New Poll

I'll give you credit. You did your homework. I guess there are some reliable polls out there. I'm not going to say that all of them are though.

His homework is incomplete. He left out michigan,

I don't think that changes enough.

Also, if you remove California, Trump won the popular vote, which is the very reason why we have the EC so that one large state does not get to pick the president for the rest of the other 49 states. We don't live by mob rule.

We are a Republic, not a Democracy.

Democracy: 4 guys and 2 girls in a room. The 4 guys vote to rape the 2 girls. Mob rule.

Republic: The men get 1 vote, the Women get 1 vote. No raping occurs.

This is about the polls, not the EC. I agree that we need the EC.

She only proved late state by state polls were reliable. She didn't prove the early polls were, nor did she prove the national polls were.

Hillary'S CHACH  to win by 93%

She? I am a he. The national polls were correct in a sense with what they predicated was accurate with what happened.

The national polls (https://www.270towin.com/2016-polls-clinton-trump/) state:

Hillary had a 3% lead against Trump. When we see what happened:

On the right hand next to the popular vote percentage she was 2.1% higher. I would still consider only being wrong about 0.9% as accurate. 

If I am understanding what the national polls judge on that site. Which states "This page displays the current 270toWin Polling Average for each state." I think it polls for the popular vote then the electoral map the site decides to plot that in with the information they have gathered. 

Chanch

I think you mean chance. You haven't exactly said how NYT got to that conclusion instead simply missed out key information. 

thats your job

Polls had Michigan clearly in the blue.

Michigan had not voted republican since 1988..in fact there were many historic election results that had districts voting for Trump who have never voted red since 1988

That's how terrible Hillary was.

I guess we can have a discussion about her it you want. Feel free to make a forum topic if you want me to address your grievances of her. No worries about thinking I am female. I wouldn't know what a mharman is and if I did I would have thought that very thing are the gender of other Mharmans. 

@Greyparrot

You have clearly not stated how you derived at that conclusion. People can simply just like Republicans over Trump or have good things to say about Trump and nothing to say about Hillary. Since I have pointed out 2 different scenarios you would actually have to prove how these voted for Trump because of how bad Hillary was. I doubt you would even try correcting your mistakes instead of making another post hoc rationalization as in when I have showed how your arguments don't follow you pivot to something different. Removing yourself from what you said before as if it didn't exist. Not apologizing for your mistakes instead simply move the goalposts to something else. 

So tell me why ALL the polls had both Wi and MI in the bag for Hillary?

Why did all the polls have the swing states in the margin of error for Hillary?

The big three were a substantive change in vote preference during the campaign's final days, a failure to properly adjust for an overrepresentation of college graduates, and many Trump voters failing to reveal their preferences until after the election. The last point could have also been the result of late-deciding Trump voters, the report said.On the first point, the autopsy found that 13% of voters in Wisconsin, Florida, and Pennsylvania — three states Trump won narrowly over Clinton and helped catapult him to an unlikely victory — decided on their presidential choice in the final week of the election. Overwhelmingly, those voters broke for Trump: In Wisconsin, they chose Trump over Clinton by a 30-point margin. In Florida and Pennsylvania, the margin was 17 percentage points.The analysis makes note of a couple of other points — namely, that a change in turnout from 2012 to 2016 likely also caused state polls to miss the mark on the results. It also said that "ballot order effects" may have effected some state contests. Trump appeared above Clinton on the ballot in several key states, such as Michigan, Wisconsin, and Florida. The study estimated that about one-third of a percentage point bump can be attributed to appearing first on the ballot. The study said that could, at best, be a very minor explanation for "polling problems," however.
"Collectively, well-resourced survey organizations might have enough common interest in financing some high quality state-level polls so as to reduce the likelihood of another black eye for the profession," the autopsy report said.
Reminiscing on what went wrong just days after the November election, Patrick Murray, the head of Monmouth University's polling institute, a firm that conducts a number of state polls, told Business Insider "polls might not be capable of predicting elections."Murray's final Pennsylvania poll showed Clinton with a 4-point lead with a 4.9-point margin of error, which still was not big enough to capture the margin — 1.2 points — by which Trump would win the state.
His theory for what happened at the time: "Non-response among a major core of Trump voters."

@Greyparrot

1 state out of every single other state was wrong? Must mean the polls are wrong (sarcasm). You really don't know what you are talking about when you say the polls are wrong even though majority of the time they are correct. In this scenario they were wrong about one thing yet you are still complaining. Shame you commit a special pleading fallacy when you don't have the same rigorous from Trump.

This assumed the polls were wrong. They didn't provide how it was wrong. They are assuming it. Why are you showing me something when my problem with the assumption made not what was said after the assumption?

I don't agree the polls were wrong and neither does this link provide a case for them being wrong. It adds like you do a post hoc rationalization. Not explaining how the polls are wrong instead simply making excuses for their bad polling. You know what the polling institute do instead of making excuses for their bad polling with WI? Make sure it is more effective. That's if I agree that they need work. Sure anything needs work but to say the polls were wrong is a lie because they were good at predicating what actually occurred. I clearly laid out how they weren't wrong yet you give me an autopsy report of people making excuses for thinking Hillary would win if they took that position. That is their fault for not realizing both sides could have won because of the swing states. 

2 swing states were outrageously wrong (wi and MI)

And every one of the 2-5% predictions in hillary's favor for the swing states was also wrong.

That's why people don't trust polls, because it caters to the echochamber left that inherently wants to be counted in a poll.

After reading the article, I also have a 3rd theory...that most of these polling businesses are based in urban centers, so they likely recruit a great many urban liberals to conduct the polls. Not only does this lend to obvious confirmation bias, but they would likely also hold disdain for the areas they would need to travel to and the people they would have to talk to in order to sample the smelly walmart deplorable Trump base. This would lead to the trump voters not being represented in the polls accurately.

@Greyparrot

Proof?

I don't know if you want to fit in or not but the ones who have problems with academia like yourself are uneducated. If you want to be a voice for the uneducated go right ahead. Just want to inform you what position you are talking.

Confirmation bias? Hypocritical coming from you. Clearly have post hoc rationalization about things you don't like and assume sources you like even if they are not true. Very rarely a hypocrite is right. This scenario isn't one of them.