Don't let National polls lull you into a false sense of security.

[Fla Dem]

It happened to us in 2016. Yes we can argue there was tampering with the election, none of which was proven. But bottom line the national polls were dead wrong. As a result I don't put any credence in national polls. National polls really have no value. If they did HRC would be President today. We do not elect a president nationally, we elect them electorially.

I post this because I just read a post with an article from the WP regarding Biden/Harris double digit lead over Trump. It's really meaningless unless it's supported by state by state results supporting the national numbers..

ABC National poll on 10/23/2016 2 1/2 weeks before General election on 11/8/2016

New poll shows Clinton over Trump by double-digits
Eric Bradner
By Eric Bradner, CNN

Updated 4:43 PM ET, Sun October 23, 2016
New poll: Clinton leading Trump by double-digits

An ABC News poll shows Clinton leading Trump, 50% to 38%
CNN's Poll of Polls average has Clinton ahead 48% to 39%
(CNN)Hillary Clinton has a 12-point lead over Donald Trump and has reached 50% support nationally among likely voters, a new ABC News tracking poll shows.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/23/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-presidential-polls/index.html

Who will win the presidency?
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
Updated 11/8/2016

List of numerous poll results Oct-Nov 2016

POLL CHART
2016 General Election: Trump vs. Clinton
Updated through 11/6/2016

https://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton

Poll: Clinton Maintains Big Lead as Voters Doubt Trump's Temperament
Aug. 16, 2016, 5:00 AM EST / Updated Aug. 18, 2016, 10:29 AM EST
By Hannah Hartig, John Lapinski and Stephanie Psyllos
Hillary Clinton leads Donald Trump by 9 points — 50 percent to 41 percent — in the latest NBC News|SurveyMonkey Weekly Election Tracking Poll.

The numbers were virtually unchanged since last week’s poll. Generally low favorability and negative attitudes among voters plague both candidates, however, as they make appeals to voters in key swing states in the weeks ahead.

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/data-points/poll-clinton-maintains-big-lead-voters-doubt-trump-s-temperament-n631351

[kimbutgar]

1. Yep when I see polls up 8+ for Biden I take them as -8 for Biden and vote even if I have

To crawl over glass or shit!

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

2. It's especially foolish to take national polls seriously

since we don't elect the president at the national level. State by state with the Electoral College is it.

Maybe once all the old people and retired service members who get their meds in the mail are suddenly out of those necessary medications they'll finally understand that voting for Trump is a bad idea. Maybe. I'm not holding my breath.

[redstatebluegirl]

3. I have been saying this here for months.

I normally get lots of push back saying "I'm being negative" or we "need to feel good". No we need to vote, we need to get everyone we know to register and vote. We don't need to feel good until after November.

[stillcool]

4. Seriously. Lulled into a false sense of security.

in 2020? And....Clinton won. With what's going on right now, in our elections, can anyone say with certainty what the vote counts have been in the last 20 years? With the number of people taken off the voting rolls, the hurdles put in place to make it as hard as possible for people to vote, the insecurity of our voting systems, and everything else that is unknown as far as tabulation is concerned, who the eff knows? When asked in 2016, countless states asserted that regardless of tampering, the vote count was not affected. But, no one counted. There would not be this all-out war against mail-in ballots if the Republican states did not feel more secure with their own voting systems. Just had to say...don't be complacent!!

[qazplm135]

5. Instead of being afraid we are losing

why can't you be motivated by crushing them everywhere instead?

It's not remotely enough to beat Trump, we have to gain the Senate as well. We need to gain Governorships and state houses.

2016 is not 2020.
2016 is not 2020.
2016 is not 2020.
2016 is not 2020.

[Fla Dem]

7. Never said anything about being afraid we are losing.

What I was conveying was keep on working to GOTV!!!! Do not think the fight is even remotely over. Agree 2020 is not 2016 in a number of aspects, but to think the fight is over because a national poll has Biden ahead by double digits is foolhardy.

[qazplm135]

13. Being up by 8 pts in national polls means something

don't pretend it's meaningless and don't pretend there's zero relationship between national polls and battleground states.

If you are up consistently by 8 nationally, you are also leading in the BG states.

It's only when the national polls drop down to 2-3 pts like in 2016 when the BG states can go either way.

[Fla Dem]

14. Of course I'd rather see Biden ahead than behind in national polls.

But in the week leading up to the election in 2016, HRC was ahead in all the National polls from +2 to +7.

At this time in August 2016 HRC was ahead by 9 points.
In October the ABC News poll shows Clinton leading Trump, 50% to 38%

I hope your analysis is on target.

[qazplm135]

15. the average was a lot closer to 2-3 pts actually going into the election

going into the convention, we went second, not first, and Trump wasn't a known entity like he is now, nor was there a coronavirus, nor was there 10+ unemployment, nor was there BLM, nor was the postal system being destroyed, nor had he been impeached...

The differences between 2016 and 2020 are legion.

[NCjack]

6. Watch the 6 battleground states. They decide the election. At this time

Biden is +6 over Trump in the battleground states -- that is close enough for Trump to go to dirty tricks and win. We need to intensify effort in those states!

This election is too close for comfort.

[Fla Dem]

8. Absolutely correct!!

[Awsi Dooger]

9. Actually it was exactly the opposite mistake in 2016

The pollsters who relied exclusively on state polls were the ones who butchered the probability. That's how Sam Wang of Princeton Consortium came up with Hillary at 99% certainty and exclaimed that he would eat a bug if she lost.

The models relying on national margin in combination with state polling were the ones that detected Hillary's lead was considerably more fragile than it appeared.

National polls have immense value. I can't imagine pretending otherwise. There is a logical correlation between national number and state number in one instance after another.

[JI7]

10. Comey was a huge factor in 2016

[Awsi Dooger]

12. October 23 was between the bus tape and Comey letter

I suppose the OP wants to to ignore that aspect. The Hillary lead was inflated at that point because all the polling had caught the bus tape, and the Comey letter had not happened yet.

In reality Hillary's lead was always overstated but she still would have won a tighter than expected election minus the Comey impact.

[Dream Girl]

11. I think everyone knows this about national polls. However, 1) They are useful for tracking things

2) because they have a larger sample size they allow for deep subgroup analysis e.g. race, age, gender, political leanings. 3) they typically contain the same questions in each wave for comparability but they all include “add ons” these would be questions placed at the end of the survey to explore Topical issues of the day eg. policing, post office, protests, COVID..this allows researchers to understand how issues drive support of a candidate 3) national polls always permit attiunical profiling of voters (supporters or detractors) so measures like enthusiasm, trust, like ability, etc. . In a nutshell nationalso national polls are great as a gauge of sentiment over time as welll as “diagnostics“ and deep dives into the data but they are not predictive of outcomes in a presidential election as your OP points out, but I hope everyone gets that...state polls have a smaller sampling frame, but a tight focus as we get closer to the election. They are more predictive, less diagnostic.