I did some digging to compare where we are today with this date in 2016 vs polling

[NRaleighLiberal]

I was looking at 538 - they currently have Biden at 75% chance of winning. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/

On September 12, 2016, they had Hillary at 70% chance of winning. It is an interesting plot, which can be seen here - https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

Hillary's biggest lead in win probability was 88% chance on October 17, but the race really tightened to 64% chance on November 4. Just before the election, it widened again to 70%.

The plot thus far is much more stable than in 2016. Still, I would like to see Joe at 90% or better, of course.

[634-5789]

1. I will NEVER trust 538 again.

[NRaleighLiberal]

2. none of the pollsters got it right - which told me that the election was stolen.

Sam Wang was another I read often leading to the election (the Princeton consortium).

The election results started to reek at about 9 PM, to my wife and I.

[Thekaspervote]

7. USDornslife poll published by the LA Times actually called it for dotard in 16 about 10 days out

It was a little confusing in that they said he would win the popular vote and the WH. But they did say he would win.

They have a different polling method than anyone else and are currently publishing a poll every day. Today Biden’s lead nationally is +12. It’s been anywhere from 8 last month to +13

https://election.usc.edu/

[LisaL]

11. Democrats were over confident. Polls were close.

Then Comey came out with his letters, which probably flipped several states to Trump.
Since democrats were overconfident, some didn't bother to vote, expecting Hillary to win anyway, and some voted for their dogs or cats as a joke or a protest vote. Well I guess the joke was on us.

[NRaleighLiberal]

12. didn't take many votes in the key battleground states to flip this election.

Hillary had the popular vote by 3M.

No one will ever convince me it was not stolen but flipping some key votes in some key states.

[Takket]

3. 538 has a MASSIVE flaw in its numbers

and that is, frankly, they don't account for efforts to cheat. They present their figures under the assumption of a fair and equitable election where every vote is counted honestly and no ratfucking will occur.

Biden currently being up 10 points means in reality 538 should have him at about a 50% chance of winning right now because merely counting votes does not account for all the variables in this equation.

[NRaleighLiberal]

5. Indeed. That was my biggest takeaway after 2016 - not only media and pollsters, but even many here

can't bring themselves to accept that the election was stolen, and 2020 could once again be stolen.

I am under no false illusion that our elections are fair and accurate. We know from watching other countries, other authoritarians, that crimes are committed.

[Claustrum]

8. I think most of the pollsters adjusted a "hidden Trump edge" in their polls this year

538 explained their terminology and put a much heavier weight on incumbency than normal. In one of Silver's tweet, he said that if the probability model is based on polling alone, Biden would be at 90% winning chance but incumbency advantage and future uncertainty gets it back down to 70%.

[Awsi Dooger]

14. Let me know how a mathematical model is supposed to incorporate cheating

It is unbelievable that anyone could respond to that post in agreement, yet it happens around here every time the theme shows up.

I can just imagine Nate Silver matter of factly assigning 35% cheat variable to Florida, and 25% to Georgia, and whatever.

Some of you scattergun guys would actually do that. You would subjectively and cynically provide adjustments to every state. And then applaud yourself for doing do.

It is pure nutcase. Yet I get in trouble around here for criticizing cats. Sorry, it is impossible not to laugh.

538 does a fantastic job with the compiling. Nate Silver described the 2016 variables perfectly in the final weeks of 2016. The reason he was able to do that is he smartly relied on national indications and how they could transfer from state to state, instead of an idiot like Sam Wang using state polls as isolated absolutes toward Hillary at 99%

[Hero57]

18. They had a much better result for Trump in 2016

Than other forecasts at the time so I think they are right on the money this time and Biden is doing much better than Hillary Clinton. They mostly account for uncertainty in the race than other forecast such as a vaccine being announced before the election which could help Trump’s numbers.

[ihas2stinkyfeet]

17. the pollsters werent wrong. the vote counters were.

[Thekaspervote]

4. Also in of 16 vs now, fav/unfav, are better & Biden has much numbers in WI, MI & PA

Those are musts if we are to win

Some pollsters have Fl & AZ as lean dem...just mho but we won’t take those states..one can hope!

[Claustrum]

9. I feel good about AZ because of Mark Kelly's reverse coattail, not so much about FL.

[Proud liberal 80]

6. I would like a comparison from Real Clear Politics

But I can’t seem to find the 2016 numbers at this time

[LisaL]

10. Yes, the race really tightened in part because of Comey's letters.

Thousands of emails found on a laptop!

[Polybius]

13. While Hillary's chances dropped to 64%, that was right after Comey

By election Day, her chances rose to 71.4%.

[Awsi Dooger]

15. September 12, 2020 is not parallel to September 12, 2016

There is a 5 day difference in election day...November 8 in 2016 to November 3 in 2020

[Chainfire]

16. You can't put faith in the polls

Neither can you put faith in the Vegas betting odds. I learned that the hard way.

Just keep pushing, pulling or dragging as required.