Reply #102: for the record, this is lame as it ever was... lame as it ever was...

[OnTheOtherHand]

No one here is "defending these monsters."  Nor has
anyone argued that the Bushies [b]wouldn't[/b] steal the
election because they are just too nice, or whatever.  You
should stop trotting out this flaming straw man.  If someone
came over and posted that Bush is a space alien, or that he
eats babies for breakfast, would it be permissible to point
out that there really isn't evidence for that?  Yes, you think
the evidence for fraud is better, and I'm happy to discuss the
evidence.

TIA is actually right that even the 41/39 Bush/Gore split in
the unweighted exit poll results is, at best, very unlikely
(although it could be due to sampling error) -- which is
another reason why he should catch on, belatedly, that what I
have said about false reporting of past vote is true and
important and not just a ploy to blow up his argument.  But I
doubt that he will.  I guess now he thinks that the exit polls
were biased by Reluctant Kerry Respondents??  I dunno, I can't
be bothered to think harder about it than he does.  His
numbers don't make sense, do they?  If the maximum possible
Bush proportion was 39.82%, and Gore had just 500K more votes,
how could the Gore proportion be 41.25%?

And by the way, he is misstating the facts (what a shock!). 
"Naysayers claim (Bush) won 15% of returning Gore
voters" -- no, only one "naysayer" (TIA's
favorite N word) has suggested a percentage, the percentage
was lower, and I've said repeatedly that I do not know and
cannot know what the percentage was.  What is needed in order
to account for Bush's victory margin is some combination of
differential turnout and differential defection between Gore2K
and Bush2K voters, and I think that differential defection
alone could do it.  TIA has never proven that it can't -- in
fact, he doesn't even argue the point.  Oh well.