Thinking in terms of distributions (e.g. Gaussians), the average person is not directly impacted much by any federal/presidential decision; this may explain why so few bother to vote. However, the tail ends can be directly affected ... and presidential decisions/statements can shift the curve a bit. The result of shifting the curve is that the number of tail-end people can increase/decrease dramatically.
For example ... think of a distribution of IQ scores. 50% will have an IQ below 100 and 2% will have an IQ above 132. If, however, the average IQ is shifted to 104, the number of people with an IQ over 132 nearly doubles! (+76%)
So while most people (between -1 and +1 sigma, that is, 84--116) won't see much difference (the difference between 100 and 104 is imperceptible), I fear that the "derived" effects down the line are material. Even if most people can't put their finger any one thing in particular, the small number of people who can and will put their finger on something may increase drastically (twice as many 132+ people is a significant effect). Conversely, if the average is lowered to 96, the number of 132+ people is almost cut in half. So apply this concept to other distributions than IQ... such as "the probability of becoming a terrorist/radicalized"(*) or "the probability of coming to the US in order to study engineering"(**) or "the probability of starting a successful business"(***). This effect is particularly strong in rare or extreme events. For example, the effect at 3sd (148) is +130% ... since these are the-worst-of-the-worst (e.g. radical terrorists) or alternatively the-best-of-the-best (e.g. world class scientists) their influence is larger than their numbers imply ...
What the exact probabilities are is a different matter, but you get the point ...
(*) It's anecdotal (from news) but there seems to be more white supremacist inspired domestic terrorism now than a few years ago?! Perhaps because the tone has shifted. People used to keep such stuff to themselves, but it has become more acceptable to share such sentiments at the mild levels for the average person (what people share on facebook for example)---this in turn changes the radical numbers in the tail.
(**) I've seen plenty of these examples with people (scientists and engineers) no longer considering the US option to be their default career-move. More STEM people are going back to their original country (or some other country) these days because they don't want to risk having the [visa] carpet pulled out from under them. Recall universities recommending that professors not risk going to international conferences ... or google recalling their employees.
(***) How much is one "Elon Musk" worth to the economy both in terms of direct consequences of businesses started, but also indirectly (suppliers, new ways of doing business, strategic importance i.e. NASA is now dependent on SpaceX). Compare to having three times as many of this type .. or alternatively half as many. Using Musk as an example because his businesses are very much contingent on a combination of easy entrepreneurship + energy-subsidies for the particular businesses he's starting.
While Trump doesn't have any legislation to his name, insofar he can talk distribution up or down by the equivalent of 4 points, which I believe he can, he does have
cultural impact even if he hasn't had any
political impact yet. I see three such areas, two of which have been noted by Chad already. These are highly connected in several ways:
Normalizing alternative facts: Agreeing on the existence of factual concrete reality used to be a common standard as recently as early 2016. For example, the size of the crowd during the inauguration. Back then partisans would certainly try to reframe, mislead, or emphasize certain aspects of that reality while others would frame it in different ways. However, now, it's become acceptable to create whatever reality fits one's desired narrative (the crowd size can be whatever you want to say it is ...) and if it doesn't, then it's "fake news". As a result people now live in different bubbles. More importantly, "reality-checks" have been reduced to "just your opinion, man". Such an epistemology (how we know what's true) makes it a lot easier to hold and adapt crazy beliefs because they simply go unchecked when truth no longer exists as a concept.
Some of the social media fake news seems to have been cleaned up, but the war on the media is ongoing. I don't know if this line of post-postmodern philosophy (where not even factual reality matters) will continue post-Trump. It's quite certain that most other "developed" countries (and politicians) struggle in dealing with this way of thinking. As far as I understand, people in some countries are used to not being able to entirely trust any official channels...(former eastern bloc, for example) so it could also become a more permanent thing that people just get used to.
Immigration: International visitors (tourism) are down 10-15% yoy!! Let that sink in for a moment. The US is seen as less welcoming to international visitors and immigrants overall, even for people deciding where to go on vacation. I could only find the tourist numbers but since they are closer to the average in the distribution, I suspect the numbers on the tail of the distribution are more adversely affected---think people making career choices.
Add:
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/201 ... plications ... Yeah, what I expected. Note that the previous normal state of things was an overall upward trend/increase all the way around.
There are two effects here. One is homegrown terrorism (which accounts for almost all of it). Since thinking in bubbles is becoming more common, the probability of radicalization especially when coupled with the anti-Muslim rhetoric is more likely to increase than decrease. It increased in Europe and now homegrown terrorist attacks are a regular thing.
The second is that almost half of the STEM pipeline into American tech businesses, government, and academic research is fed by foreign students. About 50% of engineering doctorates are awarded to non-US persons and the majority of patents are also filed by non-US persons. The hassle and risk of all the chaotic and seemingly random visa regulations is making foreign STEM people question whether the risk (of being locked out after having gone to a conference ... or being deported after investing time and effort in a US company or university) is worth the reward of the US have better opportunities in this regard. Some of this tail-end would be seeking their fortunes in other countries. This would mean less STEM people in the US and more of them in other countries, especially China. Hence, this has implications for US competitiveness down the line.
International diplomacy and perceptions: The US is now out of the TPP and out of the Paris agreement. Other countries are moving ahead on them which then means that China has more clout being the largest economy in these treaties by far. It's notable that China is pivoting to the EU. It's also notable that US-Russia relations are cooling. Thus the US is more isolated now than it was before. I have no idea how/if they will or can be reverted post-Trump. It could also be that such treatises will simple disintegrate in the rest of the world as well. (See e.g. Brexit)
Again, the effect would be indirect. If you work for a US company that's directly affected, you might get fired or more likely, simply not hired because businesses that would have been founded never got founded in the first place. In that case, you'd probably be doing something else, like maybe working in the shale fields instead.
Again, hard to put a finger on it but definitely consequential. One might compare this to the hollowing out of the manufacturing industry: It's hard to put a finger on a specific thing to blame ... because the combined effect is a confluence of many factors. However, it's quite easy to determine whether a certain action is helping or not helping. In any case, the loss of manufacturing over the past 30-40 years did have a wide impact on the country as tail interactions (loss of entrepreneurs and industry leaders) spilled into the center of the distribution. In many ways, it resulted in Trump getting elected.
In terms of long-term effects, it depends on how the next President is perceived. Note that Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize simply for "not being GWB". During Trump's presidency it would seem that other countries would not rely on US commitments and thus maybe less or nothing at all will get started. This would be entirely in tune with America First (everybody else second). Afterwards, I don't know ... in any case, China now has four years to pursue their goals as the new dominant geopolitical player.
That's all I have for now.
The thing I haven't quite figured out yet is after about half a year of Trump as president who or which groups are winning? And what are they winning?