Reply #121: Reality time...

[autorank]

"And I think we need to recognize that a lot of people think that Bush won the 2004 election, and probably a lot of them will continue to think that, and in order to get election reform we will need support from some of them, too."

We do not need to agree with those who think Bush won, nor they with us, in order to agree on the need for election reform. That makes no sense at all. Everyone who wants honest elections, and I'm sure that includes the overwhelming majority of Republicans and Democrats, will agree on reasonable procedures. The problem is that the HAVA and other methods of "reform" are really just vendor jamborees where decisions are made based on schmoozing rather than real issues. We could go back to paper ballots tomorrow and provide machines for the handicapped from the current stockpile and every objection to the election, from the standpoint of machines would be answered. Then the observation of the count, tally and reporting could be monitored as well, something everyone except the thieves would agree on, and we'd be done with it.

The theft of the election 2004 is a separate question. Separate arguments.

I've noticed that you're starting to deny the entire validity of polling in your discussion of 2002. You are, at times (not always) reminding me of Elizabeth Loftus PhD. She made a name for her self as a "researcher" and defense witness asserting that eye witness testimony is rarely valid (radical epistemology). In the case of 2002, who cares, it's after the fact. In the case of the exits, we care a lot because it is contemporaneous data collection. "Lets see, I just voted for Kerry and I'm going to talk to this pollster, so, yeah, I'll lie"...please.

If you think that polling evidence is as tainted as it is, why are you even involved in studying it and why are you taking so much time with people who do, according to your view that reporting is largely meaningless?

On edit: And the reality is that as * approaches the mid thirties, people will cry out and ask how did this guy get selected/elected twice. We know he stole Florida (that evidence will come forward)! Damn it, we now suspect he stole 2004 (that evidence is there). That's the political reality. The argument that prevails will follow the political realities. Formerly, only a minority thought it was a stolen election. Now we're in a state of flux (I assume since I have not seen any polls, which would be meaningless by your criteria anyway). Soon, the * team and the apologists for Election 2004 will be in full retreat because the majority will be willing to listen to and accept the arguments we've been making. The arguments are valid and persuasive regardless of the popular mood and trends but they will be come delightfully explicated as the crescendo grows for relief from the misery brought to us by lousy elections and judicial decisions, i.e., * and company.