One of the entertaining, if very insider, side stories of the 2012 presidential elections was the <a href="http://www.ci85.fr/oreille/bottes-ugg-pas-cher-femme.html">ugg pas cher</a> that went on in the world of punditry. On one side was the traditional pundit class, accustomed to using its prophetic special sauce <a href="http://www.ci85.fr/oreille/bottes-ugg-pas-cher-femme.html">ugg australia</a> varying parts gut, experience, reporting and data – to inform news consumers of the state of play <a href="http://www.ci85.fr/oreille/bottes-ugg-pas-cher-femme.html">bottes ugg</a> on the other side were political science nerds – “quants” for their quantitative mindset <a href="http://www.ci85.fr/oreille/bottes-ugg-pas-cher-femme.html">ugg soldes</a> who lacked years of shoe-leather campaign-coverage experience, didn’t bother with their guts and insisted that data alone could give a more accurate view of the election. <a href="http://www.ci85.fr/oreille/bottes-ugg-pas-cher-femme.html">botte ugg</a> The o |