Reply #21: Honestly, auto

[Febble]

this is bunk I don't find this very persuasive.

You say:

Of all the evidence of election fraud, the exit polls are the unifying force, the only national evidence, the slam dunk indicating fraud

Frankly, if this is "the only national evidence" then you don't have a case.

Exit polls DO NOT confirm election outcomes. They can be useful, they can indicate that there may be a problem. Maybe a serious problem.

But they "confirm" absolutely nothing.

The reason you do have a case worth making, and the reason why I believe that the attention given to the exit poll discrepancy was actually useful, is that it helped mobilize people to find hard evidence that does indeed suggest that Bush's victory was unfairly won. The Conyers' report contains much better evidence than anything in the exit polls, particularly of systematic disenfranchisement of minorities. The challenge of the Electoral College votes for Ohio was a triumph. I wept tears of gratitude that this time, the voices of the disenfranchised would actually be heard.

But the exit poll story has acquired a life of its own, a life, I might say, "beyond the grave". The exit polls may have a paper trial (and the raw data can be downloaded by you, now, if you want). But it remains a survey of 0.1% of voters i.e. one-in-a-thousand). Not a lot of paper.

To say that the exit poll evidence does not confirm fraud is NOT to accept fraud. It is simply to accept the limitations of survey evidence. You need more. You've got more.

(Edited after a shot of virtual egg-nog)