>In a CBS poll
Hillary was going to win 275 seats according to those polls.
I wouldn't pay any attention to those anymore.
Hillary was going to win 275 seats according to those polls.
I wouldn't pay any attention to those anymore.
There is nothing "fundamental" about these polls, throwing a web widget in front of a self selected group of audience is not scientific or fundamental.
Why do you continue to assert that these polls are "fundamental" when they are proven to be to be totally bogus time after time.
This is a poll done by a standard polling company. You seem to be mischaracterising how they are done and, two comments up the chain, you attack even professional polls based on their performance in the last presidential election, where they were very accurate in predicting the popular vote.
Ok thats fair. I might have dismissed them without good reason. I have a blocker for all news sites so i can't access them without going through like 20 steps.
>where they were very accurate in predicting the popular vote.
My comment was about their predictions about number of seats each candidate will win. What does that have to do with "predicting the popular vote." .
A couple of other people did say 99%, but they were clearly wrong even before the result came in and were called out by, for example, 538.
Why are you using “seats” to refer to Electoral College delegates?
Then consider no longer commenting on news related articles, sources etc that you don't know anything about. Wild speculation isn't helpful.