How will political analysts replace polls (due to the inaccuracy)?

Question

Obviously polls must be replaced because they are so inaccurate.

Should the "frontrunners" be determined by donation counts? Donation totals?

Should # of unique donors be factored into existing polls? Included alongside existing polls?

What do you think should be done to make the "whos winning" overview more realistic?

Answer 1

Maybe they should stop polling and trying to determine who is in front. Wouldn't it be great if no one knew who was in the lead. People would go and vote for the candidate of their choice and not be afraid it would be a wasted vote because they wouldn't have a clue. I think that polls help to sway votes. People rarely vote for an underdog.

Answer 2

"What do you think should be done to make the "whos winning" overview more realistic?"

Why ask here? Since all the professionals (i.e., pollsters, pols, media, academics, etc.) can't figure it out I doubt there's anyone here on YA who's gonna have an inkling as to how to figure out what's in the minds of millions of people - especially when most of those millions of people have no idea what's in their own minds when it comes to who they're going to vote for (which is, of course, the central problem the mind-readers (read: pollsters & "analysts") are trying to solve).

Answer 3

Do you actually believe the 'analysts' are any more accurate? The MAIN reason polls are not accurate is they are NOT intended to be. EVERY published poll is RIGGED. The ONLY poll the matters is the on conducted by the Board of Elections.

Answer 4

I'm with Steven on this one, the ENTIRE system needs to be changed to make it more accurate & fair.

Answer 5

obviously another ron paul fan, upset because 95% of paul's own party could care less about him...