News

Maggie Haberman, Nate Silver Spar Over Whose 2016 Coverage Was Worse

Two of the most prominent political observers in the country got into a Twitter tiff on Tuesday over whose coverage of the 2016 presidential election was more misleading and inaccurate.

It started when Nate Silver—the former New York Times statistical wunderkind who left in 2013 to run his own ESPN-backed website, 538—noted a Haberman report on the Trump White House’s use of private emails, contrasting it with the Times’ wall-to-wall coverage of similar issues for Hillary Clinton:

Haberman hit back by mocking the pollster’s recent track record on political predictions:

But Silver responded by arguing that he had actually predicted the election better than the Times and other prognosticators:

Haberman ended the tete-a-tete by criticizing Silver for “trolling”:

Contact Aiden Pink at pink@forward.com or on Twitter, @aidenpink

Recommend this article

Maggie Haberman, Nate Silver Spar Over Whose 2016 Coverage Was Worse

Thank you!

This article has been sent!

Close
Close