[kato13]

Yeah the NYT was way off before the votes were counted, but as a data obsessed person AND a web designer that tool was awesome and accurate.

As to how the pollsters and media missed the final result so badly I am a firm believer in the SHY/OBSTINATE Trump voter and the concept of self reinforcement to support your own views.

First off, in some circles, if you even show an inkling of support of Trump you will be personally attacked. Heck even the Democratic candidate did it (half of you belong in basket of deplorable). Some supporters will NEVER admit to pollsters where there vote is going. That is why Trump did better in Rasmussen (done by computer rather than humans), and the LA Times poll which followed the same voters for 6 months.

The second effect was an echo chamber in the media. The facts they found seemed to reinforce their conclusions and led to people finding more facts to support what in many cases what they wanted to be true.

Nate Silver is a pretty strong liberal, and he is great with numbers. He was attacked for suggesting that Trump might have a 30% chance to win. The Huffington Post (who had Trumps chances at 2%) said he was being dishonest with the people following him, that he was "putting his thumb on the scale for Trump" and also accused Silver of "punditry" in this election cycle. Silver not unsurprisingly went ballistic.

So you have a man who I am sure did not want Trump to win, but he was being honest and was attacked (and not seriously defended by the media as far as I saw) for stating his analysis. Silver was the media's golden boy when he accurately predicted 99 out of 100 states during Obama's two elections, but turn against the prevailing wisdom and find yourself left out in the cold.