WOW: Huffington Post's 98% prediction of Hillary victory makes it one of the biggest chumps in online news

Thursday, November 10, 2016 by: J. D. Heyes
Tags: Huffington Post, epic fail, Hillary Clinton

---

(NaturalNews) When your coverage of politics and issues of the day as a news site is clouded and affected by your morally bankrupt political ideology, you wind up saying things that turn out to be incredibly stupid.

Yes, Huffington Post, I'm talking about you.

Full disclosure: Readers of our site have long known we were supporting now President-elect Donald Trump. We've made no secret of that. Our founding editor, Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, has voiced his full-throated support for Trump for months after determining that he was the one candidate who could win who was not co-opted and wholly owned by Big Pharma, Big Food, Big Medicine and who he honestly believes is ready to neuter the political establishment in D.C. and the global power elite.

The managing editors at HuffPo, however, managed to delude themselves into thinking Clinton would win no matter what. That's probably because the site's far-left founder, Arianna Huffington, decided months ago to allow her publication to become a filter-less "echo" chamber for the Clinton campaign. According to leaked emails released from WikiLeaks, Huffington declined accepting a position on the board of a left-wing organization because she believed she could better assist Clinton with HuffPo:

"She is enthusiastic about the project but asks if she's more useful to us not being on the Board and, instead, using Huffpo to echo our message without any perceived conflicts. She has a point."

Here's how a 'presidential prediction model' can be so wildly inaccurate

As such, when you're so in the tank for a political candidate, you begin to believe that the propaganda you are spewing is real. That leads you to do epically stupid things – like report that Clinton had a 98.2 percent chance of victory, based on some goofy, unscientific "presidential forecast model."

According to that model, Clinton should be sitting pretty today with 323 electoral votes, compared to the 228 that she actually won (so far as of this report). Trump, who was given a 1.7 percent chance of winning should be sitting with 215 electoral votes, instead of the 274 that he actually got (as of this writing).

"Clinton's win will be substantial, but not overwhelming," HuffPo reported.

Except that it was neither.

This same "model" also predicted that the U.S. Senate would shift to Democratic control – "with 51 seats or 50 seats and Tim Kaine as the vice presidential tie-breaker." That was wrong too; Republicans not only held the Senate but won a few races they weren't supposed to win. They kept the House, too, and picked up some governors around the country.

Now, it could be that HuffPo actually tried to construct a legitimate political polling model. But it was never going to be accurate because the site was so far in the tank for Clinton that any rational dissent, based on hard evidence, was factored out. Another reason is because the hard Left editors at the site (along with other hard-Left pollsters) never took the time to learn who Trump's supporters actually were. They lampooned them, wrote them off as kooks and crazies, and never really believed Trump was drawing the incredible (record) number of supporters everywhere he held rallies. They dismissed Trump voters as "deplorables" and louts and bigots and racists (none of which was true) and closed their minds to what appeal Trump was having to his base.

Marxist hacks pretending to be journalists

In addition, HuffPo became openly hostile to more reasoned (but also ultimately wrong) polling data. In this post by Evan Cohen the day before the election, he seemed bewildered that the fivethirtyeight.com site's Nate Silver had Clinton's chances of winning at only 65 percent.

Because HuffPo's prediction of a 98.2% victory couldn't be so wrong!

Until it was.

HuffPo has completely discredited itself by making such a stupid prediction. But that's what being so ideologically compromised on behalf of one political party or another will do, as a news organization: It'll cause you to make ignorant claims that eventually blow up in your face.

But here's a prediction: Because it's so far-Left HuffPo editors will not learn a thing and continue to make buffoonish, clownish claims and statements. They will undermine a Trump administration at every turn while insulting, denigrating and dismissing his legions of supporters.

And as such, it will continue to be little more than comic web site run by Marxist hacks pretending to be journalists.

Sources:

ZeroHedge.com

Elections.HuffingtonPost.com

HuffingtonPost.com

NewsTarget.com