k wrote:
For one thing, it's not the partisan conservatives we need to convert, because they probably won't be. It's the middle of the road folks who don't follow closely and think that accusations of massive voter fraud are about as believable as alien abductions. To convince them, you need penetration, and you don't get that from scholarly journals.

You don't understand my point. I'm not arguing that penetration comes from scholarly journals. I'm arguing that credibility comes from scholarly journals. Credibility does not come from analysis from partisan groups with an axe to grind, either. If there is a conclusion to be made here it ought to be made through formal analysis in a serious, peer reviewed context and those conclusions ought to be reported on, not expounded upon, in other places that have more reach. Furthermore, the middle of the road folks aren't reading Rolling Stone. The young are reading Rolling Stone. Their demographic is politically liberal and largely college aged. The purpose of this article is to preach to the choir. It will not reach nor be taken seriously by anyone who isn't already a died in a wool liberal.

RE: Rolling Stone : Was the 2004 Election Stolen?