Based on my research and as someone who has always been willing to criticize Trump or his supporters when appropriate, this article is absolutely right that the IBD and L.A. Times poll, which both show Trump marginally ahead, were two of the most accurate in 2012.
Rasmussen also has Trump ahead now, but they were one of the most inaccurate in 2012.
So either Rasmussen has cleaned up its act or the other two just got lucky in 2012. Note that founder Scott Rasmussen left that company in 2013, so that may indeed be an indication they have recalibrated their polling methods since their failure in 2012.
Thanks. It just seems so odd that the 3 polls seem to stubbornly stick to what they’re sticking to when there are all these other polls showing different results.
If I was in charge of these polls showing Trump ahead I would be desperately checking and re-checking my results to ensure I was doing it right. This action would seem to drive the polls to greater credibility and reliability.
After all, I would think we are talking about real money lost here if those polls turn out to be wrong, not mention profession credibility.
The thing about the 2012 election though is the polls were tight. The most favorable Romney Poll was Rasmussen (R+1) and Gallup (R+1). The most favorable Obama poll was (D+3). That’s a 4 point spread on all the polls. Today the polls range from +2 Trump to +12 Clinton and all in between for a 14 point delta - more than 3x 2012. Either there was more herding in 2012 or polling has gotten less accurate (or both)