Trumpocalypse: Liberal Ivory Tower of Academia collapsing

[AUFAN78 4,156]

An interesting perspective on how the Ivory Tower of Academia influences so much in our society and how that influence appears to be collapsing under Trump. 

"They have influence on every aspect of
society.  the subtle advisors who
are secretly directing politics, big business, technology, and culture.
 Fortunately however, they don't have any power, and don't really control
society, like the Illuminati do.  Their influence however should be noted;
they've influenced Presidents of the United States, Bankers, the Media (most
notably) and literally every aspect of human life in America." 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-25/trumpocalypse-liberal-ivory-tower-academia-collapsing

 

[TexasTiger 14,276]

The writer wants to make the case you can't trust "experts" because the scientific polls showed Trump "losing by a landslide." That's BS. The poll clearly moved in Trump's direction and the last day actually underreported HRC's strength.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/elections/

More biased crap for the mindless base.

[AU64 10,122]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

The writer wants to make the case you can't trust "experts" because the scientific polls showed Trump "losing by a landslide." That's BS. The poll clearly moved in Trump's direction and the last day actually underreported HRC's strength.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/elections/

More biased crap for the mindless base.

Crap is what the MSM was shoveling out right up until almost midnight of election day.....most were still laughing at the possibility that Hillary would lose....and the expert pollsters must not have known that it was electoral votes that there were going to elect the president...not landslide popular vote wins in a handful of states like California and New York that some people still cling to as proof that HRC should have won the election. ....the wing nuts as someone mentioned.  

[TexasTiger 14,276]

10 minutes ago, AU64 said:

Crap is what the MSM was shoveling out right up until almost midnight of election day.....most were still laughing at the possibility that Hillary would lose....and the expert pollsters must not have known that it was electoral votes that there were going to elect the president...not landslide popular vote wins in a handful of states like California and New York that some people still cling to as proof that HRC should have won the election. ....the wing nuts as someone mentioned.  

Pollsters have a margin of error. They weren't wrong. 70k votes made the difference. I know these are merely facts and those carry no weight these days.

[AURaptor 1,137]

4 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Fortunately however, they don't have any power, and don't really control
society, like the Illuminati do.

 

[AU64 10,122]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

Pollsters have a margin of error. They weren't wrong. 70k votes made the difference. I know these are merely facts and those carry no weight these days.

I'm well aware of what margin of error means......except most polls seemed to miss their "margin" in the same direction where it counted...and of course the polls were not uniform anyway....gotta decide which poll you want to believe I guess.   http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/wi/wisconsin_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5976.html

But it did appear that the HRC campaign believed the favorable polls that said she would win the pivotal states that ultimately cost her the elections when she decided not to make last minute campaign visits.   Funny thing too is the "talking head" experts did not even believe the polls that showed DJT closing the gap and still insisted that there was "no path to victory".....can't count the number of times I heard that phrase the last few nights right up until the voting started. 

 

 

 

[TexasTiger 14,276]

48 minutes ago, AU64 said:

I'm well aware of what margin of error means......except most polls seemed to miss their "margin" in the same direction where it counted...and of course the polls were not uniform anyway....gotta decide which poll you want to believe I guess.   http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/wi/wisconsin_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5976.html

But it did appear that the HRC campaign believed the favorable polls that said she would win the pivotal states that ultimately cost her the elections when she decided not to make last minute campaign visits.   Funny thing too is the "talking head" experts did not even believe the polls that showed DJT closing the gap and still insisted that there was "no path to victory".....can't count the number of times I heard that phrase the last few nights right up until the voting started. 

 

 

 

The scientific polls the article refutes were pretty good. The pundits, on the other hand, didn't see it coming. But frankly, neither did Trump.

[AU64 10,122]

You have to pick your poll...mostly they were all over the place...and usually claiming about the same margin of error...but obviously having different methods of selecting who they contact...and getting different results.  In an election where there will be over 100 million votes....+/-.3% is a lot of votes  

So maybe some or most were in their margin of error but they did not tell us much and before the election you believe them at your peril.  Seems that all could claim they were right. .and yet predict nothing useful.JMO

[TexasTiger 14,276]

18 minutes ago, AU64 said:

You have to pick your poll...mostly they were all over the place...and usually claiming about the same margin of error...but obviously having different methods of selecting who they contact...and getting different results.  In an election where there will be over 100 million votes....+/-.3% is a lot of votes  

So maybe some or most were in their margin of error but they did not tell us much and before the election you believe them at your peril.  Seems that all could claim they were right. .and yet predict nothing useful.JMO

36,000 votes across a handful of states flip from Trump to HRC and she has a an electoral college win along with a significant popular vote victory. There were red states she outperformed Obama. This election defied many existing norms, but complaints about polling, which any credible poster will readily admit is imprecise, were overblown.

[AU64 10,122]

56 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

36,000 votes across a handful of states flip from Trump to HRC and she has a an electoral college win along with a significant popular vote victory. There were red states she outperformed Obama. This election defied many existing norms, but complaints about polling, which any credible poster will readily admit is imprecise, were overblown.

I accept that.....but my view is...be skeptical of what they are "telling" us.

And don't ignore the margin of error which a lot of the talking heads seemed to do.  

[TexasTiger 14,276]

59 minutes ago, AU64 said:

I accept that.....but my view is...be skeptical of what they are "telling" us.

And don't ignore the margin of error which a lot of the talking heads seemed to do.  

I won't defend talking heads.

[AUbritt 611]

First the media, then the universities ....

By the way, it's pretty funny that the article suggests everyone should read Kuhn. Perhaps no one was more effective at walling off universities from the rest of society. It wasn't until we started thinking of 'normal science' operating according to its own paradigms that professors began claiming the mantle of expertise.

[AUbritt 611]

Here's a much more thoughtful article on the topic, one coming from across the pond in response to Brexit.

The author also wrote a book on Kuhn, which is well worth reading and an article on Sebastian Gorka, who I've seen a lot on TV recently.

Demonizing the universities is as bad as demonizing the press, in my opinion. Criticizing them, on the other hand, is totally in bounds ... assuming one has good arguments.

[TexasTiger 14,276]

59 minutes ago, AUbritt said:

Here's a much more thoughtful article on the topic, one coming from across the pond in response to Brexit.

The author also wrote a book on Kuhn, which is well worth reading and an article on Sebastian Gorka, who I've seen a lot on TV recently.

Demonizing the universities is as bad as demonizing the press, in my opinion. Criticizing them, on the other hand, is totally in bounds ... assuming one has good arguments.

Aw, thoughtful criticism. I miss those days.