John P. Mullen wrote:
Grey Satterfield wrote:

On 8/23/06 9:11 AM, in article
, "Jack Linthicum"
wrote:


Grey Satterfield wrote:

On 8/23/06 8:40 AM, in article
ps.com, "Jack Linthicum"
wrote:


Grey Satterfield wrote:

On 8/22/06 9:56 PM, in article , "John P. Mullen"
wrote:

Well, I don't see him winning.

Blaming Lamont for his website crashing is, to say the least, uncool and
not the behavior one would expect of a seasoned legislator. Last I
heard, he hasn't apologized, either.

He's not yet on the ticket. I hear his is doing OK with the signatures,
getting about 80% valid, but there is still the matter of the petition
circulaters. They must be registered voters in Connecticut. That will
be harder to check, but if he used out of state help, he probably won't
make the cut.

And, his recent public statements don't seem to be helping. According
to the article below, he has gone from leading Lamont by 10 points to a
statistical tie in just one week.

The issue is very much in doubt and Lieberman could certainly get beat
again, although I think his chances are better than John seems to believe
they are. It looks as if it is going to be a very close election.

Grey Satterfield

Close is the only way Joe can win, the state is 24% Republican, 33%
Democrat and 43% independent. He needs many people who don't care one
way or another about the war and his closeness to the Republicans, and
those will be hard to come by.
http://americanresearchgroup.com/ctsenate/


Yep.

I could not help but note the puzzling headline in the linked piece,
"Lieberman and Lamont Tied in Connecticut," although the body of the piece
reveals that Lieberman still enjoys a two point lead, 44% to 42%. Even so,
it's an interesting report. It makes clear that the Republican candidate,
who has more baggage than a Skycap, is toast.

Grey Satterfield

The theoretical margin of error for the total sample of 790 likely
voters is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points, 95% of the time, on
questions where opinion is evenly split. The theoretical margin of
error for the sample of 600 likely voters saying they always vote is
plus or minus 4 percentage points, 95% of the time, on questions where
opinion is evenly split.


Nope, it doesn't wash, it seems to me. If the report had been honest, its
headline would have said "Lamont and Lieberman in Statistical Tie," but it
didn't do that.

Grey Satterfield


Eh?

The first line of the lead paragraph is, "Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont
are in a statistical tie in the race for United States Senate in
Connecticut."

Because of the margin of error, they are, in fact, tied. The poll
estimates the true proportion by use of a sample and if a difference is
within the margin of error, it is considered a tie, not a statistical
tie, because there is no statistical evidence that it is not a tie.

Putting it another way, any result of statistical sampling is
statistical in nature. Even a lead of ten points is "statistical,"
because we do not know the true population and it could be very
different. Millions of young soybean plants would give their all to
print the redundant word "statistical" in every published report of any
statistical result were to be added.


Statistically yours,

John Mullen
No statistics were harmed in the generation of this email.


And another example of how a certain political bent keeps people with
that philosophy from actually reading 'anything' for content.
Comprehending and understanding is, of course, never a possibility.