[freespirited]

And it ain't bragging if you did it. And, funny thing, the so-called "professionals" are always in Washington or New York, never in the states where the races took place.

That must be the problem. The polling technique is entirely different within the boundaries of Manhattan and the DC metropolitan area. And everyone knows that to have a valid poll the interviewers must be physically present in the state that they are polling about.

/sarc

[LS]

I don't claim to know what the problem is, only that there is one. And if bothered to actually look at polling in, say, 1996, you'd know that every single pollster was off, many of them WELL outside the margin of error, and ALL of them to the left. What are the odds of that being just "random?" 240,000:1 according to one analyst, Gerald Wasserstein.

Moreover, my criticisms of the polls are well-supported by Jay Cost and many others have have noticed the same thing this cycle. In fact, in his latest column, he INDEED suggests that there may be some "institutional bias" deriving from their mind-set.

I don't care WHY they are off, only that they are.