They are about as good as the AP Pre-season top 25.

I can agree

The polls are useless, long live the polls!

I think we need a poll to determine whether or not polls matter.

No. While they aren't pin point accurate, they do offer, even when done poorly, a ballpark estimation of the pulse of the electorate.

A poll is a poll but until you get into that booth and think about what you are doing--that is when things get real.

Thy are only as accurate as the level of honesty in the pollster.

What this election has proven is that there are few honest pollsters.

The exit polls were once again garbage. Not calling SC, OH, GA, etc earlier than they did was stupid, and it was because the exit polls showed Clinton with such a lead.

They called CO early, and Clinton has barely won by 2 points there. Yet they delay SC for a while, giving the impression Trump was faltering in solid red states, only to find out that Trump wins SC by 16 points. And OH by 8 points.

This could be the reason Clinton didnt speak last night. She had no concession speech ready because the exit polls confirmed what all the other polls had been saying, that she had won. The exit polls ended up putting a "John Kerry Moment" on Clinton.

I am 110% convinced people screw with pollsters. I know I would but I have never been called.

(11-09-2016 12:09 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Thy are only as accurate as the level of honesty in the pollster.

What this election has proven is that there are few honest pollsters.

I think that is unfair. Pollsters can only guess as to what is happening in the country.

No one could have predicted what actually happened. How many people actually voted, or how many people actually switched sides. etc. etc.

(11-09-2016 12:11 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-09-2016 12:09 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Thy are only as accurate as the level of honesty in the pollster.

What this election has proven is that there are few honest pollsters.

I think that is unfair. Pollsters can only guess as to what is happening in the country.

No one could have predicted what actually happened. How many people actually voted, or how many people actually switched sides. etc. etc.

I'd agree with you if that were true, but it isn't.

But...MUH Polls!!!

As John Zogby points out below, just about every pollster overweighted their polls too heavily in favor of the Democrats.

Quote:Pollsters and election modelers suffered an industry-shattering embarrassment at the hands of Donald Trump on Tuesday night.

Trump had long said the polls were biased against him. His claims – dismissed and mocked by the experts – turned out to be true.

“It’s going to put the polling industry out of business,” said CNN anchor Jake Tapper. “It’s going to put the voter projection industry out of business.”

Going into Election Day, a strong majority of pollsters and election modelers forecast that Hillary Clinton would coast to victory, with many predicting she would sweep the battlegrounds and win north of 300 electoral votes.

The final University of Virginia Center for Politics model had Clinton winning 322 electoral votes to 216 for Trump, with Clinton winning Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin – all states that she lost.

Liberals lashed out at data guru Nate Silver for giving Trump a 35 percent chance of victory heading into Election Day, claiming he was putting his thumb on the scale for Trump by making the race appear closer than it was.

Of the 11 national polls to be released in the final week of the race, only two – a Los Angeles Times-USC survey and one from IBD/TIPP – showed Trump with the lead.

The L.A. Times survey was criticized as “experimental” by industry experts for polling the same pool of people and for the way it weighted black voters.

But for the second consecutive presidential cycle, the L.A. Times and IBD/TIPP surveys were among the most accurate, making them the gold standard going forward.

The rest of the polls showed Clinton with leads of between 2 points and 6 points, boosting the Democrat to a 3.3 point national lead in the RealClearPolitics average.

And the battleground data was just as biased against Trump.

There were no surveys released this year from Wisconsin that showed Trump with a lead.

Clinton held a 6.5 point lead in the Badger State heading into Election Day, and the state was not even discussed as on par with Michigan or Pennsylvania as a potential blue state pick-up for Trump.

Trump’s victory in Wisconsin — a state that has not gone for the GOP nominee since 1984 — helped him seal the deal.

Pollster John Zogby believes that many in the industry weighted their polls too heavily in favor of Democrats, pointing to polls that had an 8 to 9 point advantage for the party, when it should have been in the 4 to 5 point range, he said.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/pres...arrassment

Who really picks up their phone after seeing the same number for the 'upteenth' time? Answer: only those who think these things make a difference.

They're useful if they are honest.

They weren't honest, we said it the entire cycle. They constantly over sampled Dems by 6%-15%, sometimes even 20+% in debate polls. They were trying to sell us a narrative, and failed miserably.

Wolf looked like a kid in the candy store anytime Hillary took a lead. Even with a14 person lead in NH at one point.

(11-09-2016 03:18 PM)Kronke Wrote:  They're useful if they are honest.

They weren't honest, we said it the entire cycle. They constantly over sampled Dems by 6%-15%, sometimes even 20+% in debate polls. They were trying to sell us a narrative, and failed miserably.

They were trying to demotivate Trump voters from voting becaus Hillary was a "sure thing". Even Vegas bought it. Instead what they did was demotivate Clinton voters because according to their polls she was a sure thing.

Clinton would have likely won if the left and media played the underdog card, admitting reality. Hopefully they learn their lesson that the American public thinks they're full of ****.