of Michigan colleague Justin Wolfers have been making the case that predicting the political future may come down to one simple question,
cheap real jordans
.

It’s not the poll response typically reported over and over during an election cycle. Since the 1930s,
cheap retro jordans
, pollsters have been developing their forecasts primarily by asking one thing: If the election were held today,
cheap jordans
, who would you vote for? If the sample is both large and representative, this “intention” question can work. It’s also tidy,
cheap air jordans
, as Rothschild explained at this year’s New Horizons in Science meeting in Raleigh, N.C. The raw numbers alone — X percent for Obama, Y percent for Romney — tell the story.

But the intention question gets at who a person would vote for today, which can be misleading the farther you are from the election. Incumbents,
cheap jordans online
, for example, tend to look worse in polls taken around Labor Day than on Election Day,
http://cheapjordansstock.com
, notes Rothschild.

If pollsters are going to rely on a single question, it should not be about voter intentions,
cheap wholesale jordans
, Rothschild and Wolfers argue in a recent National Bureau of Economic Research working paper. Pollsters should ask about expectations: Who do you think will win the election?

While the classic intention question reveals one data point — who the person being questioned plans to vote for — the answer to the expectation question is far richer. In addition to indicating how the person being questioned will vote,
cheap Authentic jordans
, that data point also incorporates information on how that person’s friends and family will vote. The answer may even encode how polled people and their social

http://www.skill-proje...rum_topic&topic=15141

http://bjaeldemosegaar...hread.php?thread_id=22951

http://olivier.michelon.me/blog/?q=search/node/