Among the things she told us:
*Public pollsters heavily oversample urban areas, and therefore de facto get more "Dems" even when they aren't identified as Ds.
*Public pollsters make up samples they "assume" are right, but have very little experience anywhere outside of the beltway.
*Public pollsters, due to the larger samples, employ people who are NOT pollsters but simply questioners. The result is, she said, they get quite lazy. They don't probe to get the real sentiment that will affect the vote (and therefore MAKE the vote) but they accept the first answer given. Likewise, this laziness translates into a tendency at the end of the polling time (out of frustration) to take whomever they get and label that person "a Hispanic," or an "over 40" or whatever. She was adamant that not just political internal pollsters but that corporate pollsters HAVE to be accurate, while the big firms can be close on some, hit on one or two, and tout the one or two they hit on and ignore the five they miss on.
Folks I’m sure we can debate polls forever. The poster gave us some info. The fact is we can win this election in part because many pollsters have Romney leading or tied. But some on here attacking every negative poll are being pollyannas as well.
In your seminar did they address who pays for these “free” polls, and how they justify the expense to themselves and/or the people who give them the money to spend on them?