Astral Codex Ten

Hillary

17 min read

Hillary

Article

Hillary is a recurring person in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 6 times across 6 issues between February 01, 2021 and January 21, 2026. The archive places it in contexts such as “HERE’S HOW HILLARY COULD STILL WIN”; “one-on-one against Hillary”; “if Hillary is elected, she’ll probably spend four years smashing her head against Congress”. It most often appears alongside Trump, Twitter, Biden.

Metadata

  • Category: People
  • Mention count: 6
  • Issue count: 6
  • First seen: February 01, 2021
  • Last seen: January 21, 2026

Appears In

Source Context

Recovered passages from the original issue text. When the raw archive preserved outbound links inside the source passage, they are listed directly under the quote.

Metaculus Monday
February 01, 2021 · Original source
All right guys, HERE'S HOW HILLARY COULD STILL WIN...
Highlights From The Comments On March Links
March 04, 2021 · Original source
- Why Classic Bernie did almost as badly in South Carolina in 2016. He got 26% of the vote there in 2016 and 20% in 2020. This is not a very dramatic difference considering the first contest was one-on-one against Hillary and it can be parsimoniously explained by an "anti-Hillary but not especially leftist" cohort.
As someone who followed his primary campaigns closely in 2016 and 2020 and supported him in both, I can't buy into this thesis. My view is much simpler: Bernie never had a majority of the primary electorate. In 2016 his numbers were puffed up by non-ideological anti-Hillary votes and in 2020 Democratic candidates simply coordinated to stop Bernie in exactly the way Republican candidates failed to do with Trump. The article skewers a straw man by contrapositing its arguments from "if the Democratic party was so desperate to rally around Biden...." They were not, any more than Republicans were eager to rally around Ted Cruz! The difference is they sucked up and did it when the circumstances left it as the only option. This is not corruption, A endorsing B to put them over C is basic coalition politics as they have been practiced in every Presidential nominating process since the introduction of the party system.
Mantic Monday: Grading My Trump Predictions
April 19, 2021 · Original source
41. Donald Trump remains President at the end of 2017: 90% 42. No serious impeachment proceedings are active against Trump: 80% ***43. Construction on Mexican border wall (beyond existing barriers) begins: 80% 44. Trump administration does not initiate extra prosecution of Hillary Clinton: 90% ***45. US GDP growth lower than in 2016: 60% ***46. US unemployment to be higher at end of year than beginning: 60% 47. US does not withdraw from large trade org like WTO or NAFTA: 90% 48. US does not publicly and explicitly disavow One China policy: 95% 49. No race riot killing > 5 people: 95% ***50. US lifts at least half of existing sanctions on Russia: 70% 51. Donald Trump’s approval rating at the end of 2017 is lower than fifty percent: 80% 52. ...lower than forty percent: 60%
Remember also that it’s more likely the House and Senate both stay Republican than that they both switch to being Democrat. So if Hillary is elected, she’ll probably spend four years smashing her head against Congress; if Trump is elected, he will probably get a lot of what he wants.
I started using PredictIt during the 2016 election (I bet $20 on Hillary and obviously lost everything). After that I decided it would be fun to start with some seed amount and see what happened to it over time, so I put in another $200 and was a lot more careful with it. Over the course of a few dozen bets, I was able to turn my initial $220 into about $900 by the end of the 2020 election.
Prediction Market FAQ
December 20, 2022 · Original source
There’s another market called PredictIt. In 2016 a lot of people bet Hillary, lost big, and left in disgust, so now the site has a small but consistent conservative bias. This is a mispricing it should be possible to make money by correcting. But because of a deal with US gambling regulators, PredictIt won’t let anyone bet more than $850 on their site. Every election year I go to PredictIt, make some bets, and dutifully collect a few hundred dollars in free money. But it would take more like $85,000 to fully correct the mispricing. And although I would be delighted to make tens of thousands of dollars in free money each election year, I can’t do that because of the gambling regulations. And although the contributions of a hundred people like me would add up to $85,000 and correct the mispricing, I guess there aren’t a hundred people who know about this strategy and care enough about making a few hundred dollars to pursue it. So the site continues to lean slightly conservative.
Inline links: PredictIt
Contra DeBoer On Movement Shell Games
November 30, 2023 · Original source
I sometimes describe myself as “quasi-libertarian”. On most political issues, I try to err on the side of more freedom, and I think markets are pretty great. But I really don’t care about taxes, I have only the faintest idea how guns work, I voted for Obama, Hillary, and Biden, and I find the sort of people who go to Libertarian Party meetings to be weird aliens. Am I a libertarian or not? This is why I just say “quasi-libertarian”.
Highlights From The Comments On Scott Adams
January 21, 2026 · Original source
I haven’t watched his videos, but they have names like You Could Be MUCH More Persuasive, The Persuasion Playbook (“Learn practical techniques to harness the power of persuasion”), and Persuasion Techniques That Will Improve Your Business And Life. Adams absolutely did not limit his interest in Trump’s persuasion to the media, and praised Trump (for example) using persuasion techniques to take down other Republican candidates. You can find his discussion of how Adams “publicly predicted Ben Carson’s demise” after Trump acted out a mocking version of Carson’s description of getting stabbed in the belt buckle (according to Adams, a masterful example of “visual persuasion”). Leo continues: A good example would be spinning a whole tale about him as an ‘ivermectin true believer’, when he was open about his skepticism. if you knew his history with medically-assisted suicide, you’d know he didn’t plan on fighting the cancer and only did IVM because his fans begged him. I half-apologize for this one. I didn’t try to “spin a whole tale” about Adams as “an ivermectin true believer”. What I said was: » “In 2024, diagnosed with terminal cancer, Adams decided to treat it via ivermectin, according to a protocol recommended by fellow right-wing contrarian Dr. William Makis. This doesn’t seem to me like a story about a cynic milking right-wingers for the grift. It sounds like a true believer.” I stand by that paragraph. I don’t think someone who was milking right-wingers as a cynical grift would have gone so far as to trust their recommendations on what to take for his cancer. I think Adams became a sincere right-winger, and so was willing to listen to right-wing medical advice. But I agree that it was written sloppily and sort of suggests he was an ivermectin true believer. He wasn’t, and I apologize for that. I later realized I didn’t need to read tea leaves about this - he says, very explicitly, in one of his books, that yes, after getting attacked by too many left-wing trolls, he decided to commit to fully joining the right wing: » “If you want to see the world more clearly, avoid joining a tribe. But if you are going to war, leave your clear thinking behind and join a tribe. Trumped joined the Republican tribe to win the presidency. Now I was joining the Trump tribe. For a war against Hillbullies [ie pro-Hillary Clinton bullies]. I was all in.” After I made some of these arguments to Leo, he said: I do think that people who listened to thousands of hours of him speaking off-the-cuff might have a better understanding than someone attempting to gain the same by reading a few of his old blog posts. This is a fair criticism. I tried listening to a couple of his shows, and they had a different, friendlier tone than his books / interviews / tweets. Arguably Adams thought of formal written communication as a place to do manipulation, and verbal communication as a cozier spot where he could relate to people normally and explain all the manipulation he was doing. @Ashwin V writes: If you knew anything about Scott, you would know that he never considered anyone a "lesser human" as you've so confidently asserted. He was streaming and trying to pass on his wisdom on his death bed. This was a response to my claim that Adams “longed to be a manipulator of lesser humans”. Several people including Ashwin objected that Adams didn’t see anyone as lesser, nor think of manipulation as demeaning. For example, nutter_just: “Your error is in thinking you must be a lesser human to be manipulable. My impression was Scott believed everyone was like this even himself which is why he believed self affirmations worked. It’s you manipulating your dumb self.” Again, I’ll half-apologize. I regret my exact framing (“lesser humans”), which I think was unnecessarily inflammatory since it implies he was sort of thinking in those terms. But I think he was doing a bad thing which requires that on some philosophical level he has to be treating other people as his lessers in an unacceptable way, even if he wasn’t consciously thinking that they were. I think trying to manipulate people is inherently demeaning to the dignity of humankind. Nor is it exonerating to say “I also manipulate myself” (even if this is true). For analogy, suppose that Adams was a literal telepathic mind controller. If he used his powers on himself (mind controlling himself to work harder), that sounds like a good lifehack. But if he used his powers to turn everyone else into his zombie slaves, he would be offending the dignity of humankind, and “I also use my powers on myself!” would be no excuse. There are a thousand edge cases, complications, things that are sort of manipulation but not quite, and ways that some of those things might be permissible for the greater good. But none of them change the fact that in the simplest and most typical of cases, like the telepathic mind controller with his zombie slaves, manipulation is wrong. One might object that there are simple, typical cases on the other side too. When a job candidate shaves, dresses nicely, and gives a firm handshake, this is in some sense “manipulating” the interviewer, since it’s an attempt to influence his decision through some channel other than facts. I can’t draw a perfect bright line here between the good and the bad cases, but I would apply tests like “is this an attempt to more effectively convey true information?” (eg when I shave, it conveys that I’m capable of remembering to shave and care a lot about the interview), “is this something where failing to do the thing would also convey even more information?” (eg if I didn’t shave, it would falsely suggest I really didn’t want the job), and “is this something where the target has basically given implied consent to this level of manipulation” (eg the interviewer wants and even hopes that people will dress nicely for the interview). I think some of Adams’ manipulations seem closer to the bad cases than the good ones. He wrote about the moment he decided to use his persuasion powers to convince America to elect Trump. One day when he was doing his dispassionate observer act, he heard about Hillary’s estate tax plan and realized it would cost his estate lots of money. He had no particular principled stance against it (“You can argue whether an estate tax is fair or unfair, but fairness is an argument for idiots and children”) but concluded that: This was personal. This was also the day I decided to move from observer to persuader. Until then I was happy to simply observe and predict. But once Clinton announced her plans to use government force to rob me on my deathbed, it was war. Persuasion war.” Accepting for the sake of argument that Adams’ persuasive powers are as impressive as he thinks, he manipulated thousands of people who might have stood to benefit from an estate tax, or who sincerely believed in fairness-based arguments for an estate tax, to vote against their own interests/beliefs, in order to enrich him personally1. I think this requires some sort of standpoint where you consider their agency and interests less important than your own, and that’s why I described him as wanting to manipulate “lesser humans”. This coexists with him often being very nice, with many people saying his podcast helped them become better people, etc. @janiesaysyay writes: This essay is a great demonstration of the kind of leftist, myopic thinking Scott [Adams] was fighting. This is how [Alexander] describes [Coffee With Scott Adams], one of the most influential online shows: » "I had been vaguely aware that he had some community around him, but on the event of his death, I tried watching an episode or two of his show. I couldn’t entirely follow..." “Some community"?! CWSA was one of the first long running, online, interactive, alternative news shows. Scott was a trailblazer host with his reasonable, thoughtful take on current events, often describing the "2 screens” views of both the left and right political opinions on current events. Scott [Adams]' question and answer discussions with his audience brought varied insights, and gave Americans a nuanced view of news. At the end of his life, Scott was highly influential in American thought, culture and politics. CWSA made it acceptable to be an American, someone who was proud of the country, unashamed of their race; proud of the culture, and proud of the heritage which built the country. This made me wonder whether I was underestimating the reach of Adams’ podcast, so I tried to find statistics. CWSA ranks 50th on Apple’s top 100 news/politics podcasts2. It’s very close to the rankings of Jen Psaki (Biden’s ex-press-secretary) and Al Franken (ex-Senator), but also to very many people I have never heard of. I’m not sure how to interpret this. Comparing YouTube subscribers of Adams and various other podcasts I’ve heard of, all numbers in thousands: Joe Rogan: 21,000
Inline links: You Could Be MUCH More Persuasive, The Persuasion Playbook, Persuasion Techniques That Will Improve Your Business And Life, writes, nutter_just, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!r4fL!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F7d643c5f-b24c-4f01-baad-963686d680da_560x174.jpeg, 1, writes, 2, https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!wOcC!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F141d78d7-8756-4ed6-bc53-081bac795a0a_728x250.png
“systems are better than goals” The main idea, that by changing my thoughts I can change my reality, is simple but went a long way for me. It opened up my imagination to what’s possible and made my thinking more positive. Cinna the Poet writes: To share a different perspective on Adams, my uncle was an avid follower. He went from being a principled libertarian whose ideas I respected very much to (I’m sad to say) an alt right bigot. Under the influence of Adams, he had no interest anymore in objective truth or the actual scientific method. Reality was all a matter of spin and “persuasion.” The phrase “post truth” gets thrown around too much, but Adams fit that description perfectly. Alex Poterack writes: I just need to note you’re not the only one who read every Dilbert book before graduating elementary school. I’m the other one. Dozens of people chimed in, here and on social media, to say they did this too. Alyssa Briggs writes: This is a great article, but you left out that he handed out king-sized candy bars on Halloween. He will be very missed by the local kiddos. … 6: Summary/Updates … This was a tough post to write, and I think many people will continue to find it unfair. For example, I claimed that Adams said he joined Team Trump because he didn’t want to pay Hillary’s proposed estate tax - and that he said he didn’t care whether the estate tax was unfair or not, he just personally hated the idea of losing money. But an Adams backer could justly point out that a few sentences later, he does talk about how it’s unfair to make him pay an estate tax when he worked hard his whole life. And then a few paragraphs later, he gives a different, more sympathetic story about how he thought Hillary supporters were bullies and it was important to stand up to them (although he then says maybe Trump supporters were exactly equal bullies, but he selfishly was more against the bullies who were bullying him - but then elsewhere he says no, the Hillary supporters’ bullying was worse.) Adams keeps trying to eat his cake and have it too. He gives one prosocial altruistic explanation (so that if someone accuses him of being selfish, he can show they’re wrong), and then one amoral selfish explanation (so that if someone argues with him about whether it’s really altruistic to oppose estate taxes for millionaires, he can say “Ha, you can’t get me, I already admitted I’m a cold hard realist who doesn’t worry about that kind of fuzzy stuff.”) This is much like how he first said Donald Trump was amazing (but didn’t endorse him), then said he was endorsing Hillary Clinton (but only for his own safety), then endorsed libertarian Gary Johnson (???), then when it looked like Trump would win again walked it back and said obviously he had really been for Trump the whole time. If someone else had won, he would have spun a story where his endorsement of them had been real. He admits all of this! So someone who is charitably inclined to Adams can tell a story where he’s a great predictor, has always done everything for good patriotic altruistic reasons, and only teaches persuasion so that people can better understand themselves and their world. Someone who is uncharitably inclined can tell a different story where his predictions are mostly wrong, he does everything for selfish reasons, and uses persuasion to manipulate others and enrich himself. I usually try to err on the side of charity. But Adams is wearing a metaphorical “I AM GOING TO USE YOUR CHARITABLE INSTINCTS TO MANIPULATE YOU” t-shirt. So I’m happy to suspend charity in this case and judge him on some kind of average of his conflicting statements, or even to default to the less-advantageous one to make sure he can’t get away with it. So here are the updates I made based on your comments: Adams wasn’t an ivermectin true believer, and although my piece very narrowly avoided saying that he was, I should have been clearer about this and avoided implying it.
Inline links: writes, writes, writes