Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know about the LA Times, but IBD is turning out to be a very accurate poll. I believe they were closest in calling 2008 and 2012 when it was getting closer to Election Day.
Did you notice how quickly Chris Stirewalt ( FOX Pollster and pundit ) dismissed the L A Times poll.
It is a new different model for polling and that seems to offend him. It sounded like it would be more accurate than some of the methods that have been in use,
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,529,686 times
Reputation: 12192
I don't think a single poll had Trump winning Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. I was stunned that he won all three. The media and polls lost all credibility today.
I have never been a fan of pre election polls on candidates, I feel it interferes with democracy. It's possible that enough Hillary voters felt they didn't need to vote and stayed home. But it's also possible people who thought Trump had no chance didn't vote for him when they otherwise would have.
Were they? LA Times was off by at least three points, which is no better than quite a few other polls. IBD ended up very close.
Several polls were probably within a margin of error of the actual result.
Okay, you have a point. But it did indicate Trump would win and that did turn out to be correct when virtually all polls were forecasting a huge Clinton win. Fox News had Clinton up 4 for example. Chris Stirewalt should be shown the door.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.