Don't think so. Do you know anything about the process of sampling and estimation? These people actually work with raw data, something I suspect you never would consider as it can't drive your narrative.

I'm very interested in the failure of these methods as an analytical exercise.

It isn't prohibited in the constitution, and that makes a certain sense to me (though I'm a bit surprised that treason isn't explicitly mentioned).

What about the parties? Do their charters have stricter rules?

No ! The system is rigged

If Giuliani is the next Attorney General, will he impanel a grand jury to investigate the Clinton Foundation? The FBI cannot impanel a grand jury; only the Department of Justice can (because they are the lawyers; the FBI are the investigators).

A grand jury is made up of typical citizens and has the power to issue subpoenas (which is why the Obama Admin. didn't allow one to be impaneled for Hillary's classified intel investigation).

The FBI has not had subpoena power thus far (except for the time the DOJ sought it from the judge in the Weiner underage sexting investigation).

Remember, Giuliani made his name as an anti-corruption federal prosecutor, finishing up as the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York before becoming mayor of NYC.

Also, the FBI is still investigating the Clinton Foundation for pay-to-play and other corruption. Will Giuliani want to see this through?

Its accuracy is the failure in itself. As for the various methodologies they used, a monkey in China proved to be more accurate.

I believe pollsters have been convening on how they got this and Brexit so wrong. I'm are there are articles and up coming papers on it. I suspect it is simply the human factor of unpredictability.

I'm pretty sure what Trump said about locking her up (and many other things) will be quickly forgotten and ignored. It was just 'campaign talk'.

Do you mean the real Hillary Clinton or her body double?

No, because he'll be Homeland Security secretary. Ask Chris Christie instead what he will do.

I don't think so. You're looking for collusion where none exists. And the polls were close with respect to popular vote, but failed on electoral college.

There is a degree of uncertainty inherent in all estimation. I believe modeling turnout may be the sticking point.

This could drive poll aggregators to use more open source methods. And yes, I expect it's a topic that will be studied.

With respect, we don't know that. In the UK the phenomenon of the 'shy Tory' is well established. For various reasons, whether mischievousness or genuine unwillingness to reveal their intentions, the responses of people in polls has become less reliable over the years. In a close race, remember that it takes only a small number e.g. 5% or so, to misrepresent their intentions, and the polls are way out.

I don't have any linkage on collusion with the polls, but according to leaked emails, there was definitely collusion between the Hillary campaign and mainstream media outlets (CNN, NYT, etc.). The polling organisations are often publicly traded and sure owned by some interests.

On the inaccuracy of the polls, remember that the media and you amongst them worked very hard to shame people for supporting Trump. Racist, bigoted, deplorable and all, I'm sure that many voters did not bother to publicly tell the truth about how they will vote. That is the problem with trying to beat people over the heads like that.

He will close bridges . All part of the infrastructure trump wants to build ,with money congress will not approve

Perhaps. But I do think that power in Washington is prefaced on leverage of one person over another. Hell, Clinton had leverage on Bernie Sanders and used it to ward off public criticism. I'm sure there will be some further investigation to warrant the extent of wrongdoing. Whether or not it will be prosecuted, if any evidence is found, may or may not be a value judgment call.

I don't know why people keep saying this about Brexit polls. There were plenty of polls giving Leave a narrow lead in the final weeks of the campaign, and plenty giving Remain a narrow lead. Given the margin of error, this was a reasonable reflection of the eventual 52:48 result.

Much more striking was the inaccuracy of the predictions for the 2015 general election. A hung parliament was by far the most popular prediction. Almost no one predicted an outright majority for the Tories.

I think hi said all those nasty things to get in the news troughout the campaign.
On the speach after he won, his language was completely different.
Hi will not lock up Hillary. She is not "lockable"IMO

Listening to her speech couple of hours ago - I personally think she will run in 4 years time. Was in her eyes. Third time lucky maybe!?

I assumed Christie's out at Justice because of Bridgegate but I guess you never know.

With Christie as AG, the question still stands (particularly as Christie was a former USA that made his bones doing anti-corruption cases).

I'm sure she'd like to try but by then the party will be done with her.

Polls are a waste of resources to give false hopes to people they deliver nothing and are irrelevant in the modern era

She got more votes - hence I've asked this question.
True, she might not get the support from her party. We shall wait and see. Politics changes as we have seen recently.