7th attempt at this post…grrrr :( Post used to have paragraph, but I’m testing my theory that the board doesn’t allow multi-paragraph posts any more……Well, Doc, we're all out of "reply" buttons, which should be a signal to me to not write this, but, while I agree with what you are saying, my original objection to the way the CU study was being presented by Warlord (and many pundits around the airwaves) was as a model, so much better than any of the others because it had a perfect record since 1980. Quote from Warlord: " CU data analysis agrees with my assessment, and they've never been wrong. They even called the split-election in 2000 perfectly. CU has Romney at over 330." While it's true that "they've never been wrong". It's also true that they've NEVER BEEN RIGHT!...read on. …I'm pretty sure it is as you said "They could easily have mined the variables to fit the "wins" and thereby gamed the system,". I don't think the good professors were trying to deceive, as they ready admit their model has made only one prediction and that is for 2012. All the other, so-called, right answers were simply back-testing against known result to make sure the model was behaving as it should, since it was built to return the right results of those known outcomes…..Right now the CU model is 0 for 0, not 8 for 8. We'll find out tomorrow (hopefully) if it's 1 for 1 or 0 for 1.