The article spent a lot of time speculating about the reasons why one candidate or the other had a lead, without providing any data. Then it gets to this guy’s model, and it’s based off predictit??
I think Harris pulls this off, but as problematic as some polls can be, betting markets are even less reliable. This article essentially means nothing.
The article spent a lot of time speculating about the reasons why one candidate or the other had a lead, without providing any data. Then it gets to this guy’s model, and it’s based off predictit??
I think Harris pulls this off, but as problematic as some polls can be, betting markets are even less reliable. This article essentially means nothing.