With some conservatives figuring out that being constantly lied to by their media sources isn’t actually helpful, it’s fun to see what happens after the popping of the bubble on election day. Dean “Unskewed” Chambers is actually relatively gracious, straightforwardly admitting his error.
Then there’s the Weekly Standard‘s Jay Cost, who hilariously dressed up his hack predictions (Pennsyvania’s going Republican!) as a manifestation of his superior knowledge of American history compared to those who actually try to learn things from data. No acknowledgment of error from these quarters! Instead, we get a belligerent series of non-sequiturs about how it’s “identity politics” and (even more cynically) “vote suppression” to accurately describe conservative policies and support moderately progressive ones. (In case you’re wondering, he still completely ignores data that falsifies his ridiculous claims, in this case “rich people vote Democratic.”) And he follows this up by demonstrating what he considers his learning by asserting that liberal historians all have a teleological view of history and love Woodrow Wilson.
I’m guessing that in this respect, Cost will be rather more representative.