Beyond Schadenfreude, the Spectacular Pundit Failure on Trump is Worth Remembering

[bemildred]

Trying to predict the future can be fun, which is why – from office sports pools to stock market speculation – many do it. Generally, though, people make such predictions with at least some humility: with the knowledge that they do not actually know what the future holds.

But not America’s beloved political pundits. When they pronounce what the future has in store for us, it comes in the form of definitive decrees, shaped with the tone of authoritative certainty. With a few exceptions, those who purported to see the future of the 2016 GOP nomination process spent many months categorically assuring everyone that, polls notwithstanding, Donald Trump simply could not, would not, become the GOP nominee; one could spend all day posting humiliating examples, so a representative sampling will have to suffice:

---

By itself, the intense schadenfreude makes it genuinely hard to get oneself to stop posting these (there were at least a dozen others gathered by Twitter commentators such as @blippoblappo – excellent all – that we forced ourselves to omit). But if one can tear oneself away from the sheer joy of wallowing in this festival of fantastic failure, there are several substantive points worth making:

First, ponder the vast amount of journalistic energies and resources devoted to trying to predict election outcomes. What value does that serve anyone? The elections are going to be held and the outcome will be known once the votes are counted. Why would journalists decide that it’s important for the public to hear their guesses about who will win and lose? One can, I suppose, recognize the value of having a couple of outlets with actual statistical experts offering empirical-based analysis of polling data (although Nate Silver’s 538 fared no better when it came to Trump, putting his chances in August of winning the nomination at 0%, 2% and negative-10%), but why do so many political pundits feel a need to spend so much time pronouncing which candidates will or won’t win?

https://theintercept.com/2016/05/04/beyond-schadenfreude-the-spectacular-pundit-failure-on-trump-is-worth-remembering/

[malthaussen]

1. As ambassador Duke noted during his time in China...

... knowledge of the Shanghai wall posters could be invaluable to someone making serious book.

On a more serious note, I'd suggest that some of it is leftover mindset from the days when a "scoop" could make a career. Some of it may also come from hope of self-fulfilling prophecy, especially as it is satisfying to an enormous ego (and all of these people have enormous egos) to think one's maundering might actually help shape reality, insofar as life sometimes imitates art. Hey, it seems to have worked for Mr Trump.

Mr Greenwald misses an opportunity to draw some interesting parallels between punditital failure and financial failure: when the bankster gambles with someone else's money and loses, his only penalty is a somewhat smaller bonus, and when the pundit spouts off mistakenly about politics or any other subject (foreign policy, anyone?), he is still courted as an "expert" in his field. With no penalty for failure, who wouldn't dare?

-- Mal

[bemildred]

2. The current vogue term is "confirmation bias".

Last edited Wed May 4, 2016, 02:28 PM - Edit history (1)

Which boils down to the idea that being "right" is very attractive for us, and can be rewarding in concrete terms too, and this leads us to overestimate our chances. And of course we are very clever about it and fool ourselves. Called "chasing the pot" in gambling circles, "experimental bias" in scientific circles, and "medical error" in health care, the basic failure in all cases being the assumption that you will get away with it. One is reminded of Einstein's claim that God does not play dice. Yes, he does.

With Trump that is policy. But it has been our policy for a long time in foreign affairs, we always double down.

I think this piece goes well with Sullivan's bleat about Trump in Nymag:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/america-tyranny-donald-trump.html

Your points are well taken, particularly the "moral hazard" aspects, which are routinely lamented and facilitated here.

[bemildred]

3. Analysis GOP voters wanted an outsider who says the economy needs fixing, and Trump fit their bill

The Republican race for president will go on through the mighty contests of early June, but it ended Tuesday. Donald Trump is the presumptive Republican nominee for president because of two imperatives that GOP voters clung to all through the primary season.

They were desperately concerned about the economy. And they wanted an outsider to fix it.

All the other things — Trump’s disdainful and insulting treatment of varied voter groups, his huge levels of unpopularity, his last-minute attack against Ted Cruz’s father, alleging, with no evidence, a tie to a presidential assassination — was just background noise to Republican voters unleashing a communal scream at establishment politics.

California’s June primary, which was to be the first momentous Republican presidential balloting here in a half century, may serve to get Trump officially over the line of 1,237 delegates he needs for the nomination. But at this point that is not much more than a formality.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-indiana-primary-analysis-20160504-story.html#nt=oft12aH-2la1