I have actually discovered a pattern to it after doing a deep dive into the weeds, but I won't get into the details unless it holds up throughout the primaries. And I'm not talking small differences within the MOE... big ones.

Political pollsters should have rightfully been forced out of business after 2016, and as Listen says, it's now even more futile.

Well, it looks like we may have found something most of us can agree on, and I'm not talking small differences, many of these primary polls have been wildly off... so maybe it's a good thing and people will vote. :)

Russ! So good to "see" you.

Also, who accepts phone calls from unknown numbers these days?

Not me! And I think you're onto another big part of the polling issues.

Love ya, sweet friend!

Love ya more. Stay safe and don't be a stranger. X0X0X0

Heh.

Not sure what you find so comical, Elizabeth.

I'm certainly not referring to small differences in outcomes that fall within the margins of error of polls; I'm referring to wildly inaccurate polls that don't even come remotely close to the outcome... and other details regarding polling for which I (still) won't get into the weeds.

So even before the running of the Preakness this weekend, my eyes have turned to Maryland to see which candidate noses the other one out.

~ Chris Weigant

Specifically referring to the Democratic race for a Senate seat in Maryland that was the subject of CW's article, based on polls the outcome was expected to be horse race that could go either way, but the outcome of that race in the only poll that counted was Alsobrooks winning by an ass-kicking 12 points... and not even close to the first time there's been a wildly divergent outcome from the polls.

agree, political polling has gotten progressively less and less reliable over the last decade or so. there are many reasons why, but i think the main one is probably non-random sampling.

That definitely seems to be part of the problem. These pollsters probably also aren't eating enough pie. ;)

Polling is getting noticeably worse and worse. Pollsters have lost access to a massive chunk of the general public that they have always relied on for their data. Landlines are no longer found in many homes. People use their cell phones exclusively, and those numbers aren't as easily attainable for the pollsters to call.

Also, who accepts phone calls from unknown numbers these days? Lonely people. Why are the elderly always the main group getting scammed by criminals? They are the only people willing to talk to a total stranger and stay on the call long enough to give up their personal info. I would bet that polling respondents make up a large portion of fraud victims. Not sure how pollsters are going to expand their pool of respondents, but they desperately need to if they are to be relevant.

Love ya, sweet friend!

R

Without getting into the weeds or going into the finer (boring) details, is it just me or has anyone else noticed more than one poll out there that has been wildly inaccurate? Rhetorical question (mostly).