The best method of grabbing people’s attention – and selling more advertising – is dramatically covering daily events in a simplistic manner, which is what the news media does every day. People don’t like having things explained to them in detail. Example, I never hear reporters actually mention more than one poll at a time. They typically shove the most dramatic poll in our faces, the one with the largest spread. And they ignore the mass of polls – the bigger picture – which would give us the most accurate measurement of what’s actually going on.
Check out the electoral map of the presidential election at RealClearPolitics. Some media people give the map a superficial glance and claim McCain has the advantage or that Obama and McCain are tied. But if we look at the list of polls for each state, and count how many polls Obama and McCain actually won we see a different picture emerge. (Averaging can be deceptive; a modal analysis is often better).
In the above video, the commentator asks what if McCain were to win Michigan. But he doesn’t delve into the details of the Michigan polls. Out of 30 polls McCain barely wins 7. So, is it even a realistic scenario to begin with? I don’t even see why the media keeps defining Michigan as a battleground state. Michigan is going to Obama.
From the mode of the state polls Obama is also likely to win Colorado and New Mexico. If the solid blue states stay blue, then Obama has the advantage and will win the election with 273 electoral votes. At least this is my prediction. Don’t forget to vote.