>That speaks to something very, very wrong in how that data was being collected The problem was mostly with how it was analyzed, not how it was collected. Some

>That speaks to something very, very wrong in how that data was being collected The problem was mostly with how it was analyzed, not how it was collected. Some publications were making bad assumptions that state by state polling errors would end up being independent. 538, who didn't make that assumption, gave trump close to 1/3 chance of winning. Trump won by less than 80k votes in 3 states. Even the state polls weren't that far off--unlikely events happen.