I remember my Latin:
Mea Idiot.
Mea Stupid.
Mea Jerk.
WoW.
Actually saying they screwed up. Good for them.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Your lying will recommence immediately. Go away Rasmussen.
I absolutely detest Larry Sabotage (Sabato), but I have to say that he was eating humble pie big time this morning and said he didn’t have just egg on his face, but an omelet. He said his students will all want better grades because he got an “F” last night. I thoroughly enjoyed his interview on FOX. :-)
As Conservative Treehouse notes, the polls were lies on top of lies, all topped off by the Big Lie ie the RCP Average.
Averaging flawed numbers yields a bigger flawed number.
Instead, polls as a weapon of manipulation and fear must be resisted, ignored and mocked. Refusing to participate in polls should be as automatic as refusal to respond to spam email or telephone sales.
Polls are first and foremost a business: the raw materials are cheap - robodialers, minimum-wage operators - and the products are expensive since rich media companies and deep-pocketed candidates will pay handsomely for what they believe to be the Oracle Of Truth.
Cut off their supply and let them wither and die.
Add Political Science to the list of oxymoron’s.
I’d call it more of a “shy” Trump vote phenomenon rather a “monster” vote one. But nonetheless, no big time pollster picked it up. There were a couple that had Trump up 1-2 in the popular vote at the end, but even they are going to be wrong because Clinton will likely win the popular vote. If Trump had won the popular vote by 1-2, he may have taken a couple more states.
“We’ll pick up the pieces starting next week as we try to unpack what happened in this election”
Don’t bother. Let me tell you about the lessons I have learned from the last couple of election cycles: Pollsters opinions only matter to other pollsters and talking heads. I have learned to turn the channel when you come on to tell me how America thinks. No one in my circle of friends paid attention to you and we will not pay attention to you in the future.
They weren’t “wrong”, they were “lying”.
Sabato allowed himself to be lured into making the silly assumption that the Obama elections amounted to a genuine realignment.
The Obama phenomenon was a sort of Black Swan, no pun intended. It was a one-off (or maybe that would be two-off, more accurately).
People voted for Obama for differing reasons, but for the majority who pulled the lever for him, it was due to their naive belief that doing so made them virtuous by proving they weren't racist.
Now the country is "over that." Majority-America has proved it wasn't racist by voting in the unqualified fraud, once known as Barry Soetoro, simply because he qualified as a black person.
I don't believe this phenomenon will ever be repeated again. Oh, the Dems will try with another Obama-style savior, e.g. Corey Booker (a completely worthless pol). It won't work.
Well, you could have started by basing your polling on the real world, instead of a D +9 turnout model.
You might have also opened your eyes wide enough to notice the huge enthusiasm gap that showed itself in rally attendance, small campaign donations, Twitter traffic, etc.
Lastly, and most importantly, you could have swept your personal bias aside (like Professor Norpoth did), which would have helped you to apply the aforementioned indicators to your results.
But no, you’re a googly eyed liberal who rejects inconsequential elements like facts, logic, and reason.
Grow up, Sabato.
Hillary only won Virginia by the felon vote.
Their election models are as worthless as their climate models.
Besides the media, the freaking pollsters just joined them in a new level of scum.
Rush going over Trafalgar polling right now which found the “quiet Trump” voter. The guy asked “who is your neighbor voting for?”
Well at least we learned professors have no idea about running the country.....
Sol now he just shrugs and apologizes. I said on here earlier this weeks that this is the one guy we should not forget.
We tried to tell you, but you would not listen.
The reason for that much filtering in the first place is to cut down the sample size to something manageable, but you aren't going to see a shift with that small a sample size because the old model is built in. And a lot of clients aren't going to pay for the wider survey.
There are, as well, polls that are deliberately skewed with an eye toward weaponization, but that isn't what we're talking about here. Citing those polls whose intention is to affect public opinion, as an honest measure of public opinion, is to believe a lie. Most pollsters aren't silly enough to make that error but it appears that many customers - the media, for example - are silly enough. That's the problem with taking sides and why it's unprofessional in the journalism biz.
I could be entirely wrong about this being the cause of Rasmussen "blowing it". They know their own methodology much better than I can guess it. But that's where I'd look.