Image by Getty Images

By Aiden Pink September 26, 2017

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:

The story is written in the passive voice. But Clinton’s emails didn’t *just happen* to become a huge story. The NYT was a huge reason why.

Forwarding the News

Thoughtful, balanced reporting from the Forward and around the web, bringing you updated news and analysis each day.

Terms(Required)

I agree to the Forward's Terms of Service and Privacy Policy

Email(Required)

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) September 26, 2017

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

It’s this keen understanding of media and politics that you demonstrated with your own modeling https://t.co/IFV9lrE5Ku

— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) September 26, 2017

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

I guess I’m obliged to point out that our model & our reproting gave Trump a way better chance than you guys did. https://t.co/mbr5z9wdvy

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) September 26, 2017

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

Things are always more nuanced and complicated than your trolling tweets of your former employer. That’s the point https://t.co/ApJ6WrT4sM

— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) September 26, 2017

Contact Aiden Pink at [email protected] or on Twitter, @aidenpink

A message from our CEO & publisher Rachel Fishman Feddersen

I hope you appreciated this article. Before you go, I’d like to ask you to please support the Forward’s award-winning, nonprofit journalism during this critical time.

The coming year promises to be filled with more complex and historic developments. We are entering an era where independent, fact-based Jewish journalism will be more important than ever. We need to be ready for whatever 2025 will bring, and with your help, we can be.

We’ve set a goal to raise $260,000 by December 31. That’s an ambitious goal, but one that will give us the resources we need to invest in the high quality news, opinion, analysis and cultural coverage that isn’t available anywhere else.

If you feel inspired to make an impact, now is the time to give something back. Join us as a member at your most generous level.

—  Rachel Fishman Feddersen, Publisher and CEO

With your support, we’ll be ready for whatever 2025 brings.

$36 $500

$120 $180 Other amount