to the editor: i stopped using the phrase <u+201c>margin of error<u+201d> many years ago. it implies that we can calculate all the different sources of error. looking at recent polls here and abroad, it is obvious that we cannot. humphrey taylor new york the writer is chairman emeritus of the harris poll. to the editor: re <u+201c> news media again misreads complex pulse of the nation ,<u+201d> by jim rutenberg (mediator column, front page, nov. 9): clearly, there is no point listening to months of punditry or election-night coverage. a crystal ball or a pair of dice are just as reliable. thanks, media, for covering donald trump<u+2019>s outrageousness instead of pointing out hillary clinton<u+2019>s policies. ratings, ratings, ratings: that<u+2019>s what<u+2019>s important. stephanie acquadro westfield, n.j. to the editor: is the times going to explain why, as late as tuesday, it posted a prediction that there was an 84 percent chance that hillary clinton would win? might that have dissuaded some folks from voting since it looked like a runaway? james p. lynch king george, va. to the editor: i have been active in american politics since i turned 18. i have knocked on many doors, talked to many people about whom they were voting for and why. the people i talked to never said donald trump<u+2019>s name. never. were they embarrassed? was he too controversial? weren<u+2019>t they proud of their decision? maybe this is why the polling was so wrong. trump voters didn<u+2019>t want to say they were voting for him. they<u+2019>re angry and feel invisible. so they spoke through the ballot box. gail heller minneapolis to the editor: the media<u+2019>s hypothesis was wrong. <u+201c>college educated<u+201d>: i heard that repeatedly during the election result analyses on tuesday night. apparently all college-educated women would vote for hillary clinton. i am a white, middle-aged, college-educated woman. like mrs. clinton, i graduated from a seven sisters college. according to your understanding of my demographic, i should have been securely in the pocket of the democratic nominee. i wasn<u+2019>t. like a good feminist, i was gender-blind when i considered the qualifications of the major-party candidates. in fact, voting for mrs. clinton because she is a woman is the least feminist thing i could have done. we call that sexism. here is what i did consider: character. i have always voted policy over party lines. but this year, it was all about character. above policy. above experience. above gender. so does that mean i think that donald trump is of good character? i voted third party. whitney siddons frisco, tex. a version of this letter appears in print on november 10, 2016, on page a22 of the new york edition with the headline: a stunning failure of the media and the polls. today's paper | subscribe
a stunning failure of the media and the polls
noauthor