- Jan 6, 2009
- 9,094
- 1,749
- 190
You really have to be told what No Toss Ups means? Here's an idea, maybe you should refute the OP with some actual data and not a 12 day old national poll.
Yes, please explain how the 'no toss up' numbers are arrived at? and then explain how they can be even the most slightly relevant?
Because the aggregate of polls actually shows one candidate winning but RCP doesn't put them under a candidate unless they are up over 5%. 5% is well outside the margin of error when you are aggregating multiple polls.
I
Once again, I invite you to provide data to refute what you've been shown.
That makes no sense? Are you still talking about the 'no toss up' poll? Clearly there are several states that are under the 5% margin, and they are clearly assigning them to whichever candidate they currently have showing as ahead. Your link shows 290 vs 248, that is clearly counting every electoral vote. Even if you aren't talking about the 'no toss up', there are still several states under the 5% margin.
I can link polls just like you can, it proves nothing. I never understand why when people are quoting a poll and using it as evidence that they also don't include the statistics about how a poll has been conducted. Many, many variables can be used to show a swing one way or the other. For instance, since you're so up on RCP polls, are they using 2008 turnout in any of their algorithms?