How many times has it been explained to you so far that predicting an electoral victory is not the same as polling? I just want to know if you're a lost cause before I waste any keyboard skin on you. The ways that a presidential election can be won when losing popular vote (which is what polls measure) by millions is small compared to the ways that election can be lost. It was clearly an underdog win.
♦ $220,500.00 in the month of September alone paid by Hillary Clinton’s Priorities USA Super-PAC to Hart Research Associates.
♦ The President of Hart Research Associates, Geoff Garin, is working for Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
♦ NBC (S Burke) and The WSJ (Murdoch) contact Geoff Garin (Hart Research Associates) for the post-debate poll data they will use on the day following the debate.
♦ Hart Research Associates provides a small national poll sample (500) result, with skewed party internals, showing Hillary Clinton +11 points.
Do you see now how “media polling” works, and why we advise to ignore it?
Remember when Ossoff was a shoe in to win based on all of the highly reliable mainstream polls, millions of dollars spent, and Hollywood celebrity endorsements?
I guess math and data are dead Mr. Silver. Nate has had a tough run lately.