Krugman: Feel the Math
This is my fifth presidential campaign as a New York Times columnist, so Ive watched a lot of election coverage, and I came into this cycle prepared for the worst. Or so I thought.
But I was wrong. So far, election commentary has been even worse than I imagined it would be. Its not just the focus on the horse race at the expense of substance; much of the horse-race coverage has been bang-your-head-on-the-desk awful, too. I know this isnt scientific, but based on conversations Ive had recently, many people smart people, who read newspapers and try to keep track of events have been given a fundamentally wrong impression of the current state of play.
And when I say a wrong impression, I dont mean that I disagree with other peoples takes. I mean that people arent being properly informed about the basic arithmetic of the situation.
Now, Im not a political scientist or polling expert, nor do I even try to play one on TV. But I am fairly numerate, and I assiduously follow real experts like The Timess Nate Cohn. And theyve taught me some basic rules that I keep seeing violated.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/30/opinion/feel-the-math.html
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)And no, saying that the race is effectively over isnt somehow aiding a nefarious plot to shut it down by prematurely declaring victory. Nate Silver recently summed it up: Clinton strategy is to persuade more people to vote for her, hence producing majority of delegates. You may think those people chose the wrong candidate, but choose her they did.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/30/opinion/feel-the-math.html?_r=0
MFM008
(19,837 posts)NEW YORK. But we sit patiently waiting for June 14 when she takes D.C.
Nitram
(22,971 posts)Why do I keep seeing posts on DU that Clinton is behind Trump?