One more follow up... I will concede that, if McCain wins, there is the *possibility* of rigging. (Of course, the same holds true for Obama, although that's a lot less likely.)
Keep in mind what Nate's predictions are meant to signify. The election isn't a matter of chance. What he's calculating is the probability that the polls are accurate. The polls have consistently shown Obama with a roughly 5-10 lead nationally, and a strong lead in many battleground states. Polls have occasionally proved misleading in close races like in 2000 and 2004, not in races where the candidates are apart by 5+ percentage points. If McCain wins, it will be the biggest upset since 1948, when polling science was in its infancy. There's no plausible explanation for why that would suddenly happen this year after having never happened in all the races from 1952 to 2004; hence, the suspicion of vote tampering.
I understand your point. I wasn't disputing the point that there are grounds to strongly consider tampering. It was his foregone conclusion that it MUST be tampering that I was objecting too.
So, if I roll two ten sided dice and throw a double 0, that means that I've OBVIOUSLY rigged the dice?
ReplyDeleteThe Wolf
Or to put it this way, things a lot rarer than 1 in 100 happen all the time - without "rigging."
ReplyDeleteThe Wolf
One more follow up... I will concede that, if McCain wins, there is the *possibility* of rigging. (Of course, the same holds true for Obama, although that's a lot less likely.)
ReplyDeleteThe Wolf
Wolf,
ReplyDeleteKeep in mind what Nate's predictions are meant to signify. The election isn't a matter of chance. What he's calculating is the probability that the polls are accurate. The polls have consistently shown Obama with a roughly 5-10 lead nationally, and a strong lead in many battleground states. Polls have occasionally proved misleading in close races like in 2000 and 2004, not in races where the candidates are apart by 5+ percentage points. If McCain wins, it will be the biggest upset since 1948, when polling science was in its infancy. There's no plausible explanation for why that would suddenly happen this year after having never happened in all the races from 1952 to 2004; hence, the suspicion of vote tampering.
Kylopod,
ReplyDeleteI understand your point. I wasn't disputing the point that there are grounds to strongly consider tampering. It was his foregone conclusion that it MUST be tampering that I was objecting too.
The Wolf
I never used the word "must." I said obviously.
ReplyDeleteBut, hey. I don't think it's gonna happen. God willing...