One more time before I  move on…….

The question is being asked on how the polls could be so wrong….and most do not remember they were just as wrong in 2012…but few want to remember the past…..

Just a quick breakdown and the finger pointing (which I truly love)……

The prevailing question the morning after Donald Trump’s stunning victory is: How did so many get it so wrong? An “absolutely unreal” “Chance of Winning Presidency” graphic on the New York Times’ forecasting page Tuesday evening showed Trump ascending from a 20% chance of winning the White House to near certainty within a few hours. USA Today says the upset dealt a “devastating blow” to the nation’s leading pollsters, which had Clinton mostly ahead overall in the months leading up to the election, including in battleground states. Some ideas as to why:

• The director of USC’s Center for Economic and Social Research tells USA Today human pollsters may have been at a disadvantage. “There’s some suggestion that Clinton supporters are more likely to say they’re a Clinton supporter than Trump supporters are to say they’re a Trump supporter.”

• The president of the British Polling Council agrees, telling the Telegraph—which makes the inevitable Brexit comparison—that the UK has witnessed a similar phenomenon in that those who don’t like to reveal their “political sympathies” are more often conservative than liberal.

• Politico offers a couple of possible reasons for the surprise switch, including surveys that maybe undersampled non-college-educated whites, as well as the “surge in momentum” Trump got when the FBI announced it was looking into Clinton-related emails just days before the election.
• The Economist gets deeper into the numbers weeds, noting there can be a significant mismatch when trying to figure out two important variables: the demographics of the electorate, and the anticipated vote for each group.
• To wit: “Rural America is basically screaming at us, saying, ‘Stop overlooking us!'” said NBC News’ Chuck Todd Tuesday night, and the network reports that was backed up. Clinton hit her mark in cities, while Trump exceeded expectations in rural and formerly urban districts.
• Australia’s ABC documents some of the pollsters “now eating humble pie.” Among them: a “reflective” Nate Silver and Princeton ace Sam Wang, who in mid-October tweeted, “It is totally over. If Trump wins more than 240 electoral votes, I will eat a bug.”
• Meanwhile, those who reported on the polling results are also taken to task by the New York Times, which notes the news media “by and large missed … the story of a lifetime,” including the “boiling anger” of a good number of Americans upset with their perceptions of the economy, the DC establishment, and the mainstream media.

The one thing that no one wants to admit….their arrogance!  They were so damn arrogant that they believed their own spin….but never fear they have learned nothing……they failed in 2012 and again in 2016…..but there is a couple of years to go and the American voter has a very short memory…..

And then there are those that saw this coming….and we choose to ignore their input……

One of the most common questions being asked Wednesday is how pollsters and pundits managed to be so wrong about Donald Trump. Well, not everybody was wrong:

• The Los Angeles Times/University of South California tracking poll consistently had Trump in the lead through the final months, often to much derision. As USA Today notes, of 61 polls tracking a two-way race since October, only six put Trump in the lead—and all were from the LA Times/USC. (But even the LA Times‘ own electoral map predicted a landslide for Clinton on the eve of the election.)

• Back in September, American University history professor Allan Lichtman predicted a Trump victory based on a system that involves 13 true/false statements. One caveat: Lichtman’s system predicts the winner of the popular vote, and Trump may yet lose that. Still, coming into this year, he’s been perfect since 1984. In September, he spoke to the Washington Post.
• Stony Brook political science professor Helmut Norpoth predicted Trump would be the next president. He says his model, which assesses candidates’ performances in the primaries, would have gotten every election right since 1912 except for 2000. See the New York Post.
• Two other tracking polls that consistently had Trump performing better than in most national surveys were from Rasmussen Reports and Investor’s Business Daily, reports Politico.
• On Monday, an outfit called the Democracy Institute published a poll with Trump up 5 points and “Poised For Electoral College Win.” The institute’s press release that day boasted that its public poll was the only one to get Brexit correct.

Stats guru Nate Silver managed to be both right and wrong in a sense. His final assessment at FiveThirtyEight gave Clinton a 71% chance of victory, but he also pushed back hard against polls calling her a shoo-in and observed Sunday that she was “one state away from potentially losing,” notes the Washington Post. In other words, he covered his “backside,” writes Dana Milbank.

Maybe these people should be the “go to” people next time around…the biggies have been wrong on so many occasions that they are no longer trustworthy…..

Just a thought.