Election Result Proves a Victory for Pollsters and Other Data Devotees

[DemocratSinceBirth]

It was not on any ballot, but one of the biggest election contests this week pitted pundits against pollsters. It was a pitched battle between two self-assured rivals: those who relied on an unscientific mixture of experience, anecdotal details and “Spidey sense,” and those who stuck to cold, hard numbers.

When the results were tabulated, it became clear that data had bested divination.

The election results that delivered a second term to President Obama on Tuesday left some well-known pundits, many of whom have a partisan bent, eating crow on Wednesday morning — including analysts like Karl Rove, Dick Morris and Michael Barone, all of whom had confidently predicted a victory by Mitt Romney.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/us/politics/data-devotees-emerge-victorious-in-election.html?ref=politics

[Proud liberal 80]

1. Not All Pollster were good

For now on I am only believing pollsters which have a news agency attached to it (NBC/WSJ, ABC/WASH POST, CBS/Quin). Those polls were accurate and right.

Gallup and Ras tracking polls sucked

Even polls that I once thought were good sucked (Mason Dixon and Suffolk)

Then there were a bunch of fake pollster that I never heard of that seemed like they popped up just to boost Romney (Gravis Marketing, Baydon Foster, Susquehanna, Insider Advantage)