Yes, it's true: the Rightwing was right in late September/early October when they began lobbing accusations that the nation's polling outlets were skewing poll results in one party's favor. As it turns out, 19 of 23 prominent polling outfits did indeed distribute polling outcomes that contained a degree of bias compared to the final election results.

The problem of course is that those 19 polling firms distributed polling outcomes that were biased in favor of the Republican candidate. "Liberal" rags such as Washington Post/ABC News and CNN/Opinion Research were amongst the culprits. 2 of the 4 worst offenders were every Conservative's favorite outfits this election cycle - Gallup and Rasmussen.

Perhaps when unskewedpolls.com was launched in order to undo the "Liberal bias" that was inherent in the nation's polls, there should have been a more thorough attempt to prove a "Liberal bias" existed? Perhaps individuals who choose to question experts in statistical analysis should first do some research regarding 'random sampling' before loudly and vociferously accusing various polling outfits of skewing results? Or, perhaps individuals who swore the polls were biased should have examined the history of polling bias in general? 

Admittedly, I have very little sympathy for various individuals who have since acknowledged that their "Liberally bias" polling crusade was a mistake. The creator of "unskewedpolls.com", Dean Chambers, recently posted an article which included this explanation:

Most of the polls I “unskewed” were based on samples that generally included about five or six or seven percent more Democrats than Republicans, and I doubted and questioned the results of those polls, and then “unskewed” them based on my belief that a nearly equal percentage of Democrats and Republicans would turn out in the actual election this year. I was wrong on that assumption and those who predicted a turnout model of five or six percent in favor of Democrats were right. Likewise, the polling numbers they produced going on that assumption turned out to be right and my “unskewed” numbers were off the mark. link

A few quite comical statements are provided here. First, those "samples" he's referring to were, again, RANDOM samples. The reason that random sample after random sample was turning up more self-identifying Democrats than Republicans is because there are more self-identifying Democrats than Republicans. And his "belief" that equal numbers of self-identifying Democrats and Republicans would turn out in the actual election was again, antithetical to what random sample after random sample was telling us. So, it shouldn't have been shocking to anyone that the EVIDENCE BASED polling numbers "they" (i.e. - statisticians using actual data) produced turned out to be right while the "unskewed" version with EVIDENCE FREE assumptions turned out to be wrong.

Dean Chambers wasn't the only rightwinger offering this explanation. Dick Morris, who predicted a Romney landslide, offered this similar response to his inaccuracy:

I derided the media polls for their assumption of what did, in fact happen:  That blacks, Latinos, and young people would show up in the same numbers as they  had in 2008. I was wrong. They did. link

For Dean Chambers part, at least he left it at this. Morris, after initially acknowledging that the problem was his inability to do math, proceeded to careen his intellectual car over the same cliff that left him having to explain his errant prediction in the first place:

But the more proximate cause of my error was that I did not take full account of  the impact of hurricane Sandy and of Governor Chris Christie’s bipartisan march  through New Jersey arm in arm with President Obama. Not to mention Christe's  fawning promotion of Obama's presidential leadership.........

Sandy, in retrospect, stopped Romney’s post-debate momentum. She was, indeed,  the October Surprise. She also stopped the swelling concern over the murders in  Benghazi and let Obama get away with his coverup in which he pretended that a  terrorist attack was, in fact, just a spontaneous demonstration gone awry.

Sadly, in retrospect, after Morris got burned by ignoring the polls which directly contradicted his opinion regarding election turnout, he acknowledges as such... and then continues to ignore the polls which directly contradict his point about Hurricane Sandy. Specifically, on October 24th, Nate Silver penned an article entitled "In Polls, Romney's Momentum Seems to Have Stopped. Hurricane Sandy didn't hit U.S. shores until October 29th. Silver later outlined this specifically, on November 4th.

And this seems to be the righwing trend right now: continuous tripping over of the same flawed rationale. How many more times must the GOP have proven to them that the polling around these issues, when applied in the right models, is shockingly accurate? If the GOP comes away from this election with the mindset that they did everything right and had it not been for Hurricane Sandy, would be ushering in President Romney right now..... then I would predict continued GOP collapse.

In short, I'll let Rachel Maddow do the legwork:

“And he(Obama) really was born in Hawaii, and he really is legitimately President of the United States, again, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics did not make up a fake unemployment rate last month, and the Congressional Research Service really can find no evidence that cutting taxes on rich people grows the economy, and the polls were not screwed to oversample Democrats, and Nate Silver was not making up fake projections about the election to make conservatives feel bad, Nate Silver was doing math, and climate change is real, and rape really does cause pregnancy sometimes, and evolution is a thing, and benghazi was an attack on us, it was not a scandal by us, and nobody is taking away anyone’s guns, and taxes have not gone up, and the deficit is dropping, actually, and saddam hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, and the moon landing was real, and FEMA is not building concentration camps, and UN election observers are not taking over Texas, and moderate reforms of the regulations on the insurance industry and the financial services industry in this country are not the same thing as communism....... You guys, we’re counting on you. Wake up. There are real problems in the world. There are real, knowable facts in the world. Let’s accept those and talk about how we might approach our problems differently.” link

Love her, hate her, or offer no opinon either way - that's about as straight forward and simple as it gets. One can only run from the truth for so long; at some point, it must be acknowledged.