From New York’s Primary Upset to Polling Data, How The Times Is Covering the Elections

No "Lessons from 2016"? Healy notes Trump & Clinton voters were extremely well informed about these candidates stood for and what kind of president each would be. However, the 2016 Trump coverage basically consisted of his own words, true or false, no hint of what these statements might mean for governing the country; coverage of Clinton, mostly her emails. Readers were left with the impression that we had two flawed candidates, one of them crooked (Clinton). So many people did not vote, or voted for a third party. I realize reporting should not be biased, however it should be accurate. It should convey as Healy noted, "what kind of president each would be." I hope that there are some lessons learned from 2016 so that voters can truly have some idea what is a stake in future elections.

Too much competition to cover an important race in Queens but Dershowitz, with a Chilmark dateline, gets the front page. Gimme a break, Mr. Healy! Times needs to report the news, not pander to friends.

Let's hope the Times covers elections a lot better then Trump vs Clinton, where they were totally off.

You have "13 reporters on the politics desk" and you did exactly ONE round-up style story the Friday before the election about four challengers IN YOUR LOCAL MARKET. You cite Ocasio-Cortez' inclusion in another "women candidates" roundup story as evidence of... something. The constant press to run stories that are representative of larger trends rather than covering the race that's in front of you may be what's afoot here. It's a shame. (And now the Editorial Board isn't even bothering to endorse in each race-- and, just wait, will eventually turn around and bemoan low turnout. Turnout that the news side and the editorial side ACTUALLY HELP CREATE.) It's mystifying you guys can't do better-- let alone make the connection between coverage and turnout.

In Colorado, you focused on Jared Polis, and gave short shrift to the other, arguably more progressive candidates for Governor. I know people who didn't vote in the Democratic primary because the Times said he was ahead. That was inappropriate.

As a registered Democrat, I would have stayed up all night to await Clinton's victory announcement, as The New York Times had predicted, had I not realized that Trump was winning. I was browsing the Internet, searching for information to confirm Clinton's win when, quite accidentally, I came across a map of the latest information on the electoral college. Based on states already reporting electoral college wins and those heavily Republican, I realized what this country had just lost. If a "nobody," far away from NYC, could have this information, how could one of the world's best newspapers have missed it? I continue to respect this newspaper, but really would like an answer.

1 cannot escape impression that OCASIO-CORTEZ is focusing on the wrong issues if she thinks that being anti TRUMP and for open borders has a resonance for all those New Yorkers who risk losing their apartments, indeed their homes to the Permanent Government--thanks Jack Newfield for that trenchant turn of phrase--of landlords and the political class which is in thrall to it!Add to that the substandard housing where folks must put up with rats, mold, elevators that often don't work, forcing the infirm and sick to climb stairs and of course buildings that are firetraps. Surprised that the young socialist, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez would not make that her first order of business. NYC and state r a disgrace thanks to the ineffectiveness, even complicity of politicians chary of criticizing the donor class for fear of losing campaign contributions!Nothing like starting off on the wrong foot, talking about issues that have no practical importance for vast majority of New YORKERS in danger of becoming the "sans logis!"

The polls weren't that far off in the 2016 election. There were some systematic biases, but they weren't that large relative to the amount of uncertainty. The big problem was conventional wisdom. People weren't honestly reporting what the numbers said—a 1-in-3 chance—as plausible. Those are better odds than flipping two heads in a row.

This is a loss for Dems. You've lost a senior Congressman in Crowley who has pull in DC to a rookie that will have to learn on the job and will get pushed around at least in the beginning. DC is a cut-throat place I wish her luck.

Can someone please conduct a breakdown of the Ocasio-Cortez election results by the demographics of the specific election districts and their voters and try to honestly assess the meaning of her election with that in mind? I can't find all the data, but I think these stats hint at something compelling: she took 2/3 of the vote in Sunnyside and Woodside, Crowley's home, where there are far more white registered dems, while Crowley won in two districts in Corona, large parts of which have the highest concentration of Latinos in the city. Many publications are portraying this as a victory won on racial and class lines by someone pandering to a Latino base in a heavily Latino District, but it just doesn't seem to be true.

Healy writes, "Our heavy, competing demands for coverage make it impossible to do all the stories we want to do, including... the surprise factor...we are making coverage choices among many hundreds of candidates and so many states, districts and issues. " What Healy is really saying is that The Times is understaffed, and also that it really doesn't care about covering New York anymore. And blowing coverage of a major story right in New York? Couldn't care less. The Times needs to realize that its readers want and expect it to cover New York. Healy still just doesn't get it.

Two days before the 2016 Presidential Election, The New York Times predicted an 85% victory for Hillary Clinton. Like many, The New York Times covered the east and west coasts and give little attention to middle America that turned out to be Trump's base. It wasn't The Times alone as much of the news media did the same but 85% victory to defeat is quite a tailspin so forgive me and others if we're not enthused about current and upcoming Times election coverage.

With so much emphasis on algorithms, analytics and insiderism (aka access journalism), doesn't The Times political team suffer from a perpetual case of tone-deafness? For instance, missing the grass-roots groundswells supporting the likes of Sanders, Trump and Ocasio-Cortez. Smartphones, Twitter, email, etc., and "narratives" (remember how hard The Times was pushing Hillary versus Jeb?) are all well and good, but how often do these reporters actually finish a day of work with scuffed shoes? The Times and Mrs. Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign have a lot in common, especially their insularity. Repeatedly, their respective echo chambers haven't allowed them to see the forest for the trees, as in overlooking the obvious. Isn't political and social elitism -- interacting only with the establishment figures you cover and with people like yourselves -- a big part of this (recurring) problem?

Mr. Healy's response to the first question in this article belies an inconvenient truth for the Times: it has cut way back on coverage of New York City, including local politics. The Times' Executive Editor Dean Baquet even bragged about the benefits of the "less-is-more" approach to local news in a 2017 interview with the former Public Editor (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/07/public-editor/the-future-of-the-times..., in which he noted the Times would cut down on its "incremental New York news coverage." And yet, it's exactly that "incremental New York news coverage" that Mr. Baquet derided in 2017 that likely would have enabled the paper to foresee Ms. Ocasio-Cortez's upset primary victory. Perhaps a bit more shoe-leather reporting of New York politics, and less focus on the hundreds of other races around the country that Mr. Healy crows about would help ensure the New York Times actually covers New York.

Ocasio-Cortez is inexperienced and completely unqualified. That is why she didn’t receive much prior NYT coverage. This is a position in Congress from New York City. When Nydia Velazquez won her seat, she had experience working for a Congressman, the City Council, and Federal agencies. Grace Meng was a member of the state legislature and a lawyer. If city council members Vanessa Gibson or Ritchie Torres were on the ballot, you could easily say the Bronx is being well served. Even someone with solid experience heading a nonprofit or business. She wasn’t a credible candidate before and many of us still question her competency for the position. People haven’t delved into all her positions yet, such as those on Israel. Election Day is over four months away so there is plenty of print to run.

I wish there could be more coverage of the party mechanisms. What is DNC working on? What is RNC working on? How is Move On these days?

Does the Times have any interest in the outcomes of other NY state primaries besides that of Ms. Ocasio-Gomez? Are they of little consequence?

Perhaps the Times could reallocate some resources for local elections like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's instead of sending yet another reporter out to yet another diner in Pennsylvania to tell us, yet again, about the Trump voters and their "economic anxiety." The Trump voter isn't going to change. No matter what Trump does, the voter isn't going to desert him. (Including, I think, the famous Fifth Avenue shooting). How many times do we need to hear about a voter who isn't going to change? What's the point of running the same story about the same voters, slightly tweaked each time?

Remember Connecticut, which is one-third of the “Tri-State” or Metropolitan NYC Area? We have a gubernatorial election as well was state elections in a state that has been completely dominated by Democratic legislative for the last 40 years. No state union employees can be basically fired until 2027, our economy is stagnating at best, and our transportation infrastructure is crumbling. We have a primary in six weeks. Can you throw a bone our way since we have very little media coverage within our state itself focusing on the economy as opposed to all the social issues that are constantly brought up by our Democratic leadership both in the state as well as in Washington? We’ve gone from being envied to being an embarrassment during the last couple of generations. Also, will you be having the “arrow” like you did for Clinton versus Trump in the 2016 election for any upcoming elections? It was quite a conversation topic at holiday parties afterwards. The visual aspect was intriguing to watch after debates and as we got closer to the election as well as election night.

I would compare the lack of substantial coverage of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to the lack of coverage in the NYTimes of Bernie Sanders during his presidential campaign. His rallies were drawing thousands of people, mostly young people. But rarely did the Times report on that fact, or on the substance of his messages. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was elected on a similar platform, and she unabashedly calls herself a Democratic Socialist. I challenge the NYTimes to recognize the substantial power of that message and her campaign, as well the campaigns of a number of other candidates nationwide.

Where are the results for New York's 19th Congressional District? The Times covered the Democratic primary candidates, but now won't even tell us who won?

Your coverage of Suraj Patel was very limited. Maloney is anti-vaccine and shouldn’t get yet another term. The fact that so many people voted against her speaks volumes.

Correct answer to Ocasio-Cortez question? "We blew it"

I must take issue with the NYT use of polling data, particularly its use of Gallup and Pew sources of good data. As a polling geek, I must point out that Pew and Gallup organizations, have fallen in terms of accurate recent political data. What we could use now is a really good poll - one that I can see costing a half-million dollars to do correctly. The poll must be done by direct contact with people - going in with information on why people who cast ballots in 2008/12 didn’t in 2016 and vice versa. Who voted is public record. As with almost all of my suggested poll, trained pollsters must do the job - and the conversations must be open-ended, and - since it is legal, secretly recorded for a deep analysis of voice-cues indicating stress, potential altering of the facts, etc. Because we’re going one-on-one, we have to establish a baseline on the effect of the sex and ethnicity of the pollsters in given communities, both geographic and SES. Also, family members must be separated during interviews if more than one is at home - searching for accurate statistics on gender gap, parent-child gap, and whether discussion or (alleged) male dominance plays a role. These are only the First 5 or 6 steps just to establish a baseline on the population, and diversity. Voice dissection means borrowing a “well educated” high-capacity Artificial Intelligence - individuals are far too slow and opinionated. It would take much more space to give all the details - don’t have room for more. (Sigh)

One question: Prrsident Trump has viciously attacked the press - including The Times - in ways we haven’t seen a Prrsident do. He has called the press The Enemy of the People, which has a totalitarian reference. How do these relentless and unAmerican attacks affect your coverage of politics, and do you feel imperiled or threatened by the vast powers of the Presidency? We need a strong press, but do these attacks present an existential threat to The Times?

A Virginia transgender female, a New York Puerto Rican socialist, a full-figured Georgia black woman w/ twists, and an Alabama white male all won election victories in which campaign mechanics were key! Conversely, Georgia's Ossoff lost when he needed only 3% more voters after the special election to win the run-off, despite a full plate of celebrities and cash. Increasingly, campaign mechanics are a key to winning. Yet we know little of the ways operations are organized--how does earlier voting play into wins, how are registration drives working? How are campaigns organizing yard sign distribution and rides to the polls? What scripts are best for calling? How does urban differ from rural? How important is volunteer training? Are meet-ups still important? Do surrogates work? What are the key community networks that capture a wide net of voters? I am not sure these are the right questions. But the old paradigm, discussions about the impact of victory on issues, campaign themes, and broad party politics and polls, misses the commonality of mechanics, both general and specific, over diverse regions and candidates! May we see more stories on campaign mechanics, the real inner workings, so victory is demystified and the template for success is made more concrete? (Which are not the same as stories shadowing appearances with demographic descriptions and a round-up of comments!)