(the serious point is that it is possible to slip on the scrolling finger when giving a rating and accidentally give the wrong rating especially when using a mobile device, in my opinion 'tis a pity the diary announcing that "every single one" had lost the power to rate did not offer an appeals process)
((but I am pleased to see the guidelines have been updated to take account of the difference between troll and hide ratings))
"Who knew there were so many statisticians that read MyDD, or that they had problems comprehending an Y axis, clearly numbered, that doesn't begin at 0!"
"Why has this happened? It's pretty clear in one of the other graphs that Cost presents:"
OK, I note your sarcasm directed at statisticians but...
Statisticians are interested in something that you have failed to address - the difference between casual relationship and correlation.
And some statisticians remember that even in some primaries, for example Texas, it was predicted that Senator Obama would get more delegates per vote than Senator Clinton because of the way districts were mapped and delegates allocated.
Sometimes statisticians are as good (or even better) at reality as modern partisan bloggers who headline a diary "More reality based posts on the primary process".
"Jerome presented a graph from another site which he provided a link to first, with a host of other graphs to compare and contrast.
Calling him out publicly to label as deceitful with the intent to mislead is way over the line and totally inappropriate"
If you had clicked that link the chance you would been have been deceived could have increased.
Of the "host of other graphs to compare and contrast" the only one that did not have a zero base line was the one that Jerome posted. It was positioned after/under many charts that had a zero base line.
So, to be charitable I will assume Jerome was himself deceived and in his haste to diary good news for Senator Clinton accidentally widened the circle of deception.
I am embarrassed that anybody could buy into Marc Ambinder scratching around for a sequence in which Senator Clinton did well, coming up with 13 states, and describing it as a half.
And what is even more embarrassing is a person who is frequently outraged that people are calling the winner of the whole game before the final whistle is blown is calling the winner of the second 'half' before the second half whistle.
And is a tad embarrassing that a person who often emphasises the role of the superdelegates reproduced a table that could only claim that Hillary was up in delegates by excluding the superdelegates.
(but after a recent campaign conference call in which alegre took part in which Hillary said "It is... not the math" I am embarrassed but not surprised)
I know we are especially keen to post diaries sympathetic to Senator Clinton after her recent assassination gaffe, but this article has already featured in the diary Hating Hillary by canadian gal, Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:20:01 AM GMT > http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/22/2320