After crying and being distraught for an hour or two, a glimmer of hope arose - after-hours and international stock market was down. And suddenly their demeanor changed, there was a chance again of a tiny victory. They were predicting disaster with the same certainty as they predicted Hillary winning. There was talk of everyone's accounts being wiped out, a lot of "we told you" and so on.
And of course next day stocks went right up and nothing happened.
I just liked it because right after talking how they mispredicted the election so badly, they turned around and predicted something else, which again was quickly shown to be false.
So I do recommend watching the popular news channels, they are a pretty good source of entertainment. Read Manufacturing Consent by Herman and Chomsky and it becomes even funnier.
Also, Nate Silvers gave Trump a 30% chance of winning. There were plenty of pundits who saw Trump as a possibility.
No I'm not saying a word and I advise the HN members who "know what I'm talking about" to STAY quiet as well. I know it's tempting but I've tried it before on HN. I tried explaining, I'd type up these long posts with links to video evidence, scientific papers, psychology today articles and still the you-know-what-leaning downvote brigade got me. I don't mind downvotes but when you see how these people attack and censor and get you fired from work it's just not worth it. I deleted all my comments before the deletion time limit hit and vowed to just stop.
I know some of you are curious but honestly, this is your punishment. Your punishment is not Trump and Brexit, your punishment is never truely knowing why Trump and Brexit happened.
This is your hell. You made it.
What is so obvious that all this complexity is unnecessary? And if it doesn't seem obvious to so many people, why should I (or anyone else) update their beliefs and say ah yes of course; all those careful investigations were just missing the point?
I hope this doesn't come across as derogatory - it's not meant that way. I really am curious about the epistemology; when many people say complicated and some say obvious, what evidence should cause me to believe the latter?
Polls were specifically rigged to show a Democrat victory.
I suspect that's what he's referring to.
There are only a few owners of American media, and they have their agenda. This election cycle was a bit odd in that the normal right-leaning media companies were aligned with the left-leaning ones, so you got bad-mouthing of Trump all-around.
Once the right-leaning media realised they were about to put Hillary into the White House, they did an about face and started doing their normal biased reporting.
Meanwhile, the left-leaning media kept their bias strong from the start.
This seems to be playing out similarly in Great Britain, with their media taking sides, and at the moment, the left-leaning market forces are stronger. I suspect this is due to the huge benefits globalism brings to the media owners and their financial friends.
The problem is, the population at large doesn't benefit from globalism as directly and obviously as the media owners, so they're not playing along with the game anymore.
Just a guess, mind you. GP might be on about something else.
I don't think anybody even casually familiar with British media would argue that "left-leaning market forces are stronger" or that the British media is anything other than rabidly hostile (both on the Brexit right and anti-"neoliberalism" left) to globalism.
It's also pretty hard to argue that the left-wing, Remain-backing Guardian's doesn't publish a lot more commentary criticising the shortcomings of globalisation and berating international capital than pieces extolling its virtues.
Automation, globalization, and anti-unionization have been pushing down wages for 30+ years. Government policies by both parties seem to do nothing but speed up the process, particularly in globalization. The only thing the Dems had to offer was social safety net, but most people would rather have better paying jobs. The Republicans only offered rhetoric and an extra helping of anti-unionization.
Also, I don't think a vote for Trump is for the GOP or their policies. The GOP was the platform Trump used to get elected (as he slashed and burned their policies). I think the vote was anti-establishment (anti-GOP and anti-Dem). It could be a sign of just how economically desperate many people in the red areas are.
Also, it's very difficult / rare for a party to get a third term in recent history.
I'm not from one of the "Brexit States", but my family is spread across much of the rural Midwest and that sentence expresses their feelings quite succinctly. One family member, during a conversation about tech, volunteered that he thinks self-driving trucks will destroy much of what's left of the patchwork of small towns remaining near where he lives. No more relatively predictable income from truckers at diners and gas stations when the battery powered robots never have to stop for food or gas.
- I clamor for women's rights but when a certain religion is guilty of trampling over women's rights, I go quiet
- I clamor for equality before law but when a certain religion asks for different laws for different religions, I go quiet
People don't take too lightly to their sense of fairness being trampled over, and this feeling of unfairness seems to be a cause for growing discontent.
"There are too many people living in opaque bubbles blogging about 'what REALLY happened!'"
I love how throughout the post the author keeps on pushing the point that people simply have a misguided perception of reality, under no circumstance it is considered that these people are directly or indirectly affected by current policy.
There are too many people living in opaque bubbles blogging about "what REALLY happened!".