Standards of evidence

Today, the Daily Kos drew our attention to someone calling himself "kid oakland," who argues against pursuing the allegations of fraud: "...in the absence of clear evidence of deliberate fraud, claims that the election was rigged are irresponsible and really bad politics." k.o. goes on to make some good points about touch screen voting.

My response:

Speaking as someone who HAS used, and will continue to use, the word "fraud," let me offer a few words of defense.

You say there is no clear evidence of fraud. But we all have differing standards of evidence. I cannot ask you to accept my standard, and you cannot demand that I accept yours.

By my standards, the pattern of disparity between the exit polls and the final tally constitutes sufficient evidence. I am not (to repeat a point I've made about a zillion times now) arguing that exit polls are accurate; I'm arguing that that the errors should go in both directions. In some states, the Republican vote should be undervalued and in some states the Democratic vote should be undervalued.

Yet it is ALWAYS the Republican vote that turns out to be undervalued. In state after state. In election after election.

How many times does a coin have to come up heads before you have sufficient grounds to suspect that this is no ordinary coin?

As for the argument that discussion of the issue is impolitic -- sorry, but this is the POST-election season. This is not a time when when I am going to worry about the larger strategic impact of every damn phoneme that escapes from my mouth. I have an obligation only to tell the truth as I see it. Screw all other considerations.