This was true with 2016 election coverage. Clinton's polling lead was flimsy if you looked at it rigorously (Trump within margin of error, Electoral College problems in Midwest, lots of undecideds, volatile race). But a lot of news outlets didn't scratch beneath the surface.https://twitter.com/saletan/status/942099208781299712 …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @NateSilver538
Most liberals I know expected Moore to win, in part based on polling averages. I don't think "liberal claims" is the right category for the mistake the news made with 2016 polling. The media just doesn't have a template for the "30% chance of Trump" story.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wycats @NateSilver538
I really appreciate the "just a normal polling error away" template in 538's coverage, but you have to admit it's innovative and based on thinking about what polls really mean a lot.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @wycats @NateSilver538
Also I worry that the "normal polling error away" doesn't convey the serious implications enough.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
It's closer than "Hillary's definitely gonna win cuz the polling is really robust"
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.