Replies

I don't know what to think about the polls. In 1996, a statistics prof from Indiana did an article on why the polls were all wrong (I have the citation somewhere). He concluded that every major poll was off in the 1996 presidential race, but more important, they were all off in the direction of Clinton, and most were off outside the margin of error. He said that statistically, if this were just an "error," the chances that they would ALL be off in Clinton's direction would be 240,000 to one.

The pollsters did apparently try to "clean up their act," especially since Zogby came out of 1996 looking like a pro (he was the closest to the real outcome). They were close in 2000 and 2004 on the presidential side, but missed as many races as they got right on the key senate races (I, on the other hand, correctly picked every competitive senate race in 2002 and 2004 except for Thune in 2002, where he lost by 500 Indian votes, and Salazar in 2004, who won a close race).

Given the pollster's record, I figured they were WAY off in 2006 when they all predicted a GOP debacle. Well, they got it right in 2006, and I completely missed all my predictions.

However, both in NH and now in NV, it is clear that they are again having troubles. Since they are missing on the Dem side as well, perhaps it suggests that it's not so much their bias as it is once again a flawed methodology that is failing to get people to tell the truth about their intentions.