Like stating that Global Warming science did not become politicized when the term "DENIERS" was substituted for the usual and customary term "CRITIC". Now why would they do that....think, think...oh yes, for politics.Well, actually I think the term is just as appropriate for this case as it is for people who deny the roundness of the earth or the earth rotating around the sun. "Critic" implies that there is a reasonable difference of opinion which is not easily decided one way or the other. Here we have a bunch of perfectly good science on one side and a bunch of crap and emotion on the other side, so "critic" doesn't seem like the appropriate term. Politics or no.And the analogy to D-Day is just as false. No one is faking poll data. It is real data. It has real averages. One can interpret it in probabilistic terms. One can assign confidence intervals. Sure, at the end of all that there is still a role for interpretation, e.g., figuring out why the national data and the state data have a couple point discrepancy. But, that is an entirely different kind of activity than denying that the data exist and tell us something about where sentiment stands today.Of course, there are other factors than sentiment such as how well that sentiment is going to translate into people actually showing up to cast their vote. But, hey, we have data on that too.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra