Reply #19: do you have any substantive response to post #9?

[OnTheOtherHand]

Or is this really more about starting fights than analyzing evidence? I know the opinion I'm forming.

Out in the real world, if any quantitative political scientist agrees with you that the exit polls were basically accurate, s/he is keeping the secret well. You can scan the journals in vain for debate on this issue, much less support for your side of it. I'm marginalized as a political scientist not by believing that Bush really got more votes (whether or not he "won fairly"), but by trying to take you seriously.

But when you refuse to address substance, you can't be taken seriously. You simply aren't showing up for work. Febble did more to document election failures in the two months after the 2004 election than Team TruthIsAll has managed in almost five years.

Right here on DU, I presented model results showing how a Gore-to-Bush defection rate about double the Bush-to-Kerry defection rate was broadly consistent with the election returns, the National Election Study 2000-04 panel data, and other evidence. TruthIsAll had so little substantive to say about that model that he got tombstoned instead. I don't think things have changed much since then.

It's a bit annoying to wade through all the swill, but mostly it's boring. We already know that you don't like to be disagreed with. Tell us something we don't know. For instance: what is your substantive response to post #9?