Given how bad the polls were at all levels

[Spock]

are you guys happy with the time you wasted drooling over them for months?

1)Dragging Biden over the line with close results in a few swing states was not what you were thinking.

2) Polls kind of missed the whole Republicans picking up house seats didn't they? You all here missed that too, didn't ya?

3) Polls kind of missed Trump winning Florida, Ohio, Iowa and North Carolina-didn't they? as did most you. Hell, lots of you guys had Trump losing Texas, too.

4) Susan Collins!!!! Anybody here have that one? Of course you didn't, You all live and die by the polls and the polls showed her losing.

[Bob78164]

In Nate I trust.

The polls didn't miss by that much, probably about 3-4% nationally, which is a normal polling error. That's why Nate gave Biden nearly a 90% chance to win -- precisely because he could survive a 2016-sized miss by the polls, which is pretty much exactly what happened.

Nate's model had Senator Collins around 40% to win reelection. An underdog, sure, but not much of one. Similar results for the other close Senate races.

The House races are explained simply enough. Polling errors are correlated.

By the way, I don't remember you characterizing Donny's victory in 2016 as particularly close, even though President-elect Biden won all three "blue wall" states by larger margins than Donny did, and even though President-elect Biden also flipped Arizona and Georgia. --Bob

[T_Bone0806]

Pretty obvious what happened here...the polls could not predict the widespread conspiratorial fraud that saw thousands and thousands of ballots "cast" for Trump by dead Republicans. And they might've gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for those meddling Democrats!

OK, seriously, I don't put much trust in polls..if 2016 didn't teach us that lesson, I don't know what else would. They're fun to follow, especially if your particular candidate is leading, but to take for granted your candidate is going to win based on the polls, well, yer none too bright to my way a'thinkin'.

[Vandal]

Political polling is often only as accurate as Win Probability:

[Bob78164]

Political polling is often only as accurate as Win Probability:

Is there a Win Probability chart for the Miracle of the Meadowlands? I wouldn't be shocked if that one were provably wrong. --Bob

[silverscreenselect]

Political polling is often only as accurate as Win Probability:

Pats the Odds-On Favorite to Win Super Bowl XLII

It was only a question of by how much. The 16-0 New England Patriots are the overwhelming favorites to win the 2008 Super Bowl. Bill Belichick, Tom Brady, Randy Moss and company are probative -139 favorites to win Super Bowl XLII.... The NFC teams that oddsmakers give little chance to are the Seattle Seahawks at +4243, Tampa Bay Buccaneers +7500, the other Manning (Eli) and the New York Giants at +7000, and the Washington Redskins at +6613.

[Vandal]

Even more impressive was how far below the O/U the game ended. Lots of folks lost big on that bet.

Super Bowl XLII (42)
Game: New England Patriots vs. New York Giants
Spread: Patriots (-12.5)
Over/Under: 54.5
SU Result: Giants, 17-14
ATS Result: Giants covered by 15.5 points

[tlynn78]

"Blue wave" apparently doesn't mean what I thought it meant.