If your code is unimportant then so are your bugs that get into production. So I guess I agree. Don’t waste time writing, testing, reviewing unimportant code.
Let's go find the really heavily weighted members of _all_ the polls and dox them too. This way we can screw them all up. Not just one that is influenced by a potential Trump voter.
The article does not question the authenticity of the poll. It complements the pollsters on their documentation and sharing of data:
It’s worth noting that this analysis is possible only because the poll is extremely and admirably transparent: It has published a data set and the documentation necessary to replicate the survey.
It does point out an aspect of the poll that may undermine its utility in accurately predicting the result of the election, but it's a pretty dry fact, the repeated inclusion of a heavily weighted voter.
If Trump takes 10-20% of the black vote, then the poll did a good job predicting the results. I don't expect that to happen.
