"Obviously" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that story.
I don't see the value in relying on the spin from Assange's outfit on what excerpts and out-of-context stolen e-mails say.
All polls have to make assumptions about who will actually turn out to vote. There's nothing especially nefarious about recognizing that. Pollsters want to be right.
Individual polls and individual polling outfits can be wrong. But it's hard to tilt averages of large numbers of polls over time.
Hillary really does have a large (and recently increasing) lead.
See Sam Wang at Princeton for a level-headed discussion of the polling.
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.
I don't see the value in relying on the spin from Assange's outfit on what excerpts and out-of-context stolen e-mails say.
All polls have to make assumptions about who will actually turn out to vote. There's nothing especially nefarious about recognizing that. Pollsters want to be right.
Individual polls and individual polling outfits can be wrong. But it's hard to tilt averages of large numbers of polls over time.
Hillary really does have a large (and recently increasing) lead.
See Sam Wang at Princeton for a level-headed discussion of the polling.
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.