Keep in mind that the Princeton Election Consortium made that claim, using their own methodology, but this was soundly rejected by Nate Silver, who said on ABC News that this claim failed to pass a "Common sense test."
CNN's own prediction system estimated that HRC had a 91 percent chance to win, while the NYT estimated that HRC had an 85 percent chance to win.
But, what's important in all of these analyses, and even in the worst ones, is that there still was the possibility that Trump could win.
This is a problem with political reporting and maybe there was too much reliance on national polls—which tend to be inaccurate, especially when compared to state polls.
But, overall, people reported accurately on the data that was available. Being a reporter doesn't mean one is always right, especially when it comes to predictions.
And, there's a tendency to conflate all reporters together as if we all work for CNN. Most of us don't work for CNN. In fact, rather few of us work in Atlanta or New York.
However, Trump and his acolytes don't care about the distinction and attack any report that goes against the Dear Leader like an allergic reaction.
Now, I'm a tough reporter whose spent some years working on tough stories in places that give most normal people pause, so if someone wants to say mean things about me on Twitter, I think it's hilarious.
But, the President is different. President Trump is attacking the media in an effort to distort the meaning of facts in order to make it easier to sell his agenda. And, his broadsides against the First Amendment has real long-term consequences, especially if we cannot agree on basic, checkable facts because someone can just cry "fake news" and hold their hands over their ears.
[doublepost=1516131562][/doublepost]
"Smoking gun" LOL. O'Keefe couldn't find a smoking gun if he were in front of a firing squad.
