At best he misinterprets his data, and at worst he deliberately misinterprets them to fit an agenda. Many of his takes are subjective and meaningless. “My data show that Biden’s chance of winning Wisconsin is… ‘medium’ to ‘pretty good.’”
Isn’t that something he normally admits to (or at least he did back when he was with 538). That the value of the “Horse race” election reporting was essentially nil as long as the percentage of undecided voters was greater than the margin (+error) between the candidates.
At best he misinterprets his data, and at worst he deliberately misinterprets them to fit an agenda. Many of his takes are subjective and meaningless. “My data show that Biden’s chance of winning Wisconsin is… ‘medium’ to ‘pretty good.’”
Isn’t that something he normally admits to (or at least he did back when he was with 538). That the value of the “Horse race” election reporting was essentially nil as long as the percentage of undecided voters was greater than the margin (+error) between the candidates.