Polls and turnouts - was the turn out in South Carolina depressed because

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. Respectfully, your logic is flawed, and perhaps irretrievably so.

Simple surveys that ask people who they expect to win are among the most
accurate methods for forecasting U.S. presidential elections

https://forecasters.org/wp-content/uploads/gravity_forms/7-2a51b93047891f1ec3608bdbd77ca58d/2013/07/Graefe_vote_expectations_ISF.pdf

[div class="excerpt]

.

Studies of prediction market accuracy for election forecasting commonly compare the
daily market forecasts to results from polls published the same day. These studies generally find
that prediction markets yield more accurate forecasts than single polls.

https://forecasters.org/wp-content/uploads/gravity_forms/7-2a51b93047891f1ec3608bdbd77ca58d/2013/07/Graefe_vote_expectations_ISF.pdf

http://predictwise.com/politics/2016-president-winner

The predictions markets suggest she has a 62% chance of being the next president. That's substantially than her closest competitor.


The efficacy of polls nine months out in predicting a general election winner is essentially null:

Trial-heat polls, hereafter simply referred to as polls, ask respondents for whom they
intend to vote if the election were held today. That is, polls do not provide predictions; they
provide snapshots of public opinion at a certain point in time. However, this is not how the
media commonly treat polls. Polling results are routinely interpreted as forecasts of what will
happen on Election Day (Hillygus 2011). This can result in poor predictions, in particular if the
election is still far away, because public opinion can be difficult to measure and fragile over the
course of a campaign. However, researchers found ways to deal with these problems and to
increase the accuracy of poll-based predictions

https://forecasters.org/wp-content/uploads/gravity_forms/7-2a51b93047891f1ec3608bdbd77ca58d/2013/07/Graefe_vote_expectations_ISF.pdf