[roenxi]

Kamala did quite well in the election, it was close. In hindsight I don't think there was any particular evidence the polls were inaccurate. Poll-watchers like fivethirtyeight.com predicted that the election was a coin toss (with the toss sliiightly biased towards Trump up until their final forecasts from what I recall) but whoever won the coin toss would probably achieve a comfortable victory. That is pretty much what transpired.

[Dracophoenix]

> In hindsight I don't think there was any particular evidence the polls were inaccurate.

One notable exception was The Des Moines Register poll the day before the election.

[throwaway48476]

Then why the disparity with private polling.

[roenxi]

If you want me to refer to private polling you're going to need to hint which poll you mean. I'm working off public data which was pretty accurate on aggregate, there weren't any surprises on election night which was something of a https://www.xkcd.com/1131/ moment.

Eyeballing https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/ it looks to be in 1-sigma territory or maybe just venturing in to 2-sigmas.

[throwaway48476]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/kamala-harris-advisers-internal-p...

Leaks of the Biden polling had trump getting 400 EC votes. Public polling is a PR exercise to convince you how to vote, the intention is to deceive.

[roenxi]

I dunno. Given the public polls seemed to be accurate in hindsight that just suggests Harris' internal polling was off. They were the C-team that were losing to Trump with Biden and struggling to match his raw charisma with Harris' campaigning. Maybe their pollster wasn't very good or they didn't do that much polling? We can't really assess what was going on inside the campaign in that way.