3 ms·
> The front page had this interactive realtime story of how Hillary is supposedly winning by overwhelming margin, when it was very apparent that that's opposite
by jasonlotito 9y ago
> The front page had this interactive realtime story of how Hillary is supposedly winning by overwhelming margin, when it was very apparent that that's opposite of the truth.
I don't remember that at all. I remember the chances of winning, but that is not in any way a claim that she is winning by a large margin. In fact, reading the articles during the campaign and during election day, there was a lot of talk about even though polling data read one way, Trump wasn't out of it.
But yes, if you just read the headlines and didn't actually read the content, I could see why you'd say this.
- cocktailpeanuts 9y agoHere's one leading up to the election: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html?mcubz=0 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential... And here's the page I was talking about: https://www.nytimes.com/elections/forecast/president https://www.nytimes.com/elections/forecast/president Now it says >95% Trump, but on that day it was the other way around--something like >95% Hillary.
- cirath 9y agoThe early predictions were based on the early polls, and the later predictions were based on data after election results started to come in. A lot of the States that ended up swinging were on the eastern half, so the rapidly changing outlook makes sense if you look at the bigger picture (rather than just the number at the end). That being said, predicting the outcome of an election with some 250 million potential voters based on a few hundred thousand polled individuals is a tricky game to play.