What's the latest in statistical inference there, Washington Post?
The Republican National Convention begins in Cleveland in 31 days. That means that one month from today, Republicans will (almost certainly) start the process of nominating Donald Trump as their presidential nominee to take on Hillary Clinton in the fall campaign.
That prospect looks increasingly problematic — somewhere between a stone-cold loser and a long-shot gamble. With not only the White House at stake but also Republicans' Senate majority and maybe even their House majority in real peril, the idea of nominating Trump should be cause for a growing sense of panic within GOP ranks.
No doubt they appreciate the advice. But surely there's some evidence, right?
Here's why, courtesy of a chart from RealClearPolitics detailing the polling averages for Clinton and Trump over the past three months.
Trump's numbers shot up in the wake of his victory in the May 3 Indiana primary, a win that effectively sealed his nomination. But as May wore on, Trump's poll numbers not only hit a wall, they began to collapse.
OK. Here are some suggestions if you want your analysis to be taken seriously:
1) Ignore the Real Clear Politics "polling average." It is not a meaningful number.
2) Never write paragraphs like "oomph," whether you understand the results you are describing or not.
3) If you insist on ignoring (1) and (2), at least look at the damn Y-axis.
Read more »
Labels: editing, polls, washington post