Donald Trump’s failure is complete

Trump is on trial! If each of you reading this can kick in $10 or $25, it'll help keep Palmer Report firing on all cylinders at this crucial time in our nation's history: Donate now
-----
Palmer Report readers: sign up for our free mailing list here


With so many prominent tenures already coming to an abrupt end in the Donald Trump administration, now seemed like an appropriate time to revisit my own initial expectations for each of the major players. I considered a write up which identified the advisers, cabinet members and visible staffers who have outperformed and underperformed my expectations. That’s when I realized something that should be statistically impossible, even for this administration: every single one of them has performed as poorly, or worse, than I was expecting. I can’t find one who’s been a pleasant surprise.

Much as the egotist in me wants to pat myself on the back for having correctly predicted that every one of them would individually fail, the math nerd in me knows it shouldn’t be possible. At least one of them should have succeeded, if only by accident. Some of them are sufficiently disconnected from the rest of the administration that they shouldn’t have automatically been dragged down with the tide. And yet everyone has managed to fail individually, while also failing as a team. It shouldn’t be that way. Just as on a team of well chosen solid hires, at least one of them should fail by accident. 100% success or 100% failure, across dozens of senior hires, is not a natural dispersion.

Statistically speaking, it’s difficult for this many quasi-independent variables to all fail across the board. Even if you randomly guess on every question on a multiple choice test, you’ll still score a 25%. That’s easy to pull off. But to score 0% you’d have to think you know every answer, and get every one of them wrong, which is trickier. And that’s where I suspect the explanation may lie.

If Donald Trump had lazily hired people without looking at their qualifications, or randomly hired acquaintances with no rhyme or reason, he’d have picked a few winners by accident. Instead his 0% success rate with his hires suggests that he has specific criteria for trying to hire people he thinks will be winners, and his criteria is so upside down that it’s resulted in all losers. If you think about it, that’s something of a remarkable feat.

Trump is on trial! If each of you reading this can kick in $10 or $25, it'll help keep Palmer Report firing on all cylinders at this crucial time in our nation's history: Donate now
-----
Palmer Report readers: sign up for our free mailing list here