Read on Twitter
i see we& #39;ve reached the "could the polls be wrong and the sugar cookies be right" stage of punditry
Especially frustrating that the news side of the Times already published an -- entirely reasonable -- article on the possibility for error in PA polling with an almost identical headline.
I& #39;m linking to that one instead:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/25/us/politics/pennsylvania-polls-biden-trump.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/2...
I& #39;m linking to that one instead:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/25/us/politics/pennsylvania-polls-biden-trump.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/2...
cookies doughn& #39;t vote
The remarkable thing to me is that there are PLENTY of legitimate polling challenges/issues to talk about, and yet the naysayers just happily breeze right past those to be like "shy Trump voters! yard signs! cookies!"
By the same token, it& #39;s also perfectly possible to write a scene-setter about the ways partisan divides have visibly manifested in your hometown with trying to claim that it& #39;s either statistically representative or an argument against the polling.
All that aside, I have to say I& #39;m also very hung up on the phrase "the polls are, once again, badly discombobulated"
....miscalibrated?
....miscalibrated?
[pollsters, nervously looking for the COMBOBULATE button on their big keyboards]
Again, this is not me saying "the polls are infallible, there& #39;s no chance they& #39;re off."
It& #39;s saying "this is a fairly useless way of assessing that possibility."
It& #39;s saying "this is a fairly useless way of assessing that possibility."
it is, you might say, half baked
