The following piece from Nate Silver (Links to an external site.) represents a convergence of our units on public opinion and voting, campaigns, and election.  Silver is a famous pollster who has grown a rather considerable following.  On the footsteps of the 2016 election he tried to explain why so many pollsters (himself included) got the results wrong.  

Education, Not Income, Predicted Who Would Vote For Trump (Links to an external site.)

Directions

This is a two-part assignment.  The primary goal is to allow students to demonstrate evidence of comprehension.  The minimum recommended word count for the initial post is 700 words (not including direct quotations).  In your initial response due WEDNESDAY, February 9th (11:55PM), directly address the following points:

Read the article above and address the following points in your post:

1) What did Silver assume would be the key metric in determining the outcome of the election?  What was the basis for this assumption?

2) What did be subsequently determine actually was the key metric in determining the outcome of the election?

3) What is significant about Silver’s postmortem in our study of American politics?

Follow-Up Reply Directions

After your initial submission, select 2 posts from your peers and respond to them by Sunday, February 13th (11:55pm).  The responses should be similar in quality to your initial post in terms of depth of thought and content.  Quality responses do not simply agree with the author but substantially expand the  discussion.  

Please see the rubric attached.

Silver assumed that oncome level would be the key metric to predict the outcome of the 2016 election. In the article, it is not clear why Silver thinks it to be so, but certain inferences can be drawn why income was initially assumed to be the key metric. First, people of color, also have the lowest median income in the nation, have traditionally comprised the electoral base of the