Reply #50: I'll upgrade that to "grrrr"

[OnTheOtherHand]

I have no idea what your point is about Klinkner, yet, but this further quotation might help:

"It is really incremental movement," he (Klinkner) said of Mr. Bush's re-election. "The correlation between the vote in 2000 and 2004 was about as high as any pair of elections since the late 19th century. Essentially, Bush did 3 percentage points better this time, and he did so everywhere."

http://polysigh.blogspot.com/2004/11/polysighers-in-news.html

It's quite true that the "Kerry Didn't Win" post didn't address itself to rebutting whatever decisive-fraud arguments you may or may not think it should have addressed itself to rebutting. But it seems safe to infer that he didn't believe those, either.

In 2004, Bush had the advantage of incumbency. The pre-election polls showed a close race, with high turnout, and on average Bush slightly ahead. I think you have fundamentally confused yourself that one can say '2000 was close, 2004 was close, ergo 2004 was a replay of 2000, ergo we can assume that new voters determined the outcome.'