Reply #264: The hole gets deeper and deeper.... [View All]

"I didn't change the language at all, I'm explaining because you seem to be confused.

The initial poster clearly indicates that the Senate and Presidential races are anomalies, when they are simply the most obvious examples of a trend."

So now trend means to move in one direction, as opposed to maintaining. Hmmm. But, let's put that aside.

Let's look at the rest of what you just wrote. You say that the Senate and Presidential races are just simply the most obvious examples of a "trend". An obvious example of a statistical trend is not a 40% SUDDEN JUMP! That is a gaping wound. It's like playing that old game, which one of these things is not like the other.


"It has clearly been proven that way more Democrats voted early and absentee."

Again, WRONG. Although you are just using wiggle terms here. There was a variance in the number of democrats over the number of GOP in absentee ballots, but it was not NEARLY what you are trying to claim it was, which is supported over and over again by the election day results.

"If you accept that, then this whole debate becomes about the validity of exit polling. Well, that's something which is impossible to refute, and it certainly isn't where this debate began."

No, this is you making stuff up again. This has NOTHING to do with the validity of exit polling, but everything to do with a statistical anomaly, naming a glaring 40% LEAP OF FAITH in a very consistent statistical sample.