The problem is that when polls are wrong, they tend to be wrong in the same direction. If they miss in New Hampshire, for instance, they all miss on the same mistake.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
New Hampshire polling data are unreliable because, when you call the Granite State's registered Republicans and independents in the middle of dinner and ask them who they're going to vote for, they have a mouth full of mashed potatoes and you can't understand what they say.
We live in a diverse nation, but it isn't that diverse. If any one state showed results so dramatically different from the results in each of the other 50 states, the likeliest explanation would be that someone had tampered with the polls.
Polls are frequently taken to try to tease out or determine likely directions and trends, but once taken, they belong to the past, requiring that new polls be taken.
Do you ever get the feeling that the only reason we have elections is to find out if the polls were right?
Polling in a general election is pretty accurate, because turnout is usually high.
Polling only works in a country without a depressed, frightened populace. Where the public trusts authorities enough to tell them the truth without fear of retribution.
The national polls are distorted. To get a national sample, they rely too much on Hispanics from New York and California, which is where large populations are but also where most of the radical Hispanics are.
And if you're getting a poll coming out month after month saying something and then all of a sudden does an enormous swing in one direction - you are dealing with a more volatile electorate than most people believe they have.
It's not opinion polls that determine the outcome of elections, it's votes in ballot boxes.
You can't depend on polls.
No opposing quotes found.