.. . .winston wrote :

Char, when it comes to political debates, you have proven yourself to be a
one trick pony, if it isn't an ad
hominem attack or another form of lie used to advance your agenda, you
would have nothing to say.

Resultantly, I am not surprised you would denigrate the "pedigree" of the
journal "Electoral Studies", as that
serves your purpose. You present nothing which refutes the study, nothing
that shows the journal itself is
disreputable, nothing that factually impugns the veracity of the research,
the integrity of the methodology or
the objectivity of the authors. You simply use a broad brush, dipped in
feces, in an Alinsky-like attempt to
squelch any information you find contrary to your agenda.


There's a boatload of information and impropriety surrounding ScienceDigest
and its parent company and Group 'pedigree'. Dipping your net on the suport
side appears to be sinking your boat, just like the last one launched on
voter fraud.

Funny, you still can't provide ANY evidence to discredit the journal
Electoral Studies or the specific study in question. Don't worry, I am
probably the only one who noticed your bull**** ad hom attack.

Hey, Norm posted a link to an article from the Washington Post about
this same topic, maybe you should try to discredit that source too?

http://wapo.st/28Qd4lq

ROTFLMAO!