|
|
|
« Good Night | Main | The Fetishization of Bipartisanship » November 03, 2004The Day AfterYes, I realize that it's technically the same day, but allow me a little poetic license. It would appear that the various models were more right than wrong this time around, as President Bush won a clear majority of the popular vote at a time when the economy was solid and the country was fighting in a war. Although I'm quite confident that the hard lefties will maintain that President Bush stole this election as well, it seems clear that Bush was the preferred candidate this time around. The Kerry campaign deserves a great deal of credit for properly targeting their efforts, however. Despite losing the popular vote by 3.5 million ballots, Senator Kerry fell only 137,000 votes short of victory in Ohio, the state that would have given him 272 EVs and the Presidency. George W. Bush was the first candidate since his father in 1988 to win a clear majority of the popular vote, but where George H.W. Bush won 426 EVs, his son will walk away with only 286 (granted, a landslide relative to 2000's 271). That's a very effective performance by the Kerry campaign. Doubtless the Bush administration will claim a mandate, given his three point win in the popular vote. That's unfortunate, as I'd bet money that the Bush win was ultimately predicated on the war, and not on his domestic agenda. Unfortunately, our two-party system leaves us with crappy choices like that. In some ways, Tom Daschle's loss in South Dakota may be regrettable, as he had an uncanny ability to hold the Democrats together in the Senate for filibusters. I didn't like his obstructionism, but it could turn out to be preferable to Republicans pushing a bunch of dumb bills through Congress. Once again, we don't have a definitive answer the morning after the election (though, once again, we do know the winner). At least this time, perhaps it will only take a fortnight to close the deal. If the Kerry campaign simply holds on until the provisional ballots are counted without filing a load of lawsuits, I think they can get away with it. If they start filing suits to flip states, I suspect Kerry will face some pretty sharp backlash. Time to go to work. Posted at November 3, 2004 08:10 AM
Trackback PingsTrackBack URL for this entry: CommentsOh ye of little faith. It appears that you were wrong about Kerry. Do you think Bush would do the same in the same situation. I don't know, but I was just curious. Even though there are places where lawsuits probably could have been filed, he took the best course. I said he would and I think most on the left are fine. Those that disagree are the minority and it is nor fair to call them far left, they are just crazy. In the same way that some on the far right are just crazy. George Bush said he would reach out to Democrats to help unite teh country again. He has said that before, but wasn't even able to do it after 9/11. We will see, I guess and I will give him some time. What I don't see happening is Tom DeLay changing. I have said before that if Kerry lost, the Democratic Party woul split and fall apart. I think it will start to crack more along the Howard Dean line. Not because he is more liberal, but because the party seems to have becom weak and unwilling to fight. Kerry tried it a couple of times, but he never looked natural doing it. That is also why I wanted Daschle one. Republicans say he was an obstructionist and in some sense he was. He did block bills, but since 9/11 he has been weak. He spends more time saying how he is like Bush, then he did opposing him. That is how 2002 was lost for many senators too. If you are going to run that you agree with Bush so much, why nor elect the guy who Bush actually wants. Wellstone was up here and gaining until his death and many polls said it was because he was vocal in opposition to Iraq and his vote against authorization. Noone else did that and noone won. I am more of the fighter liberal. I think that as evil as I believe Karl Rove is, he is a genius. He is not afraid to use unethical means. That is only a guess though, since it has never been proven that all the suspicious things that have happened in most of the campaigns he has run. I actually prefer divided government to what we currently have. I think the country was better not because Clinton was president ot the Republicans controlled the House, but because both og those things were present. One party can't just push through a one-sided agenda. And noone is right all the time. Compromise is how we get good laws, not force and intimidation. I will just see who leaves. I think if Rumsfeld and Ashcroft stay, it will not be an administration I can agree with. Plus, in the rare chance that I get called off IRR because of Iraq, someone will get their ass kicked. Posted by: Scott at November 3, 2004 09:51 AM I think its a mistake to only look at Ohio for how close you think the EV is. In in New Hampshire Kerry won by just 9,171 votes, in Wisconsin by 12,696 votes, in Minn by 98,438, in Pa by 121,489, and in Mich by 165,044.
In other words, Kerry was just as close to winning as he was to getting blown out. Posted by: bains at November 3, 2004 11:48 AM I found this line in a CNN story: "While a slim majority, 53 percent, approved the president's job performance, a similar figure -- 49 percent -- said that they were "angry" or "dissatisfied" with the Bush administration." Isn't that 102%? Or did some people approve of his bad performance? Posted by: Scott at November 3, 2004 01:21 PM Post a comment |
