This is a stroke of genius by Peter Thiel. In hindsight, he was hedged. If Clinton won, his Trump endorsement would have been chalked up to his contrarian, eccentric bent. If Trump won -and he did- Thiel's bet would have a huge return.<p>His self-interest aside, this is a huge deal for Palantir, the company that he helped found and has many federal governments as their client. Also, in a sense, Thiel ensured that Silicon Valley didn't completely lose touch with the White House and will have some leverage in influencing them. For starters, immigration is a key issue for Silicon Valley for which Thiel can be a voice of reason to influence the new administration.<p>I don't agree with many things Thiel says or does. That said, this was a brilliant execution.
<i>A lot of the dynamics were very similar to the Brexit vote in the U.K.,” which also took many commentators by surprise.</i><p><i>Hillary Clinton’s campaign, he said, forgot the motto that Bill Clinton had won the presidency with in 1992: “It’s the economy, stupid.”</i><p>Donald Trump was a stealth 3rd party candidate, riding on a wave produced by demographic changes and the falling fortunes of a large demographic. He's down with OPP -- where OPP means "Other Person's Party." He's used other people's money to further himself. This time, he used the Republican Party, but historically, he should be compared to other 3rd party candidates.<p>The media producing class in this country is out of touch with a whopping huge fraction of the populace which is going from majority middle class status to minority lower class. Not only is the media producing class out of touch, many of them on the political left actively villify and denigrate them. Seriously, what did they expect?<p>The degree to which the upper-middle class is out of touch, concerned with fripperies, and denigrating of the lower classes in the Bay Area is starting to look like a bunch of tropes from French Revolution period dramas. Programmers and technorati -- This means you!
I am ok with Thiel thinking Trump would win. What was a disappointment for me is that Thiel actually believes Trump was a good candidate and (I speculate) agrees with his platform. Also, apparently has no problem with the incendiary and hateful speech of Trump
I would say OP has begged the question. Just because Trump has <i>won</i> does not mean that Thiel's bet has <i>paid off</i>. As in cornering the market or making a killing on paper, 'how do you bury the body?' Indeed, more than one person on the betting sites or prediction markets (or Bitcoin exchange) has been burned when they thought they won something but the market resolved otherwise. Until you've withdrawn your cash, you haven't made any money and you are still vulnerable to counterparty risk. And Thiel has yet to cash out any of his supposed 'influence'.<p>I noted when Thiel made his original donations, and then kept doubling down, that there was a good probability he would 'win' (Trump never falling below 10% in the prediction markets) but I felt that the more serious issue was whether he would benefit. Trump has a long history of using and discarding people as soon as they are no longer useful, including decades of simply not paying people who have done work for him (at least two examples in his campaign alone: the polling agency and the girls who sang at his rallies) and daring them to sue. Not to mention how often he loudly promises to donate to charity and then... doesn't. Narcissists are not known for their gratitude, generosity, reciprocation, or feeling bound by past promises or contracts explicit or implicit. Thiel donating to Trump and giving speeches in his support is merely Trump's due for being the greatest businessman in the world and the man who will make America great again. It does not follow that Trump will actually do anything for Thiel: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Farmer_and_the_Viper" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Farmer_and_the_Viper</a><p>It will be interesting to see if Thiel's bet on Donald Trump ever wins big and he gets something out of it like a Supreme Court nomination. But it's not over yet, and his chickens have neither hatched nor come home to roost.
A lot of speculation here about why Thiel backed Trump. If you're genuinely curious, just watch him in his own words <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob-LJqPQEJ4" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob-LJqPQEJ4</a>. You may not agree with him, but it makes sense, especially from the author of The Diversity Myth.
His bet was completely in line with what he has been saying the past few years (about flying cars and 140 chars etc). It resonates with Trumps "US doesn't win anymore". He may have realized that a large part of US population felt the same way, something that, apparently, went amiss from everyone else in SV.
I didn't vote for Trump nor Clinton. Although I'm right-leaning on most issues, I am in the perplexed camp of why 50% of voters selected Trump. I was sure Hillary was going to win.<p>I'm especially bewildered why deeply religious, evangelical Christians I know were big on Trump. He's such a sinner by biblical standards, the love for the guy didn't make sense - I thought it'd be hypocrisy to support the guy. For most, they told me the single issue for them was the supreme court nominees that Trump was promising to put forward. But, in discussing what Trump was going to do once elected, the level of projection of their goodness onto Trump seemed to go to delusional, fantasy-land places.<p>What I'm coming to realize is that, being upper middle-class puts me completely out of touch culturally with the 50% that voted for Trump. The book <i>Coming Apart</i>, by Charles Murray is really helping me understand what is going on in America and what a cloistered life I've led.
> “His odds were very badly underestimated,” he said. “Trump voters were not being captured by the polls. A lot of the dynamics were very similar to the Brexit vote in the U.K.,” which also took many commentators by surprise.<p>The real takeaway for me is figuring why this is the case — how could / can we change the polls to be more robust?<p>To some degree, perhaps the polls influence the outcome of the election. For example, if people on the edge of voting or not think Clinton will win by a healthy margin, they might not actually bother to vote.
A similar discussion: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12912608" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12912608</a>
I wish Thiel would become more involved... Trump is likely to end up starting too many fights on too many fronts by myopic activists whose concerns don't matter to the average voter but that rile up a significant activist base in opposition. Trump can't win a 2nd term without triangulation to mollify that. He needs to pick his battles.
trump is an idiot who has no business being president of the country, which marks the first time someone with zero (literally zero) political experience, not even military service, was elected to that position.<p>That said, he speaks his mind and it's trivial to see what he's thinking.<p>Had Hillary Clinton (who I and any sane person would like over Trump) become President, it would be impossible to know what she really thought of anything or to decipher anything she said: she's a career politician, who pauses before speaking and then speaks out of both sides of her mouth.<p>listening to Trump is like listening to some random drunk idiot in a bar. he isn't pulling one over on anyone - he barely knows where he is. sometimes that has its advantages.
"Trump voters were not being captured by the polls. A lot of the dynamics were very similar to the Brexit vote in the U.K.,” which also took many commentators by surprise."<p>The media in both countries was outright lying. The only surprise here is that they believed their own lies.