Reply #72: no, it's very serious

[OnTheOtherHand]

If no one on your team has a plausible reason why the 2004 recalled-vote tabulation evinces massive pro-Bush fraud, but the 2000 recalled-vote tabulation does not evince pro-Gore fraud, then it would seem appropriate for someone formally to admit that the argument does not hold up. (Or if someone wants to argue that Gore did steal millions of votes in 2000, that would be interesting, too.)

Actually, I'm not sure there is a relevant Presser quote. If it's really in Presser 1990, I sure don't see it; the study was absolutely not about how close the survey was to an election. (Judging from the paraphrase, the original claim might have been that people are more likely to overstate having voted in a past election the closer they are to the next election.) In any case, the primary question I am concerned with is whether people wrongly report having voted for the incumbent, not whether they wrongly report having voted at all -- although obviously those questions are related.