Reply #21: Great post TIA! I'm NOT here to crap on it but...

[Bill Bored]

...I just believe that much of the _larger_systemic_fraud_case_ is based on one exit poll and we need more than that to infer and especially to _prove_ it.

I posted a QUESTION for you about one of your studies on this thread
<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x140579>
which I've now dredged up from the recent archives because you never answered it.

Care to try now, hopefully without _insulting_ what I consider to be a healthy dose of skepticism -- something the Repukes would not tolerate, but we as progressives should be able to?

(Sorry in advance if I'm boring you.)

Here is my question:

>>
But many large discrepancies are not swing states

TIA,

I thought the idea behind the big fraudchilada was to hack the vote in the swing states. This graph clearly shows that there were large red shifts in SC, NE, AL, NY, RI, MA, etc. Not much point in hacking those is there? And if instead of the electoral vote, you wanted to hack the popular vote, why is the discrepancy so small in CA and TX and why are they shifted blue?

Of course, as usual, I do NOT mean to rule out the possibility of election fraud!
>>

So tell me why, according to the graphs you've produced, are there so many large red shifts in the non-swing states and some blue shifts in some large states where a red shift would be useful for Shrub to hack the popular vote?

I suppose we could say that they were just trying to cover their tracks, but I'm hoping for something a little more thoughtful. And in your opinion, will this be settled once Mitofsky releases his raw exit poll data in a few months? Or has that been expedited through the efforts of activists? If not, maybe it should be.

Thanks!