My take is that the popular media was not innocently led astray. “Red wave” polling allowed them to tell a narrative that resulted in clicks. I strongly suspect they were quite aware they were crap.
All elections are different. We never had an election with a black female candidate before to. If you use the logic that this candidate/circumstance is unique then you never have any data
Thanks for the response. Yes, it was a sincere question
It’s this last bit that still befuddles me. “One of these, maybe both, could be absolutely wrong, so let’s throw ‘em both in the stew.” The earlier part of your explanation isn’t lost on me, but I still land on a “why bother?” conclusion.
ISTM that polls can confirm a likely huge win, which I don’t think is a pressing need. Nobody needed tons of polls when Reagan won 49 states. Or they can confirm it’s too close to call. Neither seems like a super-valuable exercise.
I agree, yes. You’ve stated it more pointedly.
Bolding mine.
They’re also based overwhelmingly on hunches and gut feelings, like the “he’s in an unrecoverable tailspin now, and there’s no way he can win at this point” thread.
I’ve acknowledged that refreshing the 538 and Nate Silver “tickers” every 20 - 30 minutes isn’t doing my nerves any good, but the notion of “ah, don’t worry, I can feel it - she’s got it in the bag” is just about as bad.
Right. For the question of who is going to win they are not so useful. But there is a host of information in them that is useful besides that. (Which has been discussed in one of these threads in the past …)
I guess I’m too parochial then. I’d like polls to tell me who’s likely to win when it’s not otherwise obvious. If they apparently can’t do so, the rest of you guys can have your fun with ‘em. 
There are more than three narratives even within mainstream media itself. Here are some narratives buoyed by red-wave polling. The Joy Behar article might seem unserious … but commentators like her (being part of The View’s panel) reach a lot more people in guard-down settings that almost all political pundits.
(Page previews from The Hill don’t load into Discourse’s posts, so the last item below is just text with a link)
Momentum shifts against Harris in presidential race (The Hill, 10/17/2024)
“More likely” they can do and that is good enough to decide on a bet given certain odds. But more likely 55 to 45 for example isn’t what will satisfy the desire you have. People want them to be accurate oracles and they are not up for that job.
Discount anything Newsweek says. They’ve gone from being a left-leaning print magazine to a right wing disinformation machine.
An obvious impact of the polls were that they pushed Biden out of the race. But no polling is not precise enough to tell you who will win a close race. It is much better at telling you if a race will be close.
Where are these conservative pollsters mentioned in theses cites? I mean the first headline talks about Nate Silver’s average. I see credible polls like Fox and NBC discussed in other. Yes in a 50/50 race, some polls will be bad for Harris, and media (and many people here) may see a change in dynamics that isn’t really here. Where is the evidence of conservative pollsters affecting the narrative?
The first article use Silver’s numbers, which aren’t meaningful changed by the “red-wave” pollsters, and also has Harris leading in PA, WI, MI, and NV anyway.
The second article uses one poll in MI, and then points out that Harris is winning PA, WI, and MI in the 538 average.
The Behar article is reporting what Behar said, not what the polling aggregators said. Then it cites the NBC News poll (not a red-wave pollster).
The MSNBC article also cites the NBC poll.
I’m not disputing that pollsters put out biased polls to spin media narratives. Of course they do. Campaigns have done it for years and now there are “independent” pollsters willing to do it as well. What I’m disputing is the idea that including these polls in the aggregators at 538 and Silver Bulletin (and others) has any impact on the narrative or the predictive quality of those aggregations.
I get it. It’s actually helped me in that I no longer get jubilant or fall into despair when someone posts poll results. Until there’s some huge (and unlikely) shift, I largely ignore them now. They don’t serve my needs!
An article of interest for this thread. Gift link.
To me the big point:
Since 2000, polls in close states have been off by an average of 3.1 points.
Yes, it is of interest.
Of course, the 3.1 percent is for the final polling averages that will be available in about two weeks. The likely error, in a state polling average today, is more.
P.S. What about increased early voting? Could that mean the final polls are no longer the most predictive? Conceivably, but I doubt it. I think that the undecideds and uncertains are by definition the last to make up their minds. They have not voted yet (or have not yet decided against voting).
538 has had the race tightening over the past few weeks. Is this due to the polls getting worse for Harris, or is it because Harris was benefiting from their “secret sauce” which is now playing a smaller role in their projections now that we are only a couple of weeks away from election day?
G. Elliot Morris*, leader of the 538 forecast model’s team:
The change in candidate’s fortunes came after a slow drip-drip-drip of polls showed the race tightening across the northern and Sun Belt battlegrounds…
Still, a word of caution: You might be tempted to make a big deal about our forecast “flipping” to Trump, but it’s important to remember that a 52-in-100 chance for Trump is not all that different from a 58-in-100 chance for Harris — both are little better than a coin flip for the leading candidate. While Trump has undeniably gained some ground over the past couple weeks, a few good polls for Harris could easily put her back in the “lead” tomorrow. Our overall characterization of the race — that it’s a toss-up — remains unchanged.
*I had originally typed “Garrett Morris,” of late-70s-early-80s Saturday Night Live fame. 
There is literally zero reason why Trump should have gained a single vote in the past month or so, none.
Excellent point. It’s inconceivable that — if you could accurately mind-read all American voters — 2 or 3 percent of Harris’ ~9/18/2024 support has flipped to current Trump support.