Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout
Looking at the state level. Pennsylvania for example, 538 had Clinton polled at 48.9%, Trump at 45.2%. Clinton actually received 47.5% of the vote (1.4% difference) and Trump 48.2% (a variance of 3%).
I don't see a margin of error listed, but a quick search shows CNN's latest poll has a margin of error of 4%.
|
That's a margin of 4.4% percent...that would be above CNN's margin of error for instance.
Again when your margins of errors are so high, and you can't even meet them, what's the point of the polls, when just a 2% shift in popular vote can shift an election completely? You can't predict that a candidate has an 80% change of winning in multiple swing states, and then to be wrong on all of them and pretend to show that the polls still work.
That's why I am stating, polls are meaningless and less accurate each year due to the lack of good data and the choice in how the polling method happens. Obviously pollsters want to explain why these polls are still accuratea and correct, because the premise of accurate polls is how they make money and build a reputation.
I know I have never been polled in my life, have any of you? And I vote every year at every level.
I don't fit the pollster narrative.