Jesus H. Christmas. This was not decoding the human genome.
I ran analytics groups. I love data. I love analytics.
There is a certain baseline competency in analytics just like there is in any industry. You don’t have to be a great analyst to know the most obvious questions or spot the most obvious dynamics.
When he “doesn’t think much” about obvious dynamics even rudimentary analysis would reveal, it tilts coverage - and that coverage misleads viewers about actual elections.
Ask yourself this:
Where would be right now if the media had asked the most obvious question after 2016 - how much of Bernie’s 2016 support was just anti-Hillary voting? - and realized it was half.
We’d be in a vigorous primary with viable candidacies of multiple other candidates who were pushed out by shitty analysis wrongfully concluding that a guy who is now two Tuesdays from dead in the water was actually a front runner
And this year’s bad analysis promoted the fiction of an ascendant Bernie at the expense of Kamala and Elizabeth and Beto and Pete and Amy and every other candidate.
And THAT pisses me off.
You know who should be most pissed off by the poor analysis and resulting poor coverage?
Progressives.
Had it not been for for unexamined, yet readily testable fiction, that Bernie had a defined ceiling below electability...
The poor analysis and resulting exaggeration of Bernie’s true electability begot the downfall of not only Bernie but every more progressive candidate.
If they understood data analysis, they’d be more mad that they thought he could while more palatable second choices died on the vine as that fiction met a hard death by mid-March.
Ok. I’m done.