Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: MrChips

The thing is, as bad as the early call was, it is not certain that Bush lost a net ammount of votes from the early call.

What you have is circumstantial evidence and a few anecdotes from people who felt it was pointless to bother to vote after the early call. Note that the key word is "evidence". It's knida like Starr's replacement for Whitewter who said he didn't have enough evidence on Hillary that would lead to a conviction. He didn't, however, say he didn't think she was guilty.

Indeed, it isn't difficult to imagine that it had an effect, and no one is denying that it probably did. But is there real evidence that it mattered? No. Simply an educated guess.


38 posted on 10/04/2004 5:36:18 PM PDT by Cosmo (I'm the pajamahadeen, and I vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]


To: Cosmo
Yes, it "PROBABLY DID." And thus, Brokaw "PROBABLY DID." And I have every reason to suspect that he did and will continue to say so.

Besides, if "anecdotal evidence" means so much as ten people saying that they did not vote because of it (and I saw at least ten such interviews at the time), then that is sufficient. The "probablity" remains that there were far more than ten. Far more.

40 posted on 10/04/2004 5:45:44 PM PDT by MrChips (ARD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson