.@eyokley Valid in regression analysis modeling the real world, invalid in practicality.
-
-
-
Nailed it. RT
@matt_tharp: .@eyokley Valid in regression analysis modeling the real world, invalid in practicality.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@eyokley I found out none of my polisci profs knew anything about campaigns -
@SarahWMartin academic v. real world. I found something similar in the few J-School classes I took…
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@eyokley probably technically correct. How much do most safe incumbents spend? Usually not much. -
@JonSeaton18 I think an incumbent can spend because they're smart and because they're challenged. Two different worthwhile reasons. -
@eyokley@JonSeaton18 I think we need this guy's definition of "the worse they do." Challenged incumbents spend more, but still usually win -
New conversation -
-
-
@eyokley Fact check: Not a chance. That's a clown comment, bro.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@eyokley. Only vulnerable incumbents spend big $. Only vulnerable incumbents lose. His argument is a false syllogism. Spending more is best.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
-
@mattblock@eyokley that would make more sense.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
@eyokley not unless he just means % ratio of $/vote, or that it means they are in troubleThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@eyokley it does because it means its a more competitive race and thus they are less likely to win. Also if you are unopposed you spend lessThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@eyokley Those who can do. Those who cannot....Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.