Election "forecasters" will never be accurate until polls are accurate because they don't run models. They're glorified poll-readers.
@TheEconomist is one of the worst faux models. Last 5 Economist/@YouGov Generic Ballots were wrong in result & trend.
D +10
D +10
D +8
D +7
D +6
@TheEconomist is one of the worst faux models. Last 5 Economist/@YouGov Generic Ballots were wrong in result & trend.
D +10
D +10
D +8
D +7
D +6
Speaking of Generic Congressional Ballots...
Final @CNN Poll — 886 LVs from 10/23-26 — Democrats +12 (54/42).
Planet Earth: Democrats +2.3 (current).
First, CNN, your pollster sucks.
Second, remember the smears against @Rasmussen_Poll after 2018, from CNN people no less?
Final @CNN Poll — 886 LVs from 10/23-26 — Democrats +12 (54/42).
Planet Earth: Democrats +2.3 (current).
First, CNN, your pollster sucks.
Second, remember the smears against @Rasmussen_Poll after 2018, from CNN people no less?
In 2018, @Rasmussen_Poll GB didn't specifically reference the House. Actual pollsters know how wording can impact results.
No such excuse for @CNN.
"If the elections for Congress were being held today, which party's candidate would you vote for in your
Congressional district?"
No such excuse for @CNN.
"If the elections for Congress were being held today, which party's candidate would you vote for in your
Congressional district?"
These are their words used once to trash @Rasmussen_Poll and others who aren't consistently wrong in one single direction.
It was never true that the midterms proved "traditional pollsters are correct.” Never. They were horribly inaccurate at the state level, which matters most.
It was never true that the midterms proved "traditional pollsters are correct.” Never. They were horribly inaccurate at the state level, which matters most.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
