HomeThe curious case of Antony Green's disappearing tweet
TL;DR: Antony Green posted a tweet pointing out the logical fallacy certain poll deniers were making, got hammered by "Yes" supporters, then deleted the tweet. 🤔 Interesting times.
Antony Green is an election analyst with the ABC.
I would not have said he was a particularly controversial character. Quite the opposite.
He's the bloke regular journalists and commentators turn to when they want to get eerily prophetic projections of election day results.
A number cruncher. A bean counter. An expert in electoral systems, voter behaviour and election night result modelling.
Not controversial, and probably quite happy to be seen that way.
Yesterday, Green stepped into a controversy I don't think he saw coming.
The context is this:
- Sunday, Sept 17, there were many marches across Australia in support of the Voice.
- Supporters all seemed to have a good time. Many were probably very energized by the experience.
- On Twitter a few started tweeting "Look at all the Yes supporters. The polls must be wrong!"
Green, being an expert in the field, probably thought he could help out.
He tweeted:
❝Donald Trump kept saying how could he be behind in the polls and lose the election when the crowds at his rallies were so much bigger than Biden's. A few people falling into the same trap here. #Referendum2023❞
Green's point was simple. Polls and supporter rallies are very different things. The conclusions you can draw from them are also very different. Rather than going into a boffin-level explanation, he decided to be extra helpful by producing a relatable real world example.
Another subject expert, Dr Kevin Bonham, had this to say:
None of this is either terribly controversial, or partisan.
So Green must have been a caught off-guard when the replies started to roll in.
He even managed to cop a serve from 'Yes' leader Megan Davis [welcome to the club Antony 😐].
I can't know what went on inside Green's head when he started to see the response building. Was he thinking about being hauled into some ABC boardroom on Monday morning? Does he have deeply held convictions about reporting the news, rather than being it? Is he a 'Yes' voter who suddenly realized he'd be having some awkward conversations with his dinner guests?
Who knows. Whatever the reason, the post was quickly deleted.
You may be asking how I know what the post was, given it was deleted. It happens that I had seen the post, and some of the responses, and was actually drafting a quote tweet in support of Green at the exact moment he decided to delete his tweet. When I pressed 'Post' I got an error, and suddenly his tweet was no more.
However, because I had tried replying to his tweet (as a quote tweet), the entire text of his tweet ended up in my browser's location bar predictive history cache. You can see this below (click to expand).
So what to make of all this?
Unlike Davis, I think Green's Trump analogy is a pretty good one. I'd expect it to be understood by 'Yes' voters. Given the leftish bent, it's fair to expect many would be Trump critics. Inferring an awareness of his "statistically-challenged" claims regarding rally sizes and election results seems reasonable.
Given that Green deleted his post, quashing the controversy before it had a real chance to get going, it's not possible to draw too much from this little sideshow.
If you twisted my arm, I'd probably take a stab at the following lessons:
- certain 'Yes' voters are quite sensitive about the current poll results.
- certain 'Yes' voters don't like Trump, and don't like being compared to him.1
- certain 'Yes' voters expect apolitical public figures to be in their camp, and react poorly if they perceive the opposite.2
- 𝕏 is a poor medium for thinking people to discuss complex topics.
As for me. I feel badly for Green. It seems to me that he was trying to help, and got abused for his troubles. I think his decision not to back his observation [by allowing the tweet to stand] is questionable. I'm not judging. However, I'd like to see him use this as a "teachable moment" and release something in long form that explains the observation he was making, complete with a few niceties to keep all sides happy.
I was conflicted about giving this episode any oxygen at all (as Green apparently wanted it squashed). However, I think deep specialist knowledge is important. I think knee-jerk reactions that silence that knowledge are not in anyone's best interest. It's poor form, and it needs to be called out.