One glaringly obvious “oddity” was the fact that they did representation based on state by state average, but then lumped each state into a group and then tried to say that was representative of the nation? How does that follow? Should it not be based off the nations as a whole if we’re making those generalizations? Margin of error being 3% of thousands is a lot of dealerships.

All I’m saying is that people need to excercise caution when it comes to statistics. These might be statistically sound measurements but the story they actually tell is much more specific. The data only tells you what you measured, meaning is derived.

For example, remember the chip shortage? Wonder why they all had such a hard time getting those cars in. Wonder how many of those dealerships if they could get EVs would sell them regardless of the opinion of one franchise owner - because business swings at its own pace. If that owner pushed against them they’d just fire him and hire someone else who won’t have a problem with it.

Maybe they don’t sell EVs because the populace legitimately doesn’t want one.

They also mention “translating answers to yes or no” what does that entail? Why was a critical data transformation not explained in detail??

They make no effort to explain any potential conflicts or any errors with their paper whatsoever- this is a boutique poll presented inappropriately and will be misconstrued by the media as always and echoers.

Don’t lump this poll with real data science.