Finally, the trend is clear and Obama ie either ahead or within the MOE in almost all swing states. Unless ALL the polls are systematically biased (they’re not), Obama will likely win. Anyone who denies that probability is simply deluding themselves. Could Mitt win. Sure, but it is far less likely than an Obama win.

We should rather be exploring the cosmos, relativity of time, being, countin’ strings.
The heck with polls. Six days from now someone will be clearly right and

I have not spoken my full mind about Mitt Romney because, even if he is elected President, he is a mere man and will pass from the scene in his own time and his own way. As will you, as will I, and as will even Brian.

But ideas and collective habits of mind endure, and I have no hesitation about rebutting those I think are bad ideas and bad habits. And I presume, since these comments are monitored, I have done so without excessive personal rancor to anyone. If this is not the case, then I apologize to any who feel personally wounded or offended by any of my comments.

Beyond that, I try to think as clearly and write as well as I can, without making a parade of my credentials, since I think none are relevant except that of being a citizen of a free and open society.

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/2012/09/27/my-take-on-the-polls/#comments

when he said that following:

“I’m sure by now you’ve asked yourself, “Why is this Marshall character over here? He’s obviously a committed Liberal.” I’m here because most of you are intelligent Conservatives of the non-mouth frothing sort, who really ought to have an alternative to both what is in the Republican platform and the Democratic Party that they actually believe in. Probably you already do.

But I can tell you that it is so heavily encoded, self-referential, tied to an arcane set of books that no ordinary voter has read, and articulated in such vague and general terms that it is largely unintelligible outside of your closed circle.

Abstractly, and beyond my own partisanship, I think this is a shame. By definition, a democratic society needs a clear articulation of every point of view in order for the People to make an intelligent choice. The lack of one erodes the intelligence of even your opponents and is objectively bad for everybody.

And encourage you, even for my sake, to start doing the thinking you need to do to talk about the alternative you believe in clearly to everybody else.”

I do wonder what’s changed since that post. Perhaps Romney’s prospects? Perhaps, Mr. Marshall? Regardless, I’m sure he’ll be back to his good graces post Nov 6.

Anyone who comes to a conservative site and writes this sort of nonsense first better bother get his own stuff straight, which apparently was beyond you, and second certainly can’t whine about someone “calling me names.” Your sudden sensitivity is just too precious.

Of course the poll itself is subject to sampling error, i.e. its assumptions on likely voters is inaccurate. This is why different polls give us different results. However, if a poll shows even a 1 pt. lead for a candidate, then there is a higher than 50% probability of that candidate being ahead among those that the pollster considers likely voters – the true probability can be calculated based on its MOE and CI.

Sites like RCP, Nate Silver’s fivethirtyeight.com, the Princeton Election Consortium, etc. help filter out the noise of sampling error to project true probabilities by state. I think it is pretty likely that these two sites will not be off by more than a few EVs. Silver thinks Obama is a better than 7-to-3 favorite and Princeton thinks that Obama is a better-than 9-to-1 favorite to win. It seems to me that you’d be getting pretty good odds by betting on the President on Intrade today.

As to calling me names, I’m not unfamiliar with the experience, but after 60 years I’m rather deadened to it. My grade school playground days were long ago, and responding in kind is simply a bore.

I think Joseph Marshall meant “extrapolate” (not “interpolate”). Aside from that, everything he stated made sense to me.

For someone who supposedly has a PhD in physics, your argument and counter contain very little substance.

Sorry for the late response, I just found this site.