Shlishi: Calling a coin toss correctly doesn’t make the random choosing of heads or tails any more scientific. We both agreed pre-election that he’s a partisan hack. Nate’s “scientific” collection of polls that liberals love to tout, were barely scientific at all. Where was the Gallup poll in the averages? He seemed to make room for every high school that decided to hold a poll, though Gallup was not added to the average. Also, not one pre-election poll assumed that Republican turnout would be lower than 2008. How does averaging out results of polls that wrongly determine the turnout of voters deemed “scientific”? With skewed data comes unscientific results, however correct the results may turn out.
It’s funny that Republicans are portrayed by liberals as hating math, numbers, and science. We all know that it’s a farce. When a liberal person using unverified scientific methods spews the results to attack the GOP (or vice-versa), there is little reason to believe those numbers or scientific methods have any substance.
I will admit that his numbers can be scientific with some tweaking. He needs to learn about the fundamentals behind polling and not just the technicalities. It shouldn’t matter if in the past 30 elections the incumbent won if the election was on the 6th of the month. Or whether the Redskins win or lose their previous home game (this year was an anomaly compared to the previous 19 elections).