.... to 'Dick-Riding 538.com." I mean, I know the initial nature of the bet was to track the polls after Romney's "47%" flub, but I keep finding more to love there that just poll numbers.
Case in point, more... eh.... poll numbers. But sort of different.
The Statistical State of the Presidential Race - NYTimes.com:
This time, Nate is analyzing the old politician's bromide about how meaningless polls are (you know "you can't trust the polls," etc). Turns out maybe you can. Nate went all the way back to 1936, made some adjustment for the thinness of the data and found out that the polls are actually right (as in, the candidate they predicted would win actually won) a startling 80% of the time. The two notable exceptions being Dewey/Truman in 1948, and Bush/Gore in 2000.
So, you know, Obama's got THAT going for him, at least.
No comments:
Post a Comment