My comment was about the
science of polling. You claimed it was dead, I say the evidence points in exactly the opposite direction.
You haven't been following things very well have you. All those polls that had Obama winning were based on several things ~ polling information that was discounted substantially, seat of the pants and gut feelings, and THINKING ABOUT IT A LOT and using whatever information sources outside of polls that seemed reasonable.
No. You're wrong.
All the polls that had Obama winning were based on sound methodology, solid statistical sampling, and real math. Borne out by the fact that, you know, Obama actually
won. Just as the polls predicted.
To pretend otherwise is to invite the same trouble we had last time, where people here had convinced themselves Romney had already won, as had Romney himself. You wonder why he didn't bother with a ground game? Why should he, when the "unskewed" idiots convinced him he was winning huge?
Polling is a science. Not everyone paid to do it is good at it, but those that are should be listened to. It is hardly "dead as a science." It is instead crucial for us going forward; if we refuse to acknowledge reality, how can we ever hope to change it?
Sorry, the most accurate reports published by the pollsters were derived by processes much more akin to augery than to public opinion polling.
Even their pre-selection of a stratified sample of people to querry is subject to the same problem ~ not everybody answers their phone these days ~
The rest of your argument about 'skewed' polls is irrelevant. i think i spent a couple of hours working up materials debunking that black magic thinking.
So don't try to tar me with that one.
Frankly, I had some serious difficulty figuring out what most of those folks were saying ~ it was totally divorced from actual statistical sampling practice, and it didn't even have the best features of augury ~ a high pressure hose to wash off the pigeon poop after you'd examined it.