The problem with this logic is that you're multiplying a very low probability against a truly catastrophic outcome. The expected value result of that calculation is still very, very bad.

But I also disagree about Trump's prospects. As I wrote elsewhere on the thread: I think we underestimate the likelihood that Trump will win, and further I think we're going to be in exactly the same struggle in just 3 more years, when Trump begins his next presidential campaign in earnest. When he captures the nomination next time, there will be no opposition research left with the power to halt his campaign: all the news value will have been spent on this campaign.

Donald Trump is a terrifying force in American politics, and the damage he's done will spread far beyond the 2016 election.

I'm out on a limb here for saying this, because I'm a loyal Democrat, but as a believer in the American political tradition warts-and-all, I think Republicans should be even more dismayed, because one way or the other Trump is going to ruin the Republican party. When most Democrats say this, they mean that Trump will prevent Republicans from winning. But I don't mean that. I mean that Trump is killing their party, and he and his acolytes will finish that job by (eventually) winning. Even as a liberal Democrat, I feel sorrow for the loss of a loyal opposition and a voice for limited government.

> Even as a liberal Democrat, I feel sorrow for the loss of a loyal opposition and a voice for limited government.

I always got the impression from my liberal friends that they would be overjoyed controlling the house, senate, and oval office until the end of time with no opposition.

Perhaps you need more thoughtful friends. Some of us on the left simply want an end to either of the two parties and their focus on controlling the branches of government. Unchecked power is rarely (never?) good. You also left out the judiciary. Both parties want total majority control of the entire government, and they're both comfortable with abrogating their constitutional duties and any sense of statesmanship if it seems likely to help further their power goals. This won't be good for many reasons, not least of which is the vital importance of including as many voices as possible in the processes of self-governance. We can't maintain stability and improve the future when we're always "winning" by a couple percentage points every few years, while remaining otherwise evenly divided into two hating-the-other-side camps.

I tend to agree, but it certainly seems like Sam Altman and Paul Graham don't. I'm reasonably confident that they would do more if they thought Trump being elected was more likely.

Also, you paint a terrifying picture of what happens next - as you (IMO correctly) point out, Trump will not just disappear, but will probably be setting up the next election. Which isn't even the worst case - the worst case is a serious and ongoing Trump challenge to Clinton's election.

The expected value rhetoric about Trump is something I think I shoplifted from Paul Graham, so I'm pretty comfortable with it.