Reply #56: Glad to see you guys talking.

[Bill Bored]

Just a couple of questions before I get back to work:

Where's the link for this dropoff study? Is that one of Ron Baiman's? It seems like there were about 20 posts on this thread on navigation of Ron's links alone! I must have missed it on first reading. Sounds interesting.

One other question for you Febble:

I understand the theory that because Bush didn't do better than he did in 2000 in the NEP precincts with the Red shifts in 2004, this means the exit polls don't indicate fraud. But we don't really know whether he would have done better or worse in these precincts in 2004 (after 4 years of the worst presidency in history) than in 2000, do we?

So how do we know that he wouldn't have done even worse than he did the NEP precincts were it not for vote shifting? Just because he didn't do better in these precincts than he did in 2000 doesn't mean the red shifts were not due to vote shifting does it?

I haven't thought about this for a while (thankfully!) so forgive me if I'm missing or forgetting something. I'm just trying to poke a whole in the premise of this theory, which always relies on how Bush did in 2000 but not how he should have done in '04. I guess for us it just seems impossible that a guy who was relatively unknown in 2000, and actually lost to Gore, could have possibly done any better in 2004 after the country got to know the man and his "work" -- and that INCLUDES Republicans.