Those polls on possible match ups had predictive value.

Just saying "no one in the real world" does not discount them.

Bernie might have had a better shot at it... he might have won where Hillary lost.


What does amaze me is that I have been politically active since the 80's and the excuse that I have always been given is "electability" whenever the left of the party wants to push their candidate. In the last thirty years that is what most of us on the left have had to hear and there even were arguments made about this using similar polls.

But this year, since we were living in moderate-magic land, predictive polls were tossed out and the electability argument was no longer allowed. So in order to compete with the politician with the highest net negatives we decided we had to run the candidate with the second highest net negatives.

538 was horribly wrong about a hell of a lot of things this year but go ahead and keep sourcing them.