Now that we're all, rightly, questioning polls, worth remembering the outsized roll NY Times polls had in damaging Elizabeth Warren's campaign by showing she did poorly against Trump. I often saw people who said they liked Warren cite those as grounds for not supporting her
-
-
Sure, but the answer can't be "Hey, if the polls were bad, anything is possible!" We have concrete electoral results in Warren's case. None of them suggest that she would have been able to beat Trump.
-
Independents in battlegrounds who weren't happy about Biden liked her a lot. Who knows how this would've played out with entirely different facts, but, to Jeet's point, the NYTimes/Siena really did seem to affect her chances and drive later polling down.https://twitter.com/SeanMcElwee/status/1285224283527053312 …
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Systemic polling error undercounting Trump support makes you think that Warren would have done better because polling error? Please explain that logic
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
how about the fact that the fact that she came in 3rd or worse in every state
-
Those were influenced by the polling saying she wasn't electable. The whole point of this tweet
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
She would have energized supporters and changed minds.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.