On Jun 26, 2009, at 7:46 PM, Michael Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:09:44 -0700
> Dennis Claxton <ddclaxton at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Here's another quaint idea. Try reading the report, all of it even.
>
> I did, actually. Found it quite unconvincing -- an exercise
> in tendentious, parti-pris statistical thumbsucking.
Could you, as they say in academia, unpack this? It looks like very standard electoral analysis, and quite convincing. Perhaps you could identify what's "tendentious" and thumb-sucky about it?
Doug