More on Lampley
A Leftist observes:
> Lampley's point *is* that oddsmakers have been guessing correctly up
> until now.
And the change in their guess on election morning was a direct result of the rumors regarding the election polling. They constitute no independent confirmation of the accuracy of the exit polling because they depended on the exit polling. The logical string of Lampley's argument is essentially: oddsmakers are smart folks, oddsmakers relied on rumors about exit polling on election morning, thos rumors had Kerry ahead, hence Kerry must really have been ahead, and hence there must have been some vast conspiracy to alter vote tallies to give Bush the election. Our presumption would have to be that oddsmakers never rely on faulty information in order to support such a conclusion. That presumption is clearly false...quite funny, really. Because as we have seen, the oddsmakers had *Bush* ahead prior to election morning. So either they were relying on faulty information the day before the election (i.e. public polling results)...or they were relying on faulty information the day of the election (exit polling results). Either way, at some point, the oddsmakers were relying on faulty information...completely collapsing the foundation upon which Lampley builds his argument. Lampley's thesis is, to be kind, fatally flawed. A house of cards built on sand doesn't quite encapsulate this thesis.