Reply #16: that's completely untrue

[OnTheOtherHand]

I spend very little time thinking about exit polls. Very little time is needed, because the exit poll results aren't becoming more plausible in retrospect, and the fundamentalists' arguments aren't improving. Kerry still didn't win Pennsylvania and New Hampshire by double-digits. There's really not much room for debate. I realize that a lot of people feel that the exit polls must somehow have been accurate or 'telling' despite it all, and it saddens me that some people are so willing to believe what they are unwilling to defend, but it doesn't leave me much to think about.

(I do roll my eyes when I see your assertion that you "think" I am "dead wrong." Experience and your own words say that you will never stand by that. Yes, I admit, it actually does tick me off.)

So, when I'm not doing my other work, I work on post-election audits, and I chase down all sorts of election fraud/misfeasance allegations to see which ones hold water, which ones are bunk, and which ones are indeterminate. I like to know which are which.

Thanks for revisiting the Utah story, so here is my side, which isn't long: I told that reporter that I largely agreed with Kathy Dopp both about voting machines and about audits, and we talked about those topics as long as we talked about Dopp. Now, if you actually told the reporter that I was wrong about Dopp, then you have that on your conscience. Otherwise, it worked out just fine. So, what's your beef? I probably should have given you a heads up, but were you somehow going to come out in favor of DREs if you didn't expect the call?

I understand why you thought your OP was unrelated to exit polls. That remains the fault of the film-makers.

FWIW, my basic take on the Clint Curtis story is that Yang Enterprises has no apparent bearing on elections anywhere -- but if Curtis is right, it certainly tells us something about Tom Feeney.