[calcowgirl]

I clicked the link, Ernest. I think the big whoop-di-do about California early voting being some positive sign of anything puts a big pock-mark on the rest of the analysis. The GOP always runs ahead in absentee votes and they’ve had a massive early-voting push on for many months. I got two phone calls months ago from the GOP telling me to watch my mailbox for important mail. What was it? An application for an absentee ballot.

I don’t trust any of the polls. I agree with ladyvet:
Screw the polls...stay the course!!! VOTE!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

From the comments at Strata Sphere to the article linked at post #10:

******************************EXCERPT*************************

# Huanon 26 Oct 2008 at 9:40 am

I do not have a background in polling statistics, but I do have a background and a familiarity with biostatistics. Both deal with people in population. Here are my thoughts regarding the RCP poll average. I think it is erroneous to be averaging polls using the polls themselves as a unique data point each. What the RCP really should do is a true meta-analysis and increasing the data points. Each poll should be weighted based on the numbers of people sampled. Then calculate the their polled choice (McCain, Obama, & Undecided), their assignment of the political parties, and their margin of error as weighted by poll size. A poll that has 600 people should not be simply averaged with that of one that polled 1200 people. A poll that weigh 35% democrats cannot be simply averaged with one that weigh 40% democrats. Finally, the RCP should not be expressed as an average difference as this is meaningless without considering the error margins. I think it would be better to report a statistical tie as a tie rather than a raw number without statistical references.