At this moment of vindication for Nate Silver and even for less-sophisticated poll averagers,
can we shame the MSM about their "statistical tie" lies sufficiently to reduce their resort to this particularly shameless method of propping up Republican candidates?
Statisticians can refine this point (please comment or start a new diary on this), but even a layperson like me can see the following:
1. If the margin of error (MOE) is 2%, and Obama's reported lead is 2%, then the likelihood of the race being "tied" is the same as the likelihood of Obama having a lead of 4%.
2. If the MOE is dictated in large part by the size of a poll's sample (such as 1,000 respondents), and if ten similar polls are added together (with a combined total of 10,000 respondents), then [corrected to reflect input from the comments:] the MOE is substantially reduced -- although not in a linear or obviously proportionate manner.