Looks like he will win between 11 and 14 percent.

You are right.

Something smells rotten.

I've written about this some, what I call the Sanders late surge trend. For instance, here and here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511657772

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511617438

I've been following politics a long time, and I've never seen polls as far off as in this primary race. Sanders always beats the polls (outside the South, that is, where he never had the time or money to seriously compete), and sometimes by ridiculous amounts. For instance:

50 points (Minnesota)
40 points (Colorado)
45 points (Kansas)
51 points (Idaho)
39 points (Illinois)
54 points (Utah)
63 points (Alaska)

I'm not making up any of those numbers. Those are the real numbers, from the most recent polls in each state! And nobody's talking about it. For instance 538.com hasn't had a single article about it. It's totally insane!

It's really remarkable that the pollsters don't try to change their methods. I think they've thrown in the towel in some cases. For instance, the recent election in Washington state. That's one of the ten biggest states, but there wasn't a single poll done there. They've been especially off in caucus states, and that was another caucus.

The polls were off by 50 points in a state that Hillary won? I don't believe that. Maybe you can change my mind with a citation. Please something more recent than 6 months before the primary. I'm sure that there is something within a week.

Not that I buy your stats on the caucus states either, but you would expect the polls to be less reliable in those.

None of the polls were six months off or anything like that.

Kansas - final poll was two weeks before.
Illinois - one week before, two polls had Hillary up 40 points.
Minnesota - final poll was six weeks before.
Utah - final poll was one week before, and Sanders beat it by 51 friggin' points!

I could go on, but you can look up the numbers yourself.

And if you want more primary states, he beat the polls there too, though not by as much.

Iowa - Sanders virtually tied after being down by about 20 points a month earlier.
New Hampshire - he beat the final poll average by about ten points.
Nevada - he lost by five points, but he did 18 points better than the one poll from a month and a half earlier.
Oklahoma - he beat the final poll average by 12 points.
Michigan - he beat the final poll average by 20 points!
Wisconsin - he beat the final poll average by 10 points.

And so on.

The polls have been reaaaaally off, and always with a consistent Clinton slant. (Outside the South, that is. In the South, Sanders started way down and stayed that way.)

And you make fair points on a few others. But citing polls from one and a half months before? And there are so many polls these days a few are always going to be outliers, so saying "two polls had" is a bit of a stretch in making any kind of point.

The reason for citing polls from "one and a half months before" is there are no later polls to cite.

...is going to defy even the best polling. A poll can only tell you what was, not what will be.

It doesn't necessarily mean that anyone was in the tank for anyone.