OT DIsappearing act

wrote in message
...
Um, you might want to really review the numbers - it was hardly "a
landslide."

I think I said 6% or so popular vote edge, EV would be a landslide, which is
defined as a plus-125 or better margin.
Damned close, actually......
Tom

On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 23:27:15 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
Um, you might want to really review the numbers - it was hardly "a
landslide."

I think I said 6% or so popular vote edge, EV would be a landslide, which is
defined as a plus-125 or better margin.
Damned close, actually......
Tom


Hey, anyone can define "landslide" as they choose because there is no
real definition, but the numbers simply aren't in the range and
distribution to indicate what most objective observers would call "a
landslide" or even "a mandate." By all means, it was a clear victory,
which is a very good thing, but I'd not get carried away.

TC,
R

On Nov 7, 9:41*am, wrote:
On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 23:27:15 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:



wrote in message
.. .
Um, you might want to really review the numbers - it was hardly "a
landslide."

I think I said 6% or so popular vote edge, EV would be a landslide, which is
defined as a plus-125 or better margin.
Damned close, actually......
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Tom

Hey, anyone can define "landslide" as they choose because there is no
real definition, but the numbers simply aren't in the range and
distribution to indicate what most objective observers would call "a
landslide" or even "a mandate." *By all means, it was a clear victory,
which is a very good thing, but I'd not get carried away.

TC,
R

Oh I don't know that any of us are in a position to determine what
"most observers" would call it. But I do know that, in the lack of a
legal or even popular definition of what a 'landslide' is, your claim
that it is not one is as valid as anyone elses. Which is just how you
like it. :-)

--riverman
(By the way, I call it a 'landslide' AND a 'mandate'. Prove me wrong.
bseg)