NYT/Sienna polling - I have my doubts.

In district after district there are New York Times/Siena polls that are really out of alignment with other polls in the district. Invariably they are skewed heavily towards the Democrat in the race.  Where other polls have for example a Democrat 3 point lead, the NYT/Siena poll shows an 11 or 12 point lead.  Once the midterm elections are finalized, the NYT/Siena polling is going to be proven correct, in the case of a big blue wave, or proven to be complete garbage.

It's not going to be  long wait but Nate Cohn, I'm watching you.  I believe your polling methodology is flawed. I'm not saying it's being done intentionally, but there seems to be something amiss. Whether there needs to be more work done on phone answers vs. non-answers or mobile vs. landline or the weighting, there needs to be some change.

I'm merely speculating here, but do calls for the polling have caller ID labelled as New York Times?  Maybe non-responders believe the call is solicitation and are choosing not to answer.  If that's the case it could introduce a bias towards people who have not had their phones as long and are less likely to screen solicitation calls.  That would be younger people generally, and therefore more likely to be liberal and vote Democrat.  Again that's speculation - I cannot see the crosstabs because they are presumably behind the firewall.  I'm not going to pay for a subscription just to validate polls, because I really d not like the New York Times' editorial slat.

After the election we will see if your methodology is good or garbage.  If I'm wrong, I'll admit it, if the NYT polls are wrong, I'll call it out, because I don't expect the same admission from you.