Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

The polls were unequivocal. In 2016, two days before Michigan’s Democratic primary, the respected Marist poll predicted that Hillary Clinton would win in a landslide, with 57 percent of the vote to Bernie Sanders’s 40 percent. On the morning of the March 8 primary, James Hohmann of The Washington Post wrote, “Michigan should have been fertile territory for Bernie Sanders’s populist and protectionist message, but he’s expected to lose the Democratic primary there today by double digits.” That night is mostly remembered for the marathon coverage of a bizarre press conference in which Donald Trump, who had just won three primaries of his own, shamelessly hawked Trump Steaks and Trump Wine. But if TV viewers had squinted at the crawl, they would have noticed that Sanders was pulling off a stunning, poll-defying upset—defeating Clinton by 1.5 percent. At the time, Nate Silver called it “among the greatest polling errors in primary history.”


To take roughly one week in May, they produced such headlines as, “Biden dominates Dem rivals in new early primary polls” (Politico), “Warren’s rebound? Massachusetts senator gains footing in polls” (Fox News), and “Brutal new 2020 numbers for Beto O’Rourke and Bill de Blasio” (The Washington Post). What these stories didn’t mention is that today, seven months before Iowa, polls are about as accurate as a blunderbuss, and most pollsters know it.

To explain the wild fluctuations in their numbers, pollsters and their eager enablers in the press have created an artificial narrative of candidates bouncing up and down as if the campaign were conducted on pogo sticks. As Karlyn Bowman, a polling analyst for American Enterprise Institute, said, “Pollsters think that it’s good for business to have a new poll almost every morning.” Some are experimenting with online and texting polls. But until they come up with a reliable substitute, almost all of them are forced to fudge the numbers, artificially inflating the responses they get from, say, young voters.


The press pack, for its part, cannot shake its addiction to polls any more than candidates can resist the lure of TV cameras. Even if reporters could return to practicing retro journalism—divining the leaders, not with polls, but by talking to voters, county party officials, and other insiders—all those people are now glued to the polls, too, and their responses are as canned as an MSNBC talking head’s. We’re left with no other choice than to endure horse race journalism while the horses are still doing their morning workouts.

Chizzang wrote:Remember: almost nobody voted for Trump



and only two Republicans on this forum (to this day) admit to voting for Trump

Ivytalk wrote:

Chizzang wrote:Remember: almost nobody voted for Trump



and only two Republicans on this forum (to this day) admit to voting for Trump

Why would anyone ever lie on an Internet political forum?

Chizzang wrote:Remember: almost nobody voted for Trump



and only two Republicans on this forum (to this day) admit to voting for Trump

Ivytalk wrote:

Chizzang wrote:Remember: almost nobody voted for Trump



and only two Republicans on this forum (to this day) admit to voting for Trump

Alfie and BDK. Did I miss anyone?

Col Hogan wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:
Alfie and BDK. Did I miss anyone?

Cleats thinks only republicans voted for Trump...

Chizzang wrote:Remember: almost nobody voted for Trump



and only two Republicans on this forum (to this day) admit to voting for Trump

CAA Flagship wrote: "Say it ain't so"
- JSO

Col Hogan wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:
Alfie and BDK. Did I miss anyone?

Cleats thinks only republicans voted for Trump...

JohnStOnge wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote: "Say it ain't so"
- JSO

Ok. It ain't so. The Michigan example from the 2016 Democrat primary is an example where the polls were indeed way off. But such examples are rare. The polls are correct WAY more often than they are not.

The polls suggested that Hillary Clinton would win the popular vote. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote.

The polls suggested that the Democrats would take the House in 2018. The Democrats took the House in 2018.

In the 2016 Presidential race, if you look at the State by State averages complied by RCP, the candidate that led in the RCP average of polls won in 42 of the 46 jurisdictions for which averages were reported.

It's absolutely ridiculous to say that the polls don't tell you anything. It's the "in" thing to to. But it's absurd. If you predict the winners of political races based on the polls you are going to be right WAY more often than you're going to be wrong. Like 90% of the time at least. And if you take random sampling error into account before you make a call you're going to be right a lot more often than that.

Ivytalk wrote:

Chizzang wrote:Remember: almost nobody voted for Trump



and only two Republicans on this forum (to this day) admit to voting for Trump

Alfie and BDK. Did I miss anyone?

CAA Flagship wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:
Alfie and BDK. Did I miss anyone?

I voted for Trump over Clinton. I didn't vote for him in the primary.
When you are at bat with two strikes, you have to swing at anything that is close.

kalm wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote: I voted for Trump over Clinton. I didn't vote for him in the primary.
When you are at bat with two strikes, you have to swing at anything that is close.

No you don't.

Chizzang wrote:Jill Stein is horrified by theses results...

Chizzang wrote:Jill Stein is horrified by theses results...

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:I still want the list of republicans that voted for Trump.