3 ms·

The NYT's numbers were based on the count as of Wednesday, Nov. 16. The final tally still hasn't been completely collected. You're referring to the day of the e

The NYT's numbers were based on the count as of Wednesday, Nov. 16. The final tally still hasn't been completely collected. You're referring to the day of the election, I think. The NYT is referring to the continuous counts (which still aren't done). That's not lying. That's reporting the changing facts as they were when the article was written. Not sure why that's confusing.

grzm 10y ago
Well, one part of it that's potentially misleading is that the percentages add up to 100%, which means they're likely discarding the votes that didn't go to Clinton or Trump. It would be much better, IMO, if they included the vote breakdown and explained how they're deriving their numbers.
- drewmate 10y ago
  I hadn't even considered that until you mentioned it. It's subtle, and crossing that 50% threshold is a very powerful notion that I (and likely many others) simply glossed over. This seems to be a dark pattern that pushes a narrative. In reality, looking at popular vote totals in an electoral college contest is not particularly helpful. If the contest were an actual popular vote, the candidates would campaign completely differently, and the turnout would change entirely (especially in solid red/blue states.)
  - erickhill 10y ago
    You're probably right, although it's hard to know until we try. Take a look at California - solidly blue, and no real chance of changing any time soon. Yet millions vote anyway. One could make the argument ballot measures bring people out as much or more than the presidential contest. But who knows? The truth is that in ~30 states, most folks don't feel like their vote counts. "Why bother... it's a blue/red state and my 1 vote won't matter." Except, it _could_. Meanwhile, I have family members linking to dubious sites claiming all 40 million illegal aliens voted for Hillary (somehow), so everything is hogwash anyway. It's a confusing, scary world we've created.

grzm 10y ago

Well, one part of it that's potentially misleading is that the percentages add up to 100%, which means they're likely discarding the votes that didn't go to Clinton or Trump. It would be much better, IMO, if they included the vote breakdown and explained how they're deriving their numbers.

drewmate 10y ago
I hadn't even considered that until you mentioned it. It's subtle, and crossing that 50% threshold is a very powerful notion that I (and likely many others) simply glossed over. This seems to be a dark pattern that pushes a narrative. In reality, looking at popular vote totals in an electoral college contest is not particularly helpful. If the contest were an actual popular vote, the candidates would campaign completely differently, and the turnout would change entirely (especially in solid red/blue states.)
- erickhill 10y ago
  You're probably right, although it's hard to know until we try. Take a look at California - solidly blue, and no real chance of changing any time soon. Yet millions vote anyway. One could make the argument ballot measures bring people out as much or more than the presidential contest. But who knows? The truth is that in ~30 states, most folks don't feel like their vote counts. "Why bother... it's a blue/red state and my 1 vote won't matter." Except, it _could_. Meanwhile, I have family members linking to dubious sites claiming all 40 million illegal aliens voted for Hillary (somehow), so everything is hogwash anyway. It's a confusing, scary world we've created.