What exactly is “the data” that we’re talking about? Is it the measurements that were made, and the methodology used to make them? Or is it the conclusion that something in this case is a “myth”? Because I’d suggest that only one of those things is “the data”, and the other one is a subjective interpretation of it. I’d also suggest that people who have an agenda to promote will often attempt to blur the line as much as possible between empirical measurements, and their own opinions about what they’re supposed to mean.

In this case, the data I am talking about are the polls. Of course, there's a lot of methodology that goes into designing the polls and the data collection process, but those were basically solid and importantly, not subjective.

> I’d also suggest that people who have an agenda to promote will often attempt to blur the line as much as possible between empirical measurements, and their own opinions about what they’re supposed to mean.

This ran rampant in all those cases (Trump, BoJo, Brexit), I agree.

There was data and then there was the NYT saying Hillary has a 99% chance. Ha

The Australian election results were within the margin of error of the polls.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/may/19/voter...