Who Can Really Say?

Eugene Volokh's conspiracy reigns supreme today.

First, try Jim Lindgren's and Eugene's analysis of Bill O'Reilly's lawsuit for exortion. When I practiced law the "offensive-defensive" strategy, as I recall the term as it was used by one lawyer in the office in particular, was to respond to a threatened lawsuit by suing first. The best defense is a good offense -- that sort of thing. Given O'Reilly's embarrassing debacle suing Al Franken a while back, I hope for O'Reilly's sake (and that's not something I'm in the habit of doing) that he's got better counsel this time around.

Next, Eugene and then again, Lindgren, mull over the most recent stories about voter fraud. (Jim Lindgren is the newest member of the conspiracy and I guess I don't know him well enough to call him by his first name). We all, of course, fondly remember the excruciating Florida recount from four years ago. What most people don't remember though is that Bush lost New Mexico by 366 votes statewide, but there was no recount there. I'm not optimistic that come next month such a close election will get a pass, although I'm open at this point to the suggestion that we all go to New Mexico to vote.

And last, Orin Kerr links to a brief essay by Larry Sabato on the state of the Presidential Election. To that I'll add that the Mystery Pollster had a very intersting post last week on whether or not, and why, undecided voters do or don't break for the incumbent in Presidential elections. He updated the post here. Taken all together, Kerry is arguably in the drivers seat at the moment, although Mystery Pollster makes the important point that the break for the incumbent is measured against the last poll before the election, and not against polls three or four weeks before the election.