You can't use a "general law of statistics" as an indisputable fact,
Rev. You are no more certain that a vote for Murray, or Singh, or
Otes or Anderson would not have gone to Sanders, etc. than I am
certain it would have. There is no way of knowing, and worse yet no
fact from which to draw an inference. That's why I termed your
analysis useless (a nicer word than Joe used).
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "noblarneyzone" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Are you familar with the law of general statistics associated with
> voter opposition to incumbents...
>
> They generally vote for anyone who runs against them.
>
> In so noting, every vote would have gone to the challengers in the
> trimmed ballot. (10 only names)
>
> The interesting downside to that statistical law, is that without
> the challengers, the opposition doesn't vote at all.
>
> So for you to think they may have voted for the incumbants is like
> Moses striking the rock at Marra, three times when God told him
to
> strike it once.
>
> It cost Moses a ticket into the Promised Land.
>
> My dear Joe, please don't take offense that we differ.
> Please continue your diatribe, for it helps sharpen my wit.
>
> I love you Joe, for God first loved me.
> I Corinthians 16:14
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
