A few months ago, people were being banned for posting election fraud diaries, but now...
Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 10:31:42 AM PDT
...we have a mainstream Democratic politician like Tom Vilsack giving credence to fraud allegations, and citing people like Steven Freeman, who, as I recall, until recently, was being dismissed by Kos front pagers and other "anti-fraudsters" as not having the expertise (in that he is an academic, not a professional pollster) to claim that the exit polls in Ohio were accurate and the election results therefore suspicious. On Heartland PAC's Web site (
http://www.heartlandpac.org/...) Vilsack writes of RFK Jr.'s recent Rolling Stone article:
"Kennedy does an exceptionally fine job explaining the mystery of 2004 exit polling. He uses data by Steven F. Freeman, who specializes in research methodology, to support his thesis the exit polls were accurate"
He goes on to write:
"This article is a must-read for our community and anyone who cares about the electoral process."
I've also noticed that there seem to be fewer and fewer "anti-fraudster" opinions expressed in recent diaries on the 2004 election. A major shift appears to have taken place in people's view of the whole fraud argument. If so, is this just the effect of the RFK Jr. article, or is something else going on? And, if you are reading this and you are a former "anti-fraudster" who has changed his or her mind, what has caused you to do so?
Permalink | 41 comments