Politico: what if the polls are wrong?

[Young Conservative]

What if everyone’s wrong?
Trump has a path, and if the polls are wrong, it’s wider than thought.
By SHANE GOLDMACHER 11/04/16 05:05 AM EDT
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Hillary Clinton leads in most national polls and in enough battleground states to put her on pace to surpass the 270 electoral votes she needs Tuesday to become the next president. But not far beneath the surface, as Donald Trump has narrowed the gap following the late-breaking FBI announcement of a renewed review of emails related to her private server, lurks a question making Democrats squirm in these frenzied final days.
What if the polls are wrong?
Story Continued Below

And more: What if Clinton’s vaunted data operation and ground game don’t deliver? What if there is, in fact, a “silent majority” of Trump fans? What if Clinton’s banked stash of early votes is insufficient? What if, as President Barack Obama’s former campaign manager David Plouffe not so affectionately describes nervous Democrats, the “bed-wetters” are right?
“Our magnificent, historic movement has surprised the world and defied expectations at every single turn,” Trump told a crowd in Orlando, Florida, this week. “And now, next Tuesday, we will have one more glorious surprise for the pundits, the politicians and the special interests when we win and return the power back to the people.”
It’s an outcome that official Washington — more consumed with potential Clinton Cabinet picks (Biden! Sandberg!), her policy agenda, the battle for the Senate — seems wholly unprepared for.
“I don’t think Washington has ever been in touch with this election,” said longtime Democratic pollster Peter Hart. “I end every speech with the Yogi Berra saying, ‘It ain’t over until it’s over’ and it ain’t over until we get the votes counted.”
While Trump remains decidedly the underdog, his path to 270 is not nonexistent. In the most recent New York Times/CBS News poll, Trump trailed by 3 percentage points, shrunken from 9 points behind only weeks ago.

“The trend lines are clearly going in our direction,” Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway said this week on MSNBC.

As Clinton’s margin has eroded in recent days, the political focus has shifted from Democratic boasts of flipping Texas, Arizona, Georgia and Utah to safeguarding Michigan, Wisconsin, Colorado, Virginia, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania.
Averages of the public polls in all those latter Democratic states still show Clinton leading — albeit by tighter margins — which would essentially choke off Trump’s path to the White House.
“We’ve seen this a couple times where Hillary Clinton is leading by 3 to 5. Something happens. Her numbers spike to 10. They drop back down. Everyone wets themselves. Rinse. Repeat,” said Dan Pfeiffer, a former senior adviser to President Obama. “She was never going to win by 10.”
Still, Pfeiffer understood the uneasiness, saying he’s asked about it everywhere he goes. “The consequences of a loss here are much greater than they’d be in a normal year,” he said. “You’re more nervous if you’re playing Russian roulette than flipping a coin.”


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/clinton-trump-2016-polls-what-if-wrong-230712#ixzz4PAr81OBL

[Devout Centrist]

Yes, what if the polls ARE wrong and Clinton wins like Reagan?

[heatcharger]

Contrary to what my mock election vote says, I will be voting for Donald J Trump.

Actually, my APUSH teacher agrees that historically it is time for a new party to arise and predicted this months ago.  Every few decades a new party is supposed to replace an old and I believe it may be time....

looool anyways which polls could be wrong? I think it's more likely that Marist, PPP, Quinnipiac, Selzer, Monmouth, and higher quality pollsters end up being right over the likes of Gravis, Remington, Harper, and all the other bad pollsters in the cesspool right now.

[Young Conservative]

Yes, what if the polls ARE wrong and Clinton wins like Reagan?

Possible, but 1980 had a third party get 6.6% of the vote, almost exclusively from Reagan's opponent. I don't see that this year so I doubt that result.

[Young Conservative]

Contrary to what my mock election vote says, I will be voting for Donald J Trump.

Actually, my APUSH teacher agrees that historically it is time for a new party to arise and predicted this months ago.  Every few decades a new party is supposed to replace an old and I believe it may be time....

looool anyways which polls could be wrong? I think it's more likely that Marist, PPP, Quinnipiac, Selzer, Monmouth, and higher quality pollsters end up being right over the likes of Gravis, Remington, Harper, and all the other bad pollsters in the cesspool right now.

Commenting on the emergence of New parties doesn't mean I would support that. Although, I would much prefer to belong to a party with leaders like Mcmullin than people like Trump.

[LLR]

Yeah, I really don't trust the polls this year - They're very biased. This is probably the map, instead:

[Antonio the Sixth]

This adds literally zero information on the state of the race. What an utterly vapid and meaningless piece of so-called "journalism".

[dirks]

I would say this race more than any other since 1980 has the "holy " potential of things going haywire, polls wrong, and wildly bizarre results.

[Fuzzy Bear]

If the polls are wrong, the polls are wrong.

Rasmussen was the most accurate poll in 2008; not so in 2012.

Who's to say that 2016's most accurate polls will be the same folks that called it best in 2012?  

[Xing]

As I've said many times, the side that claims that "the polls are wrong/rigged/biased against us" is often not only wrong, but often sees the opposite happen. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see the polls underestimate Clinton.

[Cashew]

Yeah, I really don't trust the polls this year - They're very biased. This is probably the map, instead:

You hack! Giving Texas to Trump!

[OneJ]

I think the polls are wrong underestimating Hillary's victory margin.

-Latino turnout has spiked up significantly.
-Black turnout has increased in some states like GA and FL (Unlike the share).
-White turnout has increased (Meaning they won't go for Trump like Romney; College-educated Whites; the shy Clinton voter theory in which White Women are too afraid to admit who they're voting for; she could actually tie among whites).
-Suburbs

[Statilius the Epicurean]

What if the polls are wrong and McMullin wins a 50-state landslide?

Completely stupid question unless you ask "why" the polls would be wrong.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

[Xing]

Here's my bold prediction: I predict that the polls are either going to be right OR that they will underestimate Clinton OR that they will underestimate Trump. One of those things will happen on election night!!!!11!!!

What if they overestimate both, and underestimate MCMULLIN!!!11!!!

[Fuzzy Bear]

Here's my bold prediction: I predict that the polls are either going to be right OR that they will underestimate Clinton OR that they will underestimate Trump. One of those things will happen on election night!!!!11!!!

What if they overestimate both, and underestimate MCMULLIN!!!11!!!

That would depend whether McMullin's electors cast their votes for McMullin, or for some Republican officeholder that McMullin instructs them to cast their vote for.

[Tartarus Sauce]

As I've said many times, the side that claims that "the polls are wrong/rigged/biased against us" is often not only wrong, but often sees the opposite happen. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see the polls underestimate Clinton.

It is certainly my hope that this is the case, I'm not content with the projected margin of victory as it stands.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

As I've said many times, the side that claims that "the polls are wrong/rigged/biased against us" is often not only wrong, but often sees the opposite happen. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see the polls underestimate Clinton.

It is certainly my hope that this is the case, I'm not content with the projected margin of victory as it stands.

No one claims it.

When Clinton had a 7% points lead it was practically impossible, now it might happen, though unlikely.

[Hammy]

Yes, what if the polls ARE wrong and Clinton wins like Reagan?

Possible, but 1980 had a third party get 6.6% of the vote, almost exclusively from Reagan's opponent. I don't see that this year so I doubt that result.

To be fair, Reagan still won over 50% nationally.

[dirks]

I would say this race more than any other since 1980 has the "holy " potential of things going haywire, polls wrong, and wildly bizarre results.

BOOM