't win Pennsylvania, for example, in Pittsburg and Philadelphia.  He won it by getting the farmers, hunters, fisherman, tradesman, whatever from all over the rest of the state to vote. Those people probably don't really care to participate in polls.

This is all just my theory, of course.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 14, 2016)

There's a Washington Post Article about how the Democrats lost, stating that the Educated Elite are out of touch.  Some of the stuff was shallow, but some of it was pretty good.

Trump won because college-educated Americans are out of touch


----------



## Gunz (Nov 14, 2016)

I had to look up Black Swan Event. 

The media has become incredibly arrogant over the years, bloated by what it perceives as it's unequaled power to influence events on a national or even global scale. And so adamant and self-assured did the media seem about this election, in it's blind arrogance it believed it could not be wrong. The Left, of course, drank it right up. And the message seemed so irrefutable, and was so widely propogated that even those of us who lean Right started to believe it: _Donald Trump had no chance in Hell of becoming President of the United States.
_


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Nov 14, 2016)

Maybe "The Ugly Duckling/HRC" could be looked at as well.


----------

