Scott Alexander argues that the 2016 US election outcome shouldn't drastically change our understanding of politics, given how close the race is. Longer summary

Scott Alexander argues that the outcome of the 2016 US presidential election shouldn't dramatically change our understanding of politics and society. He criticizes both extreme predictions of a certain Hillary Clinton victory and a certain Donald Trump victory, pointing out that the race is close enough that the outcome could be determined by random factors like weather. Alexander suggests that people should precommit to their views on politics and society rather than drastically changing them based on the election result. He uses his own January 2016 prediction of Trump having a 20% chance of winning (conditional on winning the Republican primary) as an example of a reasonable prediction, given that prediction markets on election eve give Trump an 17.9% chance. Shorter summary