We are talking about the predictive value for an election. In that situation the world does not work linearly.

We are not talking about rolling the dice 1000 times, where the chance of each outcome is known ahead of time. We are not talking about people driving a car every day for their entire lifetime to assess the probability of an accident. LLN does not apply as the underlying factors / behaviors are not nearly so predictable.

We are talking about a single election, and whether or not a linear progression of polls has much predictive value.

It does not.

It is a misuse of mathematics / statistics to make a point with it, as if it were meaningful, even when adding caveats.

“The predictive power of that progression . . . .” I agree, as I noted in an earlier discussion with you, this is all speculative. Only on November 9th will we really know who/which polls were accurate and to what extent.

I disagree with you about how the world operates though. To say that the world doesn’t operate in a linear fashion is not correct. The theory of large numbers presumes precisely that, and with that data, insurance companies can predict, to within about one quarter of one percent, the number of people who will die in any given age group in a given year as well as the delta, the change, in that rate over longer terms. You are right that the world certainly does not always or consistently operate in a linear fashion, especially on a short term basis, but sometimes it does do exactly that.

That’s basically correct. ALL I’m saying is that the data CURRENTLY is best fit with a linear function, AND if extended out to Nov 8, intercepts the 75% probablility for Trump. NOTHING MORE. I put in all the caveats about using linear functions for complex systems, but no one seems to read those.

I fully expect toward mid October that the fit will be more logarithmic, than linear. But until the data shows such a trend, nothing more to do.

What is a hard lesson to learn in doing science is that what we EXPECT to happen can’t color what the data is showing now.

The predictive power of that progression and $4.15 will get one a Venti Mocha at Starbucks drive thru, and that’s about it.

Whether such criticisms are fact baased or not, remember that physicsguy is saying that his current progression indicates that Trump will have a 75% chance of winning, not that he will win by 75%. That’s very different. Physicsguy, correct me if I’m wrong.

If trump’s campaign is woefully behind, then it might be worth more. How much? 2%?

How about when the NYT is defending their own coverage balance against complaints from the left…

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/11/public-editor/the-truth-about-false-balance.html?_r=0

Of the two candidates, he (trump) has the longer row to hoe.“ RCP article

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/09/15/party_identification_shift__may_hobble_trump_131778.html
.

Yes, trump is moving up in the polls, but there remains an unusually large undecided vote for this point in the race.

And, it is hard to say if those not yet in clinton’s camp , but were in obama’s in 2012 (sander’s supporters?) would really swing trump’s way anyway.

GOTV will be critical this year. On that, Dems seem to have a superior, and better funded operation. But, who knows for sure, as not much has been public about trump’s GOTV operation.

This still seems to be a “clinton’s to lose” election.

That said, neither are getting my support.

I used to wear a pair of blue sunglasses a lot. They were a fashion statement, and fortunately I wasn’t wearing them for any medical reason. I’ve seen plenty of people who do the same.

Of course, it’s a possibility that Hillary wears them for medical reasons. But certainly not the most likely one.

Oh, and it’s not Parikinson’s the Zeiss glasses help. It’s a very specific type of epilepsy, photosensitive epilepsy (where epileptic fits are triggered by flashing lights). It’s a rare form of epilepsy accountable for only 3% of epileptic sufferers.

I think you are grasping at straws.