Reply #42: i didn't have time to finish the post yesterday [View All]

and left the analogy dangling.

what i intended to point out was that the medical researchers were successful because they used all the data for their after-the-fact analysis. the same approach must be applied to elections - criteria must be established and then strictly adhered to. it must be used to blindly analyze the thousands of state and federal elections that have occurred over the past 20, 30, or 50 years. i would accept that this type of analysis will identify 'suspicious' races worthy of further investigation. i will not belabor this point since others have made it much more eloquently than me by this time. nevertheless, from what i've seen here, the analysis has been completely backwards - identify races that were suspicsious based on a hunch (i.e., the odd 18181-18181-18181 connection or the fact they were deemed crucial for the republican takeover of the senate); only then were statistics used to confirm the suspicions.

and i apologize if i've been unduly ornery - it's probably due to the fact that i work in a lab, and i've found it work best if the toughest critics are fellow members of the lab, that way by the time it's time to present results to the outside world, it's a cakewalk - we can instantly and easily answer any and all critical comments (but it admittedly can be a bit rough on the thin-skinned)