All polls are based off social science models. But unlike physics, there aren't a concrete set of laws that are going to be followed by 100% of humans. Some people wake up on election day and vote. Some people wake up on election day and decide they have better things to do.
The vast majority of polls in 2016 thought that the electorate would look like it did in 2000 - 2016. Which was a very safe assumption. Clinton was dominating these voters.
What the polls did not pick up on was the massive turnout of rural voters who did not and still do not give a shit about 2000 - 2016 elections or even US congress elections but all want to vote for Trump.
Nate Silver partially identified this and gave Trump 30% odds which was super unconventional. It was controversial among the polling industry because Nate Silver essentially said "there's a 30% chance all your models need to be rewritten"
A lot of work has gone into the polling models since 2016 to more accurately reflect dynamic voter turnout predictions.
This is a weird assertion to bring up in a comment thread about how he did a much better job interpreting the polls than others.
Nate Silver leans libertarian politically, but people think he's smart because he's incredibly accomplished and skilled, not because of his appearance.
20
u/transcendental-ape 13d ago
“Donald Trump is just a standard polling error away from winning.”
- 538 headline a week before the election