# It's official: Kerry/Edwards 2004. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 6, 2004, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-kerry-edwards-2004/253783 "2004-07-06T13:59:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Mal\_Adroit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df788c/32.png) [@Mal\_Adroit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mal_Adroit)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2004, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-kerry-edwards-2004/253783/61 "2004-07-07T18:58:28Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Because it was wrong, as both simple arithmetic and the cite from **jshore** indicated. Joe Kennedy may have been a crook, but I think I have ample reason to disagree that he bought the election for his son. Of course you do. If I chose to disregard the investigations of a Pulitzer-Prize winning reporter of more than 30 years, I’d have ample reason to ignore it myself. Even the Slate article you bring up cited by **jshore** covers Hersh’s view of the matter. . . and doesn’t dispute it! > [@](#): > > So it does indeed make a difference that even if the rather iffy claims about Illinois are true, Kennedy still wins. Don’t blame me! I’m sorry, I sincerely don’t follow you here. I’ll start looking for that quote from the Almighty, though! Sweet mother of pearl. . . ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2004, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-kerry-edwards-2004/253783/62 "2004-07-07T19:17:56Z")
> [@Moody Bastard](#): > > Of course you do. If I chose to disregard the investigations of a Pulitzer-Prize winning reporter of more than 30 years, I’d have ample reason to ignore it myself. Appeal to authority, anyone? I do not disregard Hersh automatically; the subject is disputed. Unless Hersh won his Pulitzer for this, I think I’m OK in doing so. > [@](#): > > Even the Slate article you bring up cited by **jshore** covers Hersh’s view of the matter. . . and doesn’t dispute it! Yes, it makes reference to it. That’s not exactly proof that he’s right, now is it? > [@](#): > > I’m sorry, I sincerely don’t follow you here. Your first post, the one I took issue with, made clear that you thought Joseph Kennedy rigged the election for John. Now you’re debating whether or not he fixed the Illinois election. Even if he did, JFK had enough electoral votes to win outright, so he did not “take care of the rest.” > [@](#): > > I’ll start looking for that quote from the Almighty, though! Sweet mother of pearl. . . Yes, I’m such a jerk for holding you to something you said. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2004, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-kerry-edwards-2004/253783/63 "2004-07-07T19:43:35Z")
> [@Moody Bastard](#): > > Even the Slate article you bring up cited by **jshore** covers Hersh’s view of the matter. . . and doesn’t dispute it! Well, that is because that article doesn’t come to any definitive conclusion. It also doesn’t really dispute the views on the other side, such as: > [@](#): > > But what’s typically left out of the legend is that multiple election boards saw no reason to overturn the results. Neither did state or federal judges. Neither did an Illinois special prosecutor in 1961. And neither have academic inquiries into the Illinois case (both a 1961 study by three University of Chicago professors and more recent research by political scientist Edmund Kallina concluded that whatever fraud existed wasn’t substantial enough to alter the election). What seems apparent is that there is considerable dispute about the election and no definitive conclusion has been reached. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-kerry-edwards-2004/253783.md?page=3)