If I understand Taleb's argument, it can be boiled down to the following: A year before an election, there's 365 days worth of news stories, interviews, scanda

If I understand Taleb's argument, it can be boiled down to the following: A year before an election, there's 365 days worth of news stories, interviews, scandals, and other stuff that will be released to the public before election day. The day before the election, 364 days of that election influencing stuff has already happened and the effects of it are now known. As you get closer to an election, you have more information, and there is less time for public opinion to change, so it follows that you can be more certain of the election's outcome. Taleb's assumption that voter psychology can be modeled with a random walk is pretty questionable, but if you give him that assumption, what's wrong with his math? The article doesn't actually address this.