What to do After Whiffing on a Prediction?

Even though I’m a reasonable person, I admire those who go out on a limb to make bold predictions, even when those predictions are illogical and counter to the best evidence we have. Take this Huffpost entry for example:

I want to make sure that you heard it here first: Donald Trump will lose the New Hampshire primary tomorrow.

Bold words. I applaud the author for taking such a stand despite the fact that polls clearly showed Trump with a lead that greatly exceeded the polls’ margin of error.

What will the author do after being proved wrong, though?

Option 1 – Stick to his guns. Double down by railing against the voters convinced by Trumps’ message.

Option 2 – Admit his mistake.

Option 3 – Remain silent.

It’s hard to admire anyone who responds to defeat by being a bad sport or simply walking away from the table (see Newton, Cam). It’s also hard to respect someone who makes excuses.

Is the only reasonable choice to admit the mistake?

It’ll be interesting to see which choice Huffpost makes.

Vox Agrees with Me

Is it a sign that I’m really reasonable if Vox.com agrees with me?

Uh …

Just found this post:

New Hampshire didn’t just hand Trump a win, it left him perfectly positioned to dominate in South Carolina, Nevada, and other future races.

Basically, the post makes the same points that I made here.

Trump Couldn’t Have Scripted a Better Night

As a reasonable person, I often try to put myself in the shoes of others to consider their point of view. If I’m Donald Trump going into the New Hampshire Primary, I’m thinking, “Okay, this is what I want to happen …”

  1. Win in dominant fashion. Obviously.
  2. Have someone innocuous come in second.
  3. Keep the establishment lane jumbled.

So with the results pretty much in (based in CNN’s estimate of 97% reporting), how did The Donald do?

Step 1 – Win in dominant fashion

Check. 35% of the vote. That’s more than one third of voters in an eight horse race. His nearest challenger got less than half the votes he did.

Step 2 – Have someone innocuous come in second

Check. Other than Carson or Fiorina, neither of whom had a real shot, I don’t there was a better person from Trump’s perspective to finish runner up than Kasich. He’s got almost nothing in the bank and virtually no presence in the upcoming primary states. Talk about being in a woefully bad position to capitalize on momentum.

Step 3 – Keep the establishment lane jumbled

Check. I don’t know how Trump would fare one on one with a single candidate who had the full backing of the Republican party, but I do think most reasonable people would say that he is benefiting from that backing being fractured. If you’re Trump, you gotta love the establishment on establishment crime of Christie taking down Rubio. Instead of the highest placing Approved Candidate in Iowa capitalizing on momentum, you have him falling to the back of the legit contenders in New Hampshire. If Kasich had flopped, he’d probably be out of the race. Bush finished strong enough to keep him going forward but not high enough to produce a ton of momentum. Literally the only thing that could have gone a little better in this regard would have been for Christie to have drawn in some of Carson’s and Fiorina’s support in order to keep the governor around longer.

It’s a long race, and Trump by no means has anything sown up. But I don’t think you could have scripted a better night for him.