Reply #31: Yes, I read Partridge's article

[Febble]

Some of it I thought was good. But the exit poll part I found flawed. If you want to know in which way flawed, I will tell you, but only if you ask.

And yes, I take the opinion of Mr Blackwell seriously. What I don't take seriously is your pretence that you think that I am gullible. If Blackwell can point to real flaws in the case against him, then that's to his advantage, not to the advantage of Ohio voters.

And if your argument is that even a watertight argument won't convince people, so you might as well use a leaky one, well I beg to differ.

As for "identifying the hierarchy in the spectrum of incontrovertible-controversial evidence" whatever that's supposed to mean, trying to sift good arguments from bad is precisely what we've been trying to do (if a spectrum can have a hierarchy - sheesh, do something about your metaphors, man...)

And the exit poll arguments are bad arguments. Terrible arguments. The evidence that the polls were biased is, pace Mr Partridge, not circular at all, and fairly compelling. The evidence that the discrepancy was caused by fraud is mostly unsupported (except, possibly, by the finding that in urban precincts, the discrepancy was higher where older voting technology was used, suggesting a possible role of differential residual spoilage in the discrepancy), and, if anything contra-indicative of widespread, massive fraud.

But go ahead and believe that the exit polls are evidence of fraud if you want to. Just don't expect anyone to believe your assertions in the face of lucid and informed arguments to the contrary, and don't be surprised if someone like Blackwell wriggles out of valid charges of malfeasance by pointing the gaping holes in the arguments that the exit polls evince vote-switching in Ohio. They don't, and it probably didn't happen. If Blackwell stole Ohio, it wasn't in any way the exit polls could detect.