This message was self-deleted by its author

[jeff47]

163. Same as Bill Clinton and Obama.

Both were polling in single-digits around a year out. Both won.

You thinking polls this early are accurate predictors of the election does not speak well for your political analysis. If 2008's early polls were accurate, Giuliani would have narrowly beaten Clinton in 2008. He didn't even make it to the primaries, and she lost the primaries.

Polls tell you where things stand now. Where things stand now is nothing like where things will be standing on election day. Polls in Iowa and NH will start being vaguely accurate in late December. National polls and Republican-vs-Democrat polls will not be vaguely accurate until late September 2016.

Vaguely-accurate meaning providing a clue as to who is "ahead" and who is "behind". They won't be close to the primary/caucus/election results until around a month before. And even then there's lots of room for an "October Surprise"-style event.

The media has lots of "dead air" to fill, so they spend a lot of time talking about polls. That doesn't mean polls are accurate, it means they are good for filling "dead air".