3 ms·
That Washington Post survey you mention is flawed for a number of reasons, the main being that while it showed Ahmadinejad ahead 2:1, it was only with 33.8% say
by brown9-2 17y ago
That Washington Post survey you mention is flawed for a number of reasons, the main being that while it showed Ahmadinejad ahead 2:1, it was only with 33.8% saying they'd vote for Ahmadinejad, 13.6% for Mousavi, and a full 42.5% of the respondents saying that they were either undecided or would not answer the question.
Obviously a survey in which the amount of undecideds is far greater than the amount saying they will vote for a candidate is hardly evidence of strong polling for that candidate.
More: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/did-polling-predict-ahmadinejad-victory.html http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/did-polling-predict-a...
- bilbo0s 17y agoLet's suppose, however, that 100% of the undecided went for Mousavi. Well, he would have just barely won, about 55-56%. It is statistically improbable that 100% went for Mousavi. So while we are not talking about something that was mathematically impossible, we are talking about something that was statistically improbable.