I've noticed that it's common in predictive or analytical discussions to simply never state key assumptions (like how one thinks undecideds will split, which are often implicitly assumed to split in a particular way by an author/op-ed). In macroeconomic analysis it is also common (especially in the recent inflation discussion).
Yep. Even in cases where the assumption is wrong, the vibe is "if we assume 50/50, how wrong could it be?" Which is a major premise of this post - and why we shouldn't place assumptions where data should go
I've noticed that it's common in predictive or analytical discussions to simply never state key assumptions (like how one thinks undecideds will split, which are often implicitly assumed to split in a particular way by an author/op-ed). In macroeconomic analysis it is also common (especially in the recent inflation discussion).
Yep. Even in cases where the assumption is wrong, the vibe is "if we assume 50/50, how wrong could it be?" Which is a major premise of this post - and why we shouldn't place assumptions where data should go