What the hell happened in Michigan?

[Wiz in Wis]

Considering it was an open election, pollsters only ask "likely" (strictly Dem + older) voters, a large part of the disparity could've been accounted for, and the rest was up to voter motivation/luck.

Polling continues to be a problem, carrying over from 2012. Good polling is based in large part on identifying a representative sample of likely voters across all demographic groups. The decline of land line phone and the decreasing willingness of people to take surveys over the phone make it hard to assemble a useful sample. Pollsters have also seen that the historic qualities that identify likely voters from registered voters don't predict voter behavior as well as they once did.

^^^^^^
THIS

[Wiz in Wis]

An interesting analysis on why the polls were so off in MI. Key Quote:

Philip Bump has a possible explanation: turnout models in this year’s polls were based on 2008. However, 2008 was an anomalous election because Michigan had been disqualified from sending delegates to the national convention. Consequently, turnout in 2008 was extremely low and skewed toward older voters. In contrast, yesterday’s voting was evenly distributed across major age groups. In other words, older voters were overcounted and younger voters were undercounted.

In other words, Michigan pollsters are morons.

http://election.princeton.edu/2016/03/09/how-surprising-was-the-sanders-win-in-michigan/

[Wiz in Wis]

We'd better be careful with the Florida polls too then, because it's the same story for that state in 2008 as well. Obama didn't even campaign there.

True, though Florida did have Obama on the ballot. Difference would have been less severe.