Reply #25: well, that isn't exactly my point

[OnTheOtherHand]

Yes, it is easy for us to talk past each other as we steal time from other parts of our lives already in progress.

My point was that (1) if people are going to argue that the war profiteering corporate media covered up the theft of the 2004 election, they should provide evidence; (2) if people are going to argue that we need independent exit polls in future years, they should provide a rationale. If not, then people can withdraw those arguments (or tacitly concede that they are unsupported), and we can get back to working on election integrity.

If you seriously believe that debating whether election fraud took place is counterproductive, then perhaps you should be making that point to Peace Patriot, who injected the argument into a thread on a different topic. If you actually mean that only arguments on one side should ever be voiced, then I respectfully disagree. We pay a heavy price if we give up on being reality-based.

Frankly, I think your comments on the exit polls are misinformed. Polls are often biased; it isn't some bizarre aberration that requires some extraordinary effort to explain. ("Reluctant Bush Responder" was a phrase made up by election fraud theorists, not the exit pollsters.) And in fact, there is considerable analysis in the public domain (much of it has been discussed at length here) that tends to support the inference of bias rather than massive fraud. You are welcome to believe that the polls offer strong evidence of fraud, just as you can believe that the Grand Canyon offers evidence for a young earth. But I would not relish seeing either argument used in the presence of domain experts. It's great to be controversial, but being dogmatically fringe is not so helpful IMHO.

So, (3) if you really want to defend the premise (if I am reading this right) that the 2004 exit polls allow at most a "shadow of a doubt" of election fraud, then bring it on, and prepare to be surprised. Otherwise, you might take your own advice and focus on arguments that a wide range of observers actually agree on.