Post election thoughts

Hate to say I told you so but...

Good evening valued subscriber

A big trading week comes to a close. Donald Trump wins the presidential election in a sweeping victory securing 312 - 226 electoral college votes. In what was tipped to be a tight turned out to be a complete annihilation.

*In my premium post I tipped:

1. Trump to win the election at 1.70

2. Trump to win Pennsylvania at 1.90

3. Trump to win the popular vote at 2.20

Trumps price steamed in aggressively before the results were even announced so there was clearly some shrewd action going on. Whilst Trump winning did not come as a surprise, the manor in which it happened did: Trump smashed the ‘blue wall’ states which Democrats have long relied on since 1992, completing a clean sweep across rust belt states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. The election effectively hinged on these battleground states, including Georgia, Arizona and Nevada where Republicans were slight favourite.

Donald Trump won all of them and decisively. In my betting preview, I referenced the polls and historic voting patterns since that was the only quantitative data available.

The polls pointed towards a very tight race with either candidate leading by no more than a few points in each swing state with Trump marginally ahead in aggregate.

In my preview, particularly in my podcast episode, I launched a scathing attack on the accuracy of polling: The polls were wrong for Brexit, the 2016 and 2020 elections. Whilst being wrong is bad enough, the margin by which polls were wrong was spectacularly wide and that proved to be the case again: Harris and Trump were tied in Pennsylvania across several polls, averaging 48% each. Harris lead Michigan across all polls by an average of 3 points. Harris also lead Wisconsin across 5 polls and lead Nevada on 3 polls. Iowa where Trump comfortably secured the Republican vote in the 2016 and 2020 elections did have Republicans as favourite but not without drama: Ann Selzer, widely regarded as the best pollster in the country who holds the rare distinction of A+ rating for accuracy, bizarrely claimed that Harris held a 3 point lead. Her rationale was that there was a rise in women and independent voters. Well Trump won Iowa by a whopping 13 points and Selzer’s response was that the poll frightened republicans who may have had a higher turn out in fear of losing.

Plausible, but the point stands: polls are stone age material. As explained in my preview, they are ripe for manipulation, the sample sizes can paint any picture a pollster desires. They are useless at predicting outcomes. So why do we still use them?

Psychologist Philip Tetlock sums it up perfectly: we need to believe we live in a predictable, controllable world, so we turn to authoritative sounding people who promise to satisfy a need’.

It’s the same reason why investors listen to economists and financial analysts who’s track record of predicting booms and busts are just as woeful.

People are so enamoured with status and titles that going along with tv talking heads or ‘pollsters’ seems like the right thing to do. It makes doing your own homework redundant. After all, who are YOU to question the most acclaimed economist/pollster/politician?

The truth is, had you invested in a passive index and ignore 85% of active mutual funds over the last 10 years, you would’ve outperformed them. Had you bet against polls in the last 4 major political events, you would’ve been right.

Tagging along and buying into a narrative or 1 side of the argument makes betting tribal. When you are financially invested in the outcome, the more you want it to be true and the more likely you are to believe a story that overestimates the odds of it being true. It’s no different from a religion or cult and this is why so many passionate traders, political gamblers and knowledgeable analysts got it so wrong.

They’re disdain for Trump coloured their vision so much so that the shady polls and left wing dominated legacy media was all they needed to confirm their stance.

I wanted Trump to win but whether or not that fed into my prediction of who I thought would win…I guess we’ll never find out.

But in my preview, I made a conscious effort to balance the quantitative data with qualitative data: the failure of democrats to curb inflation, the continuation and extension of foreign wars, the failure to address the border issues, the stifling of small businesses through a more penal tax code and an increasingly dangerous woke ideology that’s infiltrated media, tech and education. Any pushback has been met with shadow banning or outright silencing.

Donald Trump has cleverly circumvented legacy media in favour of social media: he has tapped into younger audiences by forming strategic alliances with the likes of the Nelk boys, UFC president Dana White, Joe Rogan and Elon Musk. Trump understands that social media is now more important than mainstream media. Just check the ratings.

The staunch support from the MMA and Golf community, Youtubers, Podcasters and elite businessmen has turned the young vote in his favour. Social media is unfiltered. Unscripted. It’s raw. Just like Trump. What you see is what you get and being an avid consumer of social media, I have seen the sustained support for Trump over the last 8 years that is at logger heads with the constant vitriol, neurosis and exaggeration that mainstream media has painted Trump with for the last 8 years. Someone HAD to be wrong?

Donald Trump understands that you cannot change old heads but the young vote is up for grabs and he grabbed it with both hands.

The point of this post isn’t to gloat, but to provide some food for thought:

• Polls have not advanced. They are not a sophisticated means of collecting data. The samples sizes are too small and are ripe for manipulation.

• The masses rely on polls because they are the only quantitative data set available to show us the sentiment of voters.

• Pollsters are the self anointed gurus, much like economic analysts or index fund managers: they have a woeful record but average Joe’s are enamoured with titles. Going along with the ‘experts’ makes doing ones own homework redundant.

• There is a 2nd reason and that’s confirmation bias: we tend to inflate the odds of something being true if we want it to be true. Despite qualitative data pointing towards glaring Democratic failure, the polls had the election race close when it turned out to be anything but.

• The reason why is that mainstream media caters to the elder demographic. Social media captures the sentiment of the younger demographic & that has been Trumps focus.

These closing points should encourage introspection: whether you were right or wrong, how objectively did you forecast your opinion? Did you balance the polls and voting history with qualitative data? Qualitative data is admittedly more subjective but as aforementioned, I am an avid consumer of trending content and by keeping my ear to the ground, I saw no reason to believe the exaggerated and slanderous portrait that legacy media painted Donald Trump with.

This episode has been another cataclysmic failure from the mainstream media and polls but man is deemed to repeat his mistakes as we’ve seen time and time again.

If that translates to value, then I’m all for it! I look forward to betting against the tide many more times.

There are extra layers I want to discuss in my closing thoughts but they are probably best for video form so will be touching on that in my next podcast episode (hopefully by tomorrow). Was away on a mini vacation last few days hence the slow write up and I’m battling a cold so couldn’t record today.

Speak soon

AT