Hillary Clinton’s campaign described the ABC News-Washington Post tracking poll that showed Donald Trump ahead as “bad polling,” according to Politico.

Said a senior Clinton aide: “Sorry. It’s just not what we see at all; it’s not what other people seem to have. There just seems to be something about that model that seems off.”

The YouGov Election Model allows you segment voters by demographics, such as age, gender, race and education.

Nate Cohn: “We decided to share our raw data with four well-respected pollsters and asked them to estimate the result of the poll themselves.”

Stuart Rothenberg: “On Election Day 2012, the RealClearPolitics polling average found incumbent President Obama “leading” Republican Mitt Romney by seven-tenths of a point – a statistical dead heat. The actual final result, an Obama victory of 3.9 points, was very different.”

“I cite these numbers not to challenge the RCP average or disparage the pollsters who got the race wrong… Still, the 2012 ‘miss’ should remind us that polling isn’t perfect and even ‘averaging,’ a reasonable strategy, can mislead. Averaging may smooth outliers, but what if one poll always seems to be an outlier, like the Los Angeles Times/USC tracking poll?”

Politico: “While volatility at this stage of the campaign isn’t unexpected, the latest polling data point to an stunningly unstable election environment, unlike any in recent decades.”

Said pollster Neil Newhouse: “There’s every reason to believe that there is huge instability in the current electorate. Four years ago, there were probably 6, 7, 8 percent of voters up for grabs. Now you have 17, 18 percent up for grabs.”

Harry Enten: “It’s easy to find fault with a poll, even from the best pollsters. Anyone passionately arguing that a poll is wrong because its sample has ‘too many [xx]’ or ‘too many of this group are voting for [xx]’ is probably wrong. As you dig into a survey’s crosstabs — looking at college-educated white men, for example, or Hispanics 65 years or older — you’re sacrificing sample size for specificity. The margins of error of subsamples can get huge. Further, most pollsters weight their results by demographics (such as age and race) and not attitudes (like party identification). They do so because historically this has produced the most accurate result. Picking apart individual polls is usually a bad use of time, and the people doing it tend to have a motive.”

Mark Blumenthal: “Gary Johnson and the Libertarian Party appeared on state ballots in all but two states in 2012, and Stein and the Green Party appeared on all but 12. They will likely gain access to at least as many state ballots this year, if not more. Without offering supporters of those candidates an explicit option to register their preferences, we have no practical way of tracking their support.”

“Yet if we prompt for third party candidates, many voters who are undecided about Clinton and Trump (or about voting generally) tend to grab for these alternative options as a way of indicating their uncertainty. Whatever the reason, both history and our own data yield evidence that mid-summer polls greatly inflate the true preference for third party candidates.”

Reuters: “Many voters on both sides have been ambivalent in their support for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and Republican nominee Donald Trump, complicating the task of the pollsters trying to track the race.”

“That sentiment may help explain an apparent skew that recently emerged in the Reuters/Ipsos poll results. Given the choice, a relatively large group of voters opted for “Neither/Other” candidate compared with other major polls, leading to an underreporting of several percentage points for one or other of the two major contenders at times in the race.”

“As a result, Reuters/Ipsos is amending the wording of the choice and eliminating the word ‘Neither,’ bringing the option in line with other polls.”

Norm Ornstein: “In this highly charged election, it’s no surprise that the news media see every poll like an addict sees a new fix. That is especially true of polls that show large and unexpected changes. Those polls get intense coverage and analysis, adding to their presumed validity.”

“The problem is that the polls that make the news are also the ones most likely to be wrong. And to folks like us, who know the polling game and can sort out real trends from normal perturbations, too many of this year’s polls, and their coverage, have been cringeworthy.

Harry Enten: “You’re going to hear a lot about the Electoral College this cycle. At various points, one state or another will be declared pivotal. But stay calm, especially with so long to go until Election Day. It’s too early to take any poll too seriously. We’ll have plenty of time to get into the weeds of different Electoral College scenarios in the months to come.”

“For now, if you’re interested in whether Trump or Clinton is likely to be our next president, I’d pay attention to the average of national polls. Let’s wait until we’re closer to the election and we have a lot more state polling before we zoom in closer than 30,000 feet.”