[aw1621107]

> I don't buy that they're trying to communicate in good faith.

What would "good faith" communication look like, then?

> I remember very clearly sources like this* in 2016.

Can you elaborate on what exactly is wrong with that source?

(That isn't a pollster, too; that's a (meta?)analysis/aggregation, but that's a relatively minor nitpick)

> They need to do a better job of being humble and stop trying to pass themselves off as apolitical number crunchers just giving us the facts.

Are they themselves claiming that they are "giving us the facts", or is that how they are being represented by others?

And are you talking about actual polls, or about predictions based on said polls?