Reply #173: hang on, depends on what you mean by "disdain"

[OnTheOtherHand]

I appreciate the intervention, but it's important for people to understand how these arguments play out.

Anyone who reads Walter Mebane's work on Ohio will find plenty of "disdain" for the election, although I doubt he would use that word. (And anyone who has heard Mebane talk about DREs knows of his disdain for them -- not that DREs were in wide use in Ohio in 2004.) I point to Mebane because he has done a lot of work on Ohio, but his views are mainstream.

What one won't find in the professional literature(s) is arguments that Bush clearly should have lost in 2004. One does find those arguments about 2000. You mention the legal scholars, but the political scientists had a field day, too. Mebane actually wrote a paper titled "The Wrong Man Is President!" (Yes, the exclamation point is in the original title.)

We need to make distinctions. Brad Friedman seems to be trying to convince people that since I wrote a paper debunking exit polls, I'm professionally committed to believing that the election was fair and square. It doesn't work that way. By the way, here's an excerpt from page 1 of the paper:

Note well: "exit poll fundamentalism" does not refer to the hypothesis that Kerry received more votes, nor the belief or hypothesis that the exit polls evince fraud. These are empirical issues amenable to rational debate, and reasonable people may disagree. Still less does it refer to any and all criticisms of the 2004 election or of election systems.

I go on to say, "Exit poll fundamentalism merits incisive critique –- not to discourage serious inquiry into election integrity or to block election reforms, but to support them." That's how wonky idealists like to think: that better arguments lead to better decisions.

(edit to remove possible gibe)