Saturday’s analysis showed Sen. Barack Obama leading Sen. John McCain by 316 to 222 electoral votes (on average) and, in an election held then, would have a 99.7% chance of winning.
Saturday’s analysis showed Sen. Barack Obama leading Sen. John McCain by 316 to 222 electoral votes (on average) and, in an election held then, would have a 99.7% chance of winning."
Here is the beginning of my post. And here is the rest of it.
Of coure one does not need to accept science, Darryl's analysis could fail. sCIENCE IS NOT RELIGION.
Religions* demand that you accept some set of facts on the authority of the leaders of the religion. As you know, Judaism begins with the Schema, a statement that there is one and only one God. Enforcement of acceptance of these "facts" has been so important to the cohesion of society that AFIK all advanced societies have had some form of blasphemy restriction .. often actual laws saying one should not question. Science makes no similar demand since science is based on a model of continual inquiry.
However, since the advent of science, this discipline has discovered "facts" that ares so well established that scientists beleive in these facts and society acts based on these facts.
Just as our ancestors tried to hold the Jewish state together with laws against blasphemy, from Nicea on the Roman empire required beiief in the official canon. In our own time, the communist states had canons of beleifs.
So, my question to Repricans is, why would you NOT be concerned to read that Obama is so far ahead.? Do you have the expertise to challege Bruce Ames. As with global warming, wouldn't you be better off trusting the experts until proven elsewise?
Now, before you jump on me, I am NOT sayihg that the consensus of scientists is that Obama will win. Science is about probabilities and for now ....
* with apologies to Buddhism