Sorry, but you're wrong. It is not 97.whatever percent.

Assuming that the errors are Gaussian and they've corrected or accounted for all systematic effects (the real kicker in these polls), lets run through some examples.

Candidate A leads B by 2% and the margin of error is 2%. This means there is a 68% chance that A leads B by anywhere from 0-4%. There is a 16% chance that A leads B by more than 4%. There is a 16% chance that B leads A by some amount.

There is a 95% chance that the real results are somewhere in the range of A trailing B by 2% to A leading B by 6% (original lead +/- twice the margin of error).

I'd love to see a real examination of how often election results fall into the window suggested by polls. Not as often as they should based purely on the statistics, I bet. Which means that pollsters are constantly under estimating systematic effects.

Accounting for only statistical differences, you need to ask

1000 people to get 4.5% error

2000 people to get 3.1% error

4000 people to get 2.2% error

assuming two evenly matched candidates.

The 2nd to last paragraph reads as if that is a quote from Osama bin Laden. It is not, it is a quote from the article in the link.

Looking at the graph of African American population vs. Democratic edge, it's not at all clear that a quadratic equation (the big red curve) is the right function to fit the data.

But the data is much to scattered to make a strong conclusion of that. The green line in that plot is also interesting. That appears to be the linear fit and shows three interesting things:

1) there is a slight overall Democratic edge of about 5%

2) As Brad says, since it's basically flat (no slope), if that's the correct function, the % of blacks in a state and whether it leans democratic or not is pretty much uncorrelated.

3) If the red curve is correct, the Democratic advantage is highest when the % of African Americans in a states hits about 15%.

You need to do other statistical tests to see if using a curve vs. a straight line is warranted. There's no indication in that plot that that's been done.

The quote refers to a "her recent determination to use a positive message." That was about a week, right, where she backed of her kitchen-sink, scorched-earth, 3-a.m. strategy.

As I read it, the point of mentioning these shows was not to say McCain can stay up late but that he's "young enough at heart" to appear on these shows.

That's my read, anyhow. And frankly, he does come off quite good when he's on the Daily Show (don't watch the other two).

The time for Superdelegates to make this shift is right after a pivotal election, not just before. They could have done it after Super Tuesday because momentum was with Obama. The could have done it after Ohio and Texas with the "mathematically inevitable argument." They could do it after Penn, IN, and NC with the mathematical argument or the "Hilary has momentum, Obama self destructed" argument depending on how these contests turn out.

But to have a large number of SD come out now, 5 days before a hard fought primary when no voters have voted in 5 weeks, would smack of shutting down the voters.

McCain also told two bald-faced lies in that episode. I haven't seen anyone call him on them.

First, he said that people with 401K's pay capital gains taxes. They do not.

Second, he claimed "innocent people" were killed in the Weatherman bombings. They were not, unless by bombing you mean "explosion while making a bomb" and by innocent you mean "someone making a bomb."

Good 'ole George let him slide on both of these (or didn't know).

That's pretty much what Hilary's answers were. The usual election season pandering on gas prices.

Yes, they are taxed. IIRC, the Federal tax on a gallon is 18 cents. So by all means, lets drop the price a little and drive up consumption thereby driving up long term prices. Great idea, as an article in Salon has recently covered.

Oh, and then lets do the same thing (driving up demand) by releasing oil from the SNPR. And to make matters worse, that's oil the government will have to re-buy later. That'd might be sound policy if you thought oil prices were coming down any time soon, but they're probably not. The SNPR is for an emergency: disruptions in supply, embargoes, war. Not political pandering.

Finally, the trifecta in her ridiculous answer: The oil industry has been investigated any number of times. There has never been a finding of price gouging or collusion except by some local stations. By all means, let's waste money or not investigate serious problems and spend our time looking into this AGAIN.

Factcheck (as always) has a good look at this in their debate coverage. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/taking_liberties_in_philadelphia.html

Last I knew, a parent could opt his or her child out of sex ed. Then they're free to teach them that you can get pregnant from making out in a bathing suit if they so desire.

Can they fire the snarky left and right commentators at the same time? Dowd and Kristol? And replace them with two thoughtful people? I'd settle for two thoughtful conservatives even.

How are "allies" going to help us get out of Iraq? This sounds like a more mild version of Kucinich's fantasy that we could pick up and leave Iraq, it would stabilize, and our "allies" -- who we just had to ask -- would go in and police the place.

Let's be realistic, when we leave, the only people going in *might* be the Iranians.