2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumYou all do know that looking at a single poll is not how to follow elections, right?
I just want to make sure everyone understands this because I'm beginning to doubt that people do. In 2012, if you looked at single polls and didn't look at the preponderance of the evidence, you would have been a nervous wreck. Hell, even in 2008 you could have worried yourself silly.
WillyBrandt
(3,892 posts)Response to WillyBrandt (Reply #1)
kestrel91316 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Beartracks
(12,821 posts)mjjoe
(260 posts)Frustrating to see Clinton's odds drop each of the last four days. Though something tells me the debates - or Trump weaseling out of them - will make a huge difference in the final tally.
Some seem to enjoy the hair on fire routine.
jamese777
(546 posts)leans conservative but they do provide an average of the latest state and federal polls.
My own personal system is to take the last seven national polls, throw out the widest gap and the narrowest gap outliers and then average the other five.
Cicada
(4,533 posts)David Axlerod told Joe Scarborough, off the record, which states Obama would win a month before the election. He was 100 percent correct. The Dems even knew who would win in every precinct. Apparently poll fluctuations just tell us which voters are willing to be polled. But the Dem data people have a file for literally every voter in America and have an accurate determination of if and how they will vote. And apparently the true vote count fluctuates very little even tho polls go up and down.
So the way to find out is to get one of those data people to tell you.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)Vacations over, kids back in school and normal people starting to pay attention.
And yes, we that hang out on political forums are far from "normal" compared to the general public.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)Unfortunately, there are some who don't. Sigh.