morleyq saidThis is how science works. The model wasn't devised to produce desired results. It may be the case that the model will fail, If so there'll be some head-scratching followed by revision of the MODEL.
Ohhhh, I get it. Well, in THAT case, I hear the tick tock of a countdown to when the head scratching (okay EXPLODING) will begin and MODEL REVISION will ensue
Sorry, but it is clear that you still don't get it. You are postulating wishful thinking - desired results - as science. Which is a complete reversal of the scientific method.
I'm open to hearing criticism of the model, but absent that you sound like someone 100+ years ago who said that it is impossible to build an airplane and that those who do will crash and "EXPLODE" and have to revise their model (to not flying).
If you wish to learn more about what you are (currently not) criticizing, see:http://election.princeton.edu/romentum-rove-1nov2012.php
"National polls show a tie, while state polls show a decisive Obama advantage. Here I suggest that the difference may arise from the fact that the same systematic pollster errors can have different effects depending on whether they occur in national vs. state surveys. Based on past elections, national poll aggregates differ from election results by as much as 2.5%. During the same period, state-poll aggregation has been considerably more accurate. Even if state polls have the same accuracy as national polls, races at that level are usually decided by larger margins, leaving room for aggregation to remove the effect of the error. I suggest that the Meta-Analysis of state polls provides a more accurate poll-based prediction of next Tuesday's outcome than national polls."