I worked for over 25 years in a Research and Development lab at a large Semiconductor company. Almost all of my coworkers were PhD level Scientists. I still communicate with one of them since I retired in 2018.
The other day she told me they were having a sort of celebration dinner party. She said they can do this now because they all got shots. She was surprised when I told her I would not have been invited to that, because I'm a refusenik. She was astounded that an intelligent person such as I didn't get one.
I had to explain risk/benefit analysis to her, but I don't think she got it...bottom line, a room full of high-level STEM people celebrated because they swallowed the hook so far down that they must have crapped them without injury.
Never, ever talked to any of them about politics and Trump especially, but they are terrified of the plague so I assume voted for Grandpa Badfinger.
Perhaps that's the difference. The people I worked with (and still do) all were, with rare exception at the BS/MS level, and only a rare few PhDs. Perhaps there is a difference, in that those of us who don't have PhDs know we don't know everything, even about a tiny bit...With a good BS you know a little about everything, with a MS, you know more, but about less, and with a PhD, you are so specialized you know everything about next to nothing, (at least that's the way my professors joked about it.) One of the problems I have observed with PhDs is that they hesitate to step far outside the limits of their area of concentration, unless following a line of development.
Many scientists suffer from that, while others are quite willing to apply the principles they learned in Chemistry, Physics, and Biology outside their field and see, at least, if what they are being told make sense. It isn't hard, once you understand the principles involved, to see if a study confirming or damning something like HCQ/Zithromax/Zinc is valid, especially when the studies use only one or two parts of the treatment, at the wrong stage of the disease, leaving out the critical component, and on patients who are already severely compromised by comorbidities and the late stage COVID-19 they have.
Its like studying cars and saying they will never get you anywhere, but in the fine print, you find that all the cars in the study lacked wheels. You don't have to be an ace mechanic to figure that out. Yes, it's that easy. Similarly, people who won't go that far, are unlikely to question PhDs in other fields, unlikely to research that information they are provided to verify it, and just take it at face value, with the thought that the expertise of other PhDs must be taken at face value, simply because they, too, have PhDs. It's an expert thing.
But the biggest flaw in all of this guessing why Trump lost, is that it assumes that the numbers are valid and he actually did, fair and square, on the level, lose.
Like assuming all the votes were real, tied to a (living, legitimate) voter, were accurately and completely counted, or that the actions of those at the polls were never conducted with bias.
I'm just not seeing that, and no one who watched the wacky antics of Democrats in certain venues on election night did either. Just too many examples out there of very questionable ballots, double counts, and tampering with adjudication and even tabulation not to mention discarded ballots, chasing off poll watchers, burst water mains that weren't, and trucks unloading more boxes of ballots in the middle of the night.
If the data is trashed by the significant presence (more than the 'win' margin) of bad data, then GIGO applies.
Explaining
why the results exist when the data is flawed is folly.
Those are not the results, and one is only explaining something which did not and does not exist.
No explanation needed.
All over America, though, I don't think those displaced by COVID from the workforce were looking to Biden for salvation, but rather to Trump to rebuild the economy that flourished under his first three years, and to keep the hard line going on Iran, Illegal immigration, and China. Even Latinos (Hispanics) were voting more heavily for Trump, many approving of his actions at the Border, despite the distortions in the Press. Between that and the increase in Black conservative votes, I'm not seeing where Biden could get legitimate traction, and even hatred can't muster, imho, enough legitimate votes to beat that sort of popularity, despite the constant fanning of that flame by the Media.
I'm hoping the AZ audit will show whether the phenomena people are trying to explain is reality or the result of a flawed data set, at least in AZ, and if the latter, whether that phenomenon (
an uninspiring, lackluster, field-trailing candidate of questionable mental competence and even more questionable morality, who had done diddley squat during nearly a half-century in politics, who had demonstrated a nasty side if ever questioned on anything but softball issues, and his even less liked hyena cackling running mate who only brought to the table being a woman of color as any real qualification, suddenly became the nominees and won an election (despite the most napworthy campaign in history) against an energizing, dynamic, incumbent who packed venues despite COVID and got a record number of votes for a Presidential incumbent) is an artifact of pure chicanery.
I suppose it is possible that a significantly larger subset of work-at-home or merely unemployed Americans on lockdown were exposed to enough of the MSM's tireless 24/7 Hate Week that they finally got ordinary folks to love Big Brother and vote for Biden, but that (for some reason) didn't seem to hurt Trump any, considering he got more votes in 2020 than in 2016, all media pimped hatred aside.
