The most accurate polls in the 2012 election have the race tied.
I’m really intrigued by the wide variance in polling results for this year’s election.
The most publicized polls – usually associated with MSM or university sponsors — have Hillary up by 5 or 6 points.
That feels about right to me.
But, there are a couple of outliers that have Trump either tied or marginally ahead.
Those polls are usually dismissed by the MSM as “unscientific” since they might not use “pure” random sampling or might not have a live call center person asking the questions or use some form of rolling sample technique (vs. a fresh start with each poll).
Rather than looking at methodologies – all of which have issues – I thought I’d look at past performance ….
Nate Silver is the polling darling of the left – largely because he boldly predicted Obama’s win in 2008 – early, often and loud.
His FiveThirtyEight group did an analysis of pollster accuracy in the 2012 election.
Results are revealing …
For starters, note that 4 of the top 7 pollsters – based on actual 2012 performance — use the much blasphemed internet polling methodology.
Pollsters using the RoboCall method (“press 1 for Hillary, 2 for Trump”) fared in the middle of the pack.
Traditional phone call surveys were sprinkled throughout the standings … and landed in 5 of the bottom 6 spots.
Also note that a couple of the most often reported “scientific” polls – Quinnipiac, Marist, Washington Post / ABC – are in the middle of the pack
Two of the current “outlier” polls – IBD and LA Times (nee. Rand Corp poll) were #1 and #4 in accuracy.
Let’s dig a bit deeper …