Enjoyed your article Bill. I appreciate that posture that you are taking trying to be truly objective…hard to find these days.

While I think your analysis is spot on using the polling data available, I also think (in my opinion) that the nature and quality of the data that has been collected is where the real answers lay. We are reported the “news” each night, but the ‘truth’ of the story is as different as the network tuned in. I recognize this might be beyond the intended scope of your article, but while our eyes and experience do mislead us sometimes, they are not to be ignored all together and can be used in harmony with the available data.

If one was to look solely at activated grass roots supporters in this election cycle, we would have had a Sanders vs. Trump election, yes?

When you combine this with the high risk exposure of so many currently in positions of power to a Trump presidency, you can see where there might be motivation, (with documented funding sources) to create as friendly as numbers for data analysts to start with.

Of course, this is no conspiracy…it’s just the business of elections. The longer you’ve been in the game…the more money behind you…and the better players you have (or hire) on your team…the more likely a positive outcome.

And of course it will be a relatively close election in one direction or the other…(notwithstanding the possibility of either candidate saying or doing something so outlandish and offensive beyond what has already been said and done without serious apparent damage to either party…aren’t we all still shaking our heads in disbelief.)

But if we do end up with a ‘Brexit’ type surprise on Election Day, I’m guessing that the public sources of data you are fairly analyzing will be a starting point for the explanation.