The NY Times is at it again with 2020 doom - but Nate Silver is setting them straight.

[Drunken Irishman]

Link to tweet

Apparently, Trump losing in a Michigan county to a Generic Democrat by two-points, despite winning the county over Hillary by twelve-points in 2016, is, uh, proof that the Democrats are in trouble?

Fact: Even if Trump won Macomb County by two-points, he's likely going to lose Michigan handily - let alone be able to win it in any scenario where he is actually losing the county.

The fact is, in 2012, Obama won Macomb by just four-points. So, Generic Democrat is actually doing only two-points worse than Obama did in 2012 and ten-points better than Hillary in 2016.

In 2004, Bush actually carried Macomb County by ... a little less than two-points and lost the state by three-points to Kerry.

It's this dishonest narrative that really pisses me off. Could you imagine the narrative if Trump led by two-points in a swing county Obama or Hillary won by twelve-points? This should be a huge warning sign for Trump's reelection and yet, it's being used as a warning sign for Democrats ... because Trump, as an incumbent, is actually losing in a county he won by a sizable margin in 2016 and the Democrats are polling at around the level Obama won the county in 2012.

Yeesh!

[Thekaspervote]

1. These kinds of articles just makes one's head hurt!!

[RockRaven]

2. Media outlets have a conflict of interest which incentivizes promoting a horse-race narrative

Part A) if people are anxious or uncertain/curious/interested in the prospective outcome, they will watch/click/buy content. If they think they know the outcome -- whether that results in self-satisifed triumphalism or dis-spirited fatalism, satiated curiosity, or whatever -- they will not, or not as much anyway.

Part B) if potential ad buyers think their ads can affect the outcome (i.e. it is close enough to nudge one way or another with an ad) then they will buy ads. If it is a totally lost cause or totally in the bag, then they won't waste their money buying ads to try to nudge an outcome which is far beyond ad-nudges-can-change-the-outcome territory.

Nate Silver might be sniping at NYT now, but don't think that is pure intellectual honesty and data analysis. He's trying to grab some viewership-eyeball-hours from a competitor by being contrary to an unwelcome position/analysis offered by said competitor. At some future point during the election cycle he will probably adopt whatever position he's criticizing today in a hot-take of his own. For clicks/views/eyeball-hours. Because that is what his business is about.

[Moostache]

6. Yep...you are 100% Correct!

Anything to drive the horse race narrative...literally anything.

[Sherman A1]

7. Precisely

This is one of several reasons I have stopped watching the manufactured drama that is Cable Noise. It’s all about the horse race and filling airtime between ads for drugs we never knew we needed.

[Scurrilous]

3. The NYTimes has a thing for Cleetus Safaris.

[SunSeeker]

4. K & R

[RhodeIslandOne]

5. Again?

I believe that on Election Day 2016, the NYT predicted Hillary winning soundly.