The guy made a model that he (and the nytimes) think is reasonable. The model takes inputs and spits out a probability. As the inputs change slightly so does th

The guy made a model that he (and the nytimes) think is reasonable. The model takes inputs and spits out a probability. As the inputs change slightly so does the output. He's well within his right to publish these changes. What's the problem? That you just can't accept the validity of day-to-day basis-point changes in 'chances of something happening' when the inputs might be dirty? Can't you just say 'oh, that's nice' and take it as a directional signal without allowing it to irritate you? I'll take a thoughtful statistical analysis any day over the words of a single television journalist giving me second-hand information from a 'source within the campaign' especially when any campaign insider has an absurdly strong incentive to manufacture public perception in his candidates favor.