"New York Times public editor: Why we were wrong" (on election)

He didn't say that. He referenced the auto search.

He tells it like it is, but doesn't mean what he says. Are you okay with that?

 

Supposively even Trumps campaign pegged their odds at 10%.

 

I don't know how Google auto-completion works. But apparently auto-completions for Hillary & Trump are not identical and possibly more favorable toward Hillary. Not sure why.

 

My post on this in this thread:

People weren't searching for "Hillary racist" so autocomplete wouldn't recommend that. Like it wouldn't recommend "Trump racing" or "Hillary racing" because no one was searching for their auto racing stats.

 

Yes, but I doubt ppl were not searching Hillary criminal which is also not in auto-completion. There are plenty of other examples.

 

Mostly yes, agreed. Megyn has been a bit "off" lately though.

 

This is amazing and refreshing...truth.

 

That's his insinuation without proof. They did a study and Hillary had more negative terms than positive. How do you feel about that?

 

What negative terms? I tried to look up many in my view negative terms for Hillary and they were not there. How do you define what constitutes 'negative term'?

For example here is the simple one: there is completion for 'Trump controversy' but no such thing for 'Hillary controversy'.

 

Ask trump. He defined it. Not me.