Reply #145: You're correct, Professor. Those "leaps in logic" include

[Dick Diver]

(1) The assumption that a "best fit" linear progression can predict predict outcomes within a complex social ecosystem. It would seem that both Malthus and the stock market would have dissuaded us of this long ago. This is not a purely qualitative objection, as this analysis forms the basis for TIA's base Democratic and Republican percentages, as well as the trend increase factors and presumably the UVA allocation.

(2) The use of a MoE of 1.5% when that MoE of the underlying data was much higher. In scanning the first ten or so generic polls referenced in the thread, I found MoEs ranging from +/- 3 to +/- 4. TIA's highest MoE as published here is 3. I would suggest a MoE of +/- 3.5 would be a much more reasonable assumption. It's incredible that one would attempt to base an analysis on a MoE that is significantly less than that of the base data.

If one looks at the impact of two simple changes of assumptions, allocating the UVA 50%/50% and using a MoE of 3.5, the impact on the result is significant.

Moreover, my analysis is simply from the mechanical side. Skinner's post noting the function and usage of generic polls is equally applicable from a different direction.