Today’s post is at the Stream: Why The Polls Stunk Up The Place.
Boy, were the pros’ polls and predictions lousy. And not just lousy, malodorous. And worse than malodorous, embarrassing. Let’s see.
The LA Times on the 6th put out a “final” election map giving Hillary 352 electoral votes. Ouch.
Famed pollster Frank Luntz as late as 6:43 PM EST yesterday tweeted, “In case I wasn’t clear enough from my previous tweets: Hillary Clinton will be the next President of the United States. #ElectionNight” Pretty clear, Frank, pretty clear.
A pollster with even more elite cred, Nate Silver, has been unequivocal all the way. Hillary would win, he said, with varying, precise numerical probabilities, always large. The most he would concede was that his last models showed “more uncertainty,” but that “Clinton will probably win anyway.”
The totals are still not final as of this writing, but it looks like Trump might win the popular vote, too. Yet most polls (on Monday) had Hillary up by at least 2 points, with some as many as 6. Only the IBD and LA Times tracking polls had Trump besting Hillary. You wonder if at the Times the tracking poll people were on speaking terms with electoral-college-prediction people.
The New York Times started the day yesterday giving Hillary more than an 80% chance of winning the election.
Some of the state polls make for high comedy. Poll averages had Hillary up by 2 in Pennsylvania, and she lost by 1, a significant swing. Hillary was supposed to win by 7 in Wisconsin. She lost by 3, an enormous turnaround.
We could go on, but there’s no reason. The performance of our elite media was a bust. Why?