Opining without doing any research is lazy and undermines good conversation. Your exchange with GP literally amounts to a "uh huh / nuh uh".

Name-calling, FWIW, is even less productive.

>> you needn't know, it was corrected

There were long reports on what went wrong (and what didn't) in 2016 polling.

For example, https://www.aapor.org/Education-Resources/Reports/An-Evaluat...

More importantly, there are explanations from pollsters about what they changed and they speak openly about remaining possible sources of uncertainty/error. See e.g. the quotes in this article: https://www.newsweek.com/how-pollsters-changed-their-game-af...

All of this is a quick google search away, and anyone who has actually paid attention to polling knows exactly how polling has changed in the past 4 years. It's literally impossible to read anything on this topic without knowing that polling firms openly talk about methodology changes. Therefore, your original comment was either intentionally misleading or profoundly uninformed.

NB: You can absolutely agree or disagree with their methodological choices, especially around "shy Trump effect" and whether Trafalgar-like "what do your neighbors think?" questions make sense.

But even if you disagree with their choices, _it's plainly untrue to say their attitude is "you needn't know". To the contrary, they're quite open about how their polling methodology has changed._

Are you willing to defend with evidence and reason your initial claim that pollsters haven't explained what they have/haven't done to try and correct polling methodology? Or are we just going to name-call like we're 12 year olds on a playground/irrelevant partisan zombies in the internet comment section?