mhaze,

If CNN's past underestimation was simply industry-wide modelling error, then it doesn't justify projecting current understatement.

If you believe it reflects a stable factor unique to CNN, then you're attributing more than generic polling error.

Either way, the strength of your "you can bet" conclusion depends on explaining the cause of the past error.

"If CNN's past underestimation was simply industry-wide modelling error, then it doesn't justify projecting current understatement."

Why not? Just because others underestimate Trump's support has nothing to do with whether CNN has a proclivity to do so also. I've said this several times and you whistle right past it.

"If you believe it reflects a stable factor unique to CNN,"

I never said it was unique. That's just another (YET ANOTHER) thing you've made up to try to get out of the corner you've painted yourself in.

I always know when you realise your wrong. You run off to the algorithm to try to comfort your wounded pride. You do realise its not a real person, right? Pretty funny.

mhaze,

If multiple pollsters exhibited similar directional errors in the same cycles, that's the base rate.

To argue that CNN has a proclivity, you need to show its error was materially different from that base rate.

Otherwise you're attributing to CNN what may simply have been a broader polling issue.

//That's just another (YET ANOTHER) thing you've made up to try to get out of the corner you've painted yourself in.//

Hardly - given that it makes no difference to anything. For example, let's swap it with:

"If CNN's error was materially different from the broader polling pattern…"

See?

Nice try, though.

And again, we can't get to "another" (let alone "another" in caps) when there hasn't yet been a first time.

Trumpster,

Australians deserve to be told what could happen to them, with the crazy warmonger Donald trying to start WWIII in the Middle East.

You're not going to address this are you JD. We know why. To do so would be to end your claims.

Again... even if others make the same errors as CNN, it doesn't change the fact (and you're not disputing this fact) that CNN consistently underestimated Trump's support. It might partially explain it but it doesn't alter that fact. And given that they have consistently underestimated the Trump support, its likely that they'd do it again in the above instance.

Now I know that you won't address that simple piece of logic. I'm doing you the curtesy of assuming you get this and just haven't got the cajones to admit it. But there's always the possibility that its just beyond you.

"Australians deserve to be told what could happen to them"

OK so why won't the government do it?

And why is it always the imminent start of WW3 with these bozos. A death wish?