On Measuring the National Mood

I stared unseeingly at my television screen until four o’clock Wednesday morning, long after Donald Trump gave his very conventional and conciliatory victory speech and all the talking heads went off the air.  Sure I’m worried about the future.  But what left me cotton-mouthed and agog that night was how surprised I was at how surprised I was. 

I cannot fathom how I could have failed to understand so many of my fellow Americans so badly.  Of course I knew that Trump had millions of followers, but like a lot of us who pull on our smarty pants every morning, I felt quite sure that it was just a vocal and angry if better-than-usually-organized minority—you know, those hillbillies J.D. Vance elegizes, and some Rust Belt denizens too passive to extract themselves from the exhaust pipe of history.  (And for some of our all-too-literal commenters, let me make explicit that this description is meant to mock and exaggerate attitudes that I think were lurking quietly in many predictions of yesterday’s election.  My point here is that it’s foolish to judge what you don’t yet understand.  Once you understand it, sure, judge all you like, and I intend to.  But first you have to know and respect it as real.)  To be sure, I had help from the mainstream media and an entire industry of professionals who make it their business to explicate and quantify the national mood.  But I accept the error, and the humbling that fairly accompanies it, as my own.

What I really want to know is not so much how Trump won as how all us folks who pride ourselves on knowing what we’re talking about got it so wrong.  These days, the pros not only give us a conventional margin of error (e.g., Hillary up by 4 plus or minus 2 points), but an outcome prediction with a probability or reliability assessment.  For example, the New York Times said on Election Day that Hillary had an 85% chance of winning.  Literally what that meant was that there was roughly a 1-in-6 chance they were wrong.  Now maybe Trump's chances really were the odds of rolling a die once and getting a snake-eye.  I doubt we'll ever know, but I’d bet that by election day a more effective assessment of the national mood would have suggested a much greater likelihood of Trump's winning, something a lot closer to even.  Nate Silver more cautiously handicapped it at 70-30.  Even that doesn't seem to capture it.

Because really it's not that much like predicting what a rolled die will show.  It's an assessment of how confident you are in your methods.  The pollsters and algorithmiacs systematically overestimated their confidence in their methods, or at least I’d bet they did.  They didn't know what they didn't know, and couldn't quantify their uncertainty because they didn't know what they might be missing.  The result was a surprise not because it was some random stroke of fate, like a winning lottery ticket, but because as hard as we looked at everything we just didn’t see some very pervasive and important stuff that was demonstrably there.

So what happened?  What identifiable and measurable phenomena went unidentified and unmeasured?  And why?

--Bernie

Comments

[anon]

First, many partisans of the ilk typified in legal academia fail to understand the degree of shame that they heap on anyone who disagrees with them. They don't just persist in arguing their points: they claim that those who differ are ignorant, immoral racists with bad intentions. As Michael Moore explained (in part correctly) this election was one of the biggest FUs to the establishment ever rendered.

Two, even in defeat, far "left" partisans (actually, these labels don't work much anymore, but are sometimes necessary for the self identified "left" to recognize itself) won't concede. After all their posturing and pontificating about "accepting the results" they make it very clear that they will not accept the results of this election. They are clamoring to obstruct, in precisely the manner that they so bitterly complained about eight years ago. They can't see their own hypocrisy. Instead, they will simply claim that they are "right" and thus entitled. People don't like bull artists. The "left" has perfected this style of presentation.

For example, there is the oft repeated claim that the "left" partisans regret having not been more bi partisan. That claim is now revealed as the joke it always was. "We regret we weren't able to work together, but the Republicans wouldn't do everything we wanted them to do."

Third, the more than half of the people in this country who are not in sync with the Democratic party (don't go by vote totals here) are not all evil racists because they don't agree with every extreme position asserted by partisans. There is no room here to explain how it feels to be labeled this way, but a start might be the reaction by the Democrats to this election. "Hide under your beds, the evil ones are coming for you!" When you live your life as a constant belittler of others, others tend to get pissed off at you. Get it? MSNBC is a very low rated network for a reason. If that's all you watch, no wonder you missed the mood of the country here.

Finally, when the choice the "left" presented was so poor a choice, and when the "left" refused to acknowledge ANY problem with that choice (unlike the "right" that constantly faulted its candidate) most people smell the bs. It's like than gene for asparagus odor. The "left" seems to be missing it. No wonder the country is so ready to reject them as governors. They can't see their own faults, they can't perceive the degree to which the majority disagrees with many of their programs and ideas, and they can't understand working together and compromise.

HOW DID THIS HAPPEN, they are crying! What a load!

It's like the law school academy. The "Dem" party has lost the House, the Senate and the Presidency. And all it can now conclude is that it is more righteous than ever, and everyone who doesn't agree is a racist, toothless hillbilly. It is a pitiful stance. Truly pitiful.

[anonq]

Post

On measuring, which was included in the original post.

The polling was wrong, IMHO, because of turnout models. That is a fairly easy way to fix the results.

There were some polls that were accurate.

Of course, those were dismissed, before the election, by the partisan media outlets that legal academics generally rely upon.

[Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance King]

I supported HRC and disappointed. However, the jury has spoken and is never wrong. Even as an HRC supporter and attorney, I am attracted to Trump's message. For me, it all started with President Bush's Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers. University of Chicago law professor penned an op ed piece that roundly and personally attacked her. Like me, she attended a Second Tier law school and parlayed it into an interesting and meaningful career. Professor Stone attacked that as 'second rate" and not worthy of Supreme Court stuff because she didn't possess the intellectual rigor or background for the seat. I felt that as a slap to my face and to thousands of other great attorneys in our position. I was hurt by that. Imagine if you are some guy who bangs cars together and told the same?

So, I am taking one day at a time with President Trump. So far, he has done well and our Republic is strong.

[anymouse]

Schadenfreude

[VoteTrump]

As I have posted previously on this blog, I am a Trump supporter. I can assure the "shocked" that many of my colleagues also voted for Trump. Perhaps, the degree of Trump support was simply not appreciated.

[Adam]

The degree of Trump support has never been appreciated, not now and not at the beginning of his campaign. There has been a gross misunderstanding of what was happening. Donald Trump has been himself the entire campaign and that genuineness is a large part of what people (who still dislike/disagree with specific things he says) find appealing.

Early in the campaign there was a column in the Wall St Journal criticizing Trump for all his talking lacking the substance and particulars of other candidates (past and present). No specifics on his tax plan or foreign policy, etc., the writer stated. Yet this missed the mark widely on what people were seeking. He did and continued to appeal to millions of people because he said what was on his mind and appealed to their guts. People who 'felt' a connection, forced themselves to explain why they should vote for him even though some of things he said were unappealing.

The nature of this response to Trump was never really appreciated by the mainstream talking heads. This is, I think, why the predictions were so far off. The polls didn't account for feelings. Now there is also something to be said for where he won, Rust Belt, historically manufacturing areas, rural areas, states where energy is big industry. But that gets too far away from the fact that many people responded to him on an emotional level, for just as much as against.

[anon]

Adam

One point of slight disagreement.

Go to the NYT election page, and click on the county map.

The entire country is red, with the exception of small strips on the West Coast, New England, Illinois (it used to be the entire upper mid-west, not in this election, however). To be sure, population centers on the west coast, and in New England are vast. But, they are not the entire country and living in an ideological bubble, while comfortable, leads one to miss the obvious trends.

As I understand it, about 67 of the 99 houses of state government are red. 36 of the 50 state governors are red.

Over the past eight years, the Democrats have been driven out of the majority in every branch and facet of government.

WHere is their self examination? Where is their introspection, acknowledgement of fault, admission of elitism, cronyism, corruption and phoniness? (For example, same sex marriage, which almost all national Democrats opposed until the courts intervened, at which point they claimed to have been for it all along).

Their air of superiority, their smug confidence in their own sainthood, the notion that they are "cooler" than all the rest: these attitudes all continue, even in the face of stunning electoral defeats at every level of government (sort of like law school faculties, right?).

The establishment media along with the Party acted the usual way that such entities act in every out of touch politically totalitarian system. They don't recognize the odor that emanates from their own piles of bs: they lie, over and over and over, they deny hapless incompetence, and they ignore the growing tide of anger and resentment building all around them with an air of nonchalance and constant denials.

All this doesn't make the "red" pov any more completely correct. What all this means, and the Dems still don't seem to understand, is that simply labeling nearly the entire country as racist, homophobic, misogynistic, anti immigrant, ignorant white people, is not a winning strategy. In fact, the Dems have destroyed the electoral success they enjoyed for so long, and have alienated vast swaths of America with their self righteous, holier than thou, clap trap that holds that everyone who doesn't believe every thing they preach (even as they change their position) is evil.

The unseemly calls in academia for "safe spaces" to counsel the poor victims of this horrible thing called democracy is really something out of 1984 (remember the hate breaks?)

Work together people. The Dem must give up their haughty ways and instruct their agents in the media to lighten up and support compromise. Otherwise, everything the Dems want is going to become ever more difficult to accomplish.

[VoteTrump]

Adam, I would add that many voters were intelligent enough to realize the cultural elites were in fact very prejudiced in their coverage of Trump and Trump's calling out the media at his rallies was a genius method of corroborating this feeling. Did you see those nytines and huffpost articles ... as if they live in a completely different dimension. Huffpost coverage of ms drake and her puritan virgin "outrage" that allegedly Trump offered her 10k to bed her. Even assuming arguendo the claim has merit, come on, a woman who bends over giving a bj and at the same time is being rammed by a second guy is "outraged" Trump would offer money. Imagine! Someone who engages in all manner of sexual fantasy is upset as a "woman" that Trump offered her, allegedly, money. This is "proof" that Trump is not fit? Like Ms Venezuela, who claims Trump doesnt respect women who on south american tv is banging some guy and claiming his organ tastes good and she was engaged at the time. Yeh, she is a real feminist there and cheating on her fiance, well thats ok isnt it. This is who Hillary trumps out to show Trump is a "bad guy". Most men and women know Trump was correct when he said if a guy is a success women will let you do things to them i.e., there is consent. He never advicated force or violence which would be reasons not to vote for him and would indeed make me not support him but he never said those things. The bottom line is the deplorables are not as stupid as the elites think. Trump is correct on his understanding of the world and the dynamics of the human condition.

[PaulB]

Perhaps law school academics should reread the story of the little boy who cried wolf. When the dean of Yale Law School compared President Bush to Mussolini, I didn't see a single criticism from his former colleagues. Yes, a few people said that Guido shouldn't be saying things like that in public now that he was a sitting federal judge but did one come out and say that this sort of view was an embarrassment to both legal academia and the judiciary?

I am not optimistic about prospects for a Trump administration but having a professor come on this site a couple of weeks ago to directly compare him to Hitler tells us far more about the state of law school faculties than it does about Donald Trump.

[anont]

I really think it was mostly about HRC being a terrible candidate. No charisma. Many millions of people didn't want to vote for her, or couldn't be bothered enough to go to the polls, despite the alternative that we're now facing.

It wasn't that more people voted for Trump, it's that far fewer people voted for Hillary. And anybody with eyes could have seen that coming - most did. She should have never run. I voted for her to prevent what we're facing now, but I really didn't enjoy doing it.

[anon]

anont

Just factually wrong.

As the "left" loves to divide our country by race, gender, sexual preference and measure every issue by how it can portray that issue as a threat to one of these groups specifically, the media focuses on the voting by these groups.

If you review the data, you will see that T beat Romney's vote percentages in nearly every category.

Hillary also overperformed in some categories.

Again, the "left" just can't face that in almost every election, in the states and nationally, voters are rejecting it. Instead of making up reasons (our voters didn't turn out) the "left" should be examining its own attitudes and policies.

[Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance King]

VoteTrump:

I am a successful three bill traffic lawyer and Mrs. Carswell won't let me do things to her.

[anon]

Well, votetrump and the ever present vulgarian Captain have reduced this discussion, as usual, to a sh.tfest.

Congrats!

[concerned_citizen]

"I cannot fathom how I could have failed to understand so many of my fellow Americans so badly."

Hi Bernie - Jim Rutenberg at the Times has a pretty good explanation for how you and a hundred million others failed to get it. All you did was trust the trusted sources, and they let you (us) down.

I'm going to break this up because the filter has a habit of mistrusting comments with links. The article's titled "A ‘Dewey Defeats Truman’ Lesson for the Digital Age".

www
nytimes
com
/2016/11/09/business/media/media-trump-clinton
html

[concerned_citizen]

Oh, Bernie, one other thing. Michael Moore also provides some pretty good explanations for how everyone got it so wrong. None of the "pollsters and algorithmiacs" (thanks, love that construction, by the way) took to time to sit down and talk to the rustbelters and other disaffecteds.

Because, really, who wants to go talk to or spend time with 'those people'?

[anon]

"rustbelters and other disaffected"

ONce again, oblivious.

Oblivious to the name calling. Oblivious to the inaccuracy of this characterization of the electorate. Oblivious to the arrogance of this common prejudice (angry white men elected T). Oblivious to the extent of the Democratic losses in every part of the country.

Keep it up, folks. The anger, the foot stamping, the denial, the puffed out chests and the whining. It is all very emblematic of the sheltered children who are losing, and losing and losing.

67 of the 99 state legislative houses.
36 of the 50 governors.
The House.
The Senate.
The White House.

Oh yeah. THis is all because of the "angry old white men" who will all die and leave us with a utopian Democratic paradise.

[concerned_citizen]

"Oblivious to the inaccuracy of this characterization of the electorate."

Ooops, sorry, you're right.

Here: "rustbelters and other disaffecteds in the angry basquette of deplorables".

ROADITABOD, fer short.

;-)

[anon]

CC

Good one!

(I sensed you weren't using those terms believing them to be accurate, but too many take that characterization to be spot on!)

[anon]

One of the stalwarts of the left who have posting privileges on this site should start a thread discussing the propriety of the preemptory pardon.

[concerned_citizen]

anon, I'm not too worried about people in mid-America being described as being in flyover country, or the rustbelt, or even as being very disaffected and angry (at a society and government they feel has largely been ignoring their plight).

What I do find offensive in the extreme - some of which you've already mentioned above - is all the self righteous moralizing that's been prevalent on Salon, HuffPo, others, even the NYT where authors feel free to say that white women who voted for trump - presumably all of them since this is stated as a fact without any qualification - were betraying their gender and/or presuming that the only possible explanation for their is racism, bigotry and hate.

Are there bigots and haters within the electorate? I'm sure there are. Do they matter enough in terms of voting power to have caused Trump to win? Of course not.

Yet we are told that it's just racism and gender bigotry that explains the Trump win.

By people who should know better, but because of their hurt feelings are lashing out like spoilt children. People I used to respect currently have my full disgust. I can't imagine how they think they're helping the democratic party with their temper tantrums and insulting rants. They're just going to drive people farther away.