No...it's historically factual that (R) POTUS candidates have been quite numerically distant from (D) POTUS candidates in given states.
Secondly, poll-wise, that historically factual data has been reinforced as not changing in this 2012 race.
So you're now claiming that Romney isn't numerically distant in all/most/many of these states? Really? And even if we can't agree upon which states are in that category, you've already conceded OR & CA to Obama.
That concession can only be done with an obvious realization that Romney has far too much ground to make up in those states. Hence, Romney is numerically distant -- and has ZERO chance of winning those states.
STOP with insisting that I havee “conceded OR & CA” in order to make a further point. You can repeat that rubbish as long as you like, and it doesn’t make it true. The first time I said there wss a sliver of a chance in OR - you rushed to call that a concession. I then very clearly inforrmed you that I don’t concede OR, that I consider it less likely than WA, and you persist in YOUR characterization of what I meant (something against the RF club rules, I thought). Make your arguments honestly.
Outlier - A value far from most others in a set of data.
California 2008 election results:
1) 61.0% - Obama
2) 37.0% - McCain
3) 2.0% - everybody else
Any statistician or mathematician will easily identify #3 as the outliers (that’s where Goode will be in 2012) To call 37% an outlier is warping the meaning. HISTORY has nothing to do with outliers. The same data point can be in the same position over centuries, but simply because it “never has a chance” of exceeding the higher data point does not make it an outlier. No statistician will ignore a result of 37%. Quick clue - when “everybody else” is either lumped together in a 2% slice or not mentioned - BINGO! They are statistical outliers!
This is now so far off topic it is mere silliness.