Wow, I must have hallucinated the Democraic harping on Bush's history in 2000 when I had the DTs or something, since Professor Westen says they never talked about it.

Now that was a funny article. I do vote my gut. I think about what I hear from both parties and what the Democrats say makes me so nauseated that I will vote for whatever candidate the Republicans offer me, even when I have serious doubts about his capability. My gut says, "At least he is going to be better than x (= whatever Democrat)." Am I being unreasonable in this?

And Ed is right; what a silly denial! There are Democrats STILL whining about the 2000 election, and saying something similar happened to Kerry (please!) and will happen again, because the Republicans have an insidious lock on the electoral system. I think they speak with an awareness of what they feel very low in their guts, very low indeed.

If a professional study from a reputable university shows something I'm hesitant to disagree with it. Statistics trump everyday experience. Ed and Kate's personal anecdotes cannot refute hard data. Until a similarly in-depth study shows otherwise I find the researcher's claim far more credible than the random commenter's.

Statistics over stories, always.

Even professionals from reputable universities might have some desire to skew the historical record. Who here does not know what can be done to make statistical data say what is desired? Statistics can be made to tell stories.