Oh, I'm certainly not disputing the NYT article itself. But as with all political coverage this year, I'm highly suspect of timing and motivation.
This post had an additional benefit: I've been able to observed the votes for my comments go up and down like a roller coaster for the past hour, as the readers of HN apply their own biases. Rather interesting, especially as the number of actual responses is relatively small.
What can we learn about HN's user base from the ultimate comment score, I wonder?
Probably that they dislike politically motivated conspiracy theories when there is an obvious, non conspiracy based explanation, e.g. the one you just replied to.
Isn't this the point of having a discussion site, however: to discuss issues rather than simply downvote them to oblivion?
Note my first post. I intentionally left it open-ended to spark discussion. In an election cycle where online propaganda and sockpuppetry have been confirmed, I don't think my question is in the same league as those posed by flat-earthers or 9/11 conspiracy theorists.
Trump had a really bad couple of weeks and all the polls showed a big Clinton lead except this one. It just tipped over. The timing seems perfectly reasonable.
As for the motivation, as a purveyor of facts I have to imagine that the NYT is frustrated at Trump's complete disregard for them, and his disregard of polling is a big part of that.
This post had an additional benefit: I've been able to observed the votes for my comments go up and down like a roller coaster for the past hour, as the readers of HN apply their own biases. Rather interesting, especially as the number of actual responses is relatively small.
What can we learn about HN's user base from the ultimate comment score, I wonder?