Wasn't everyone that was correct basing their polling on 2008? They are actually claiming that all the polls that showed Obama winning were rigged with a pre-assumption that Obama would win and they just happened to be lucky.
New York Magazine was trying to be sympathetic to the popular polling figures on its own side of the political, but let out a secret in the process: Public Policy Polling cooked the books all along.
I don’t remember anyone willing to say PPP was actively rigging the polls to reach chosen results, but there it is in black and white. Jensen decided in advance what he wanted the electorate to look like, and so tweaked the numbers until he got what he wanted. This isn’t a whole lot different from what Research 2000 admitted to doing, folks.Then there's the comments that follow the article as readers argue over Nate Silver and the "rigged polls":
But Silver's calculations are all based on the rigged polls. He guessed right because they guessed right. There was no objective information that turnout would be what it was. They all got lucky. That is definitely not science.
Nate Silver based his calculations on a number of national and state polls and applied it to his system. He was 49/50 in 2008 and 50/50 in 2012. It's probability and therefore science. It's not an exact science but he has outperformed pretty much everyone else.