Some post-election debate focused on the alleged flaws in the pre-election polls, almost all of which overstated Clinton's lead over Dole, some by a substantial margin. For example, a CBS/New York Times poll overstated Clinton's lead by 10 points despite having an error margin of 2.4%. The odds against this sort of error occurring were 15,000:1.[27] A less extreme example was a Pew poll that overstated Clinton's lead by 5 points, the chances of this happening were 10:1 against.[27] Gerald Wasserman, having examined eight pre-election polls, argued that pure chance would produce such a skewed result in favor of Clinton only once in 4,900 elections.[28] However, because Clinton won the election by a comfortable margin,[29] there was no major reaction towards the inaccuracy of the polls.[29] The polls were also less inaccurate than the overwhelming majority of those taken in 1948,[29] which predicted that losing candidate Thomas Dewey would beat President Harry Truman by a comfortable margin,[29] and in 1980, which predicted that Reagan would win without a landslide victory.[29]"