Ok.... not sure all of the pros and cons on the "Q-Poll" argument, but Nate Silver/ 538 gives them an overall A- rating, which is actually pretty decent for polling organizations.
Is there something I'm missing here that y'all are arguing about?
This all started WAY back in October/November, which seems like a lifetime ago. QU's national and some state polls had a demographic model more in line with a 2004 electorate (which is how Gallup came undone in 2012) with significant increases in the white vote, and pretty sizeable drops in the Hispanic vote (ie, dropping about 1/3). Part of the reason why QU has had much worse numbers for Clinton, generally, this season was their demographic model. Now, combined with a LV screen and a much more likely demographic model they've moved more in line with the conventional wisdom.
It's cute to respond to those issues with "something something, hack 
"
They're the reason why I've treated QU with a pinch of salt for this season.
k.... thanks for the explanation.... much appreciated.
Was still living in Texas at the time and not following the election very closely, so was a bit confused as to the apparent intensity of the argument on what I never thought of as a particularly bad polling firm.
