Comparing the LA times poll to past polls is misleading. It is a totally new methodology that throws a lot of orthodoxy out the window. It also appears to be a very risky way to poll. Pollsters reckon you have a 1/20 chance of a misleading sample in each poll. Normally not an issue as you have lots of polls and get a new sample each time. If you have one sample for the entire election and it is wonky...well you're fucked.
Also the mechanism means it requires very engaged persons to partake in it who probably don't reflect an average voter. For example they may be more partisan than average.
Overall remember it's an experiment, an entirely untried method. Qudos is owed for trying this new concept in so public and open a way. And it could be right. It could also be wrong.
Overall there is also a common train of thought of polls can be wrong....Therefore Trump is doing better than polling suggests. Yep...could be true. But they could be wrong the other way. If you think that there is a possible 6-8% error on average...fair enough. It's possible and polls have been unreliable in the past. But before you cuddle your Trump teddy with glee remember that it could also mean Clinton in fact has a 14 point lead and is on the way to winning Texas, and the scenarios are about as likely as each other.
Also remember in 2008 it was the Bradley effect. In 2012 it was the poll unskewers. Whilst people have looked stupid following polls, the record of those that deny them is worse
Did you not read what I said? The LA Times Poll is the American Life Panel. They did the same thing in 2012. It was called the RAND poll. https://alpdata.rand.org/index.php?page=election2012 This year it's the LA Times Poll https://alpdata.rand.org/index.php?page=election2016 Same place, same thing. It's not a "totally new methodology".
Nothing to do but comb over
I see you. I see the jokes Lys, and I must say.... nice.
Well it's good to know that everything I do is not considered deplorable by you Sir. Happy to make you smile for a change.
Whilst people have looked stupid following polls, the record of those that deny them is worse
That may be true, but Clinton is waaaaay ahead in the polls i've seen and I don't want to have my soul crushed by getting my hopes up that we don't end up with President T, and then he gets elected.
Don't worry Sweetheart... you got this one in the bag, because I do believe the polls.