Now What Will They Do?
Dean
Most sources now agree that Bush won both the popular vote and the electoral vote last night. But apparently the Kerry folks aren't ready to concede. I wonder what they have up their sleeves?
About
A note on our important Editorial Policy.
Your donations help make Dean's World possible.
Or you could buy something for Dean from his WISH LIST!
Dean Esmay
Editor-In-Chief
Freedomist Network
Individual postings by contributors copyright by their respective authors.
Editor-In-Chief
Contributing Editors
Celia Farber
Categories
Music, Movies, Books, and Etc.
Questioning the HIV/AIDS establishment
Subscribe
Archives
Old Archives
We Support
|
Dean's World uses and recommends:
They reek of Pringles and failure.
The problem?
Michigan Kerry 51% Bush at 48%
Wisconsin Kerry 50% 1,216,828 Bush 49% 1,192,285
Iowa Bush 50% 719,455 Kerry 49% 707,865
Minnesota Kerry 52% Bush 47%
New Mexico Bush 52% Kerry 47%
Nevada Bush 50% 281,385 Kerry 49% 276,252
Hawaii Kerry 55% Bush 44%
So if Bush wins NV, NM, and IA and loses WI and MI, then Bush wins at 286 votes.
So it looks like George W. Bush becomes the first man to win a Presidential election with the assistance of his opponent.
Absolutely farking incredible!
Congratulations to President Bush, and congratulations to the youth of America, who've proven beyond a doubt that their vote
matterswould have mattered.Seriously though, while I was for Kerry in the end, I was only marginally so, and never thought Bush was a bad guy. I hope he's declared the winner, sooner than later, and we can get on with supporting him on issues we all agree on.
For all the bitching about Andrew Sullivan of late, I hope you have to give him credit for his posts last night. He's been much more gracious than others would have been in a similar situation.
Of course, there's a bit of (what Sullivan calls) votenfreude here too. To quote Oliver Willis: We're telling the world that we endorse the last four years, and give thumbs up to more evil.
Heh.
That stretches credulity. Bush has carried Ohio. And won the election.
Rudy Giuliania was just interviewed on TV and said it well: “It's now time for an act of statesmanship”. That's right. If Kerry drags it out until the last lawyer is hung, it will continue the damage to the electoral process that Gore/Lieberman did in 2000. And it won't win him the election. And it won't help future Democratic candidates one bit.
Both parties need to move more to the center.
He is, however, one of the sharper hammers in the sack.
(1) They have no plan, this is simply an irritable gesture in lieu of any plan: from now on, the Democrats will habitually react to any Presidential election they lose, no matter what the margin, with lawsuits and obstinate refusal to concede.
(2) We are witnessing the birth of the quasi-metaphysical Democrat doctrine that any Republican victory in a Presidential election is inherently illegitimate, simply because it is a Republican victory: those who vote Republican are too brainwashed to know their own true self-interest ("are suffering from false consciousness"), hence the only true source of political legitimacy lies in the cutting edge of political and cultural progressivism ("the vanguard of the proletariat").
(3) The Democrats are waiting, a la Eminem, for millions of enraged anti-Bush Americans to take to the streets, wearing black hooded jackets with the hoods pulled up over their heads.
I'll give my full thoughts on the results of the election when I am more awake, but for now I want to just throw this out there and see what people think.
At this point in 2000, Al Gore had more reason to believe he had genuinely won the election by actually carrying Florida if all the votes were couinted properly. But I believe that everything that happened in Florida - no both sides, before and after election day, so no, I'm not saying Bush stole anything - severely damaged the integrity of the electoral process, mostly by undermining faith in the system for signficant numbers of people.
This morning, I think John Kerry has much less reason to think he can prevail in Ohio. I think Bush has won soundly and fairly. But I think Kerry will do more to restore the integrity and faith in the process by waiting to concede after we see just how many provisional ballots there are. Note I didn't say waiting for a count of those ballots - as soon as it can be demonstrated that Bush as an X-vote lead, and there are only X-number of provisional ballots and some ungodly percentage of those would have to be legitimate and then some other ungodly high percentage cast for Kerry, I think he ought to throw in the towel.
But provisional ballots are a legitimate part of the process now (believe me when I tell you that I saw with my own eyes thousands of people yesterday who were casting South Carolina's version of it, and not because of any intent to defraud anyone). Just saying at this point, "Well, it's over, despite the fact that there are still some legitimate votes to be counted," will again challenge faith in the system.
Again, let me reiterate, I think Kerry has lost. I'm probably mad about it, and I am certainly disappointed. I don't think those votes in Ohio will make the difference, and I think he ought to concede as soon as there's a count on the number of ballots. But until that point, I think a concession is bad for the electoral system.
So too sum up. Gore - more reason to pursue challenge when it came to winning the election, but whole thing damaged the system more; Kerry - less reason to pursue Ohio challenge when it comes to winning, but more ultimate damage to the system if he doesn't wait a little while longer to concede.
Now, am I just way off base from lack of sleep here or what? Let me hear from you.
So why not concede?
Bush won his re-election fair and square, electoral vote, popular vote, and all. And he will have a mandate to govern. Among the American people and in the US Congress. Anyone who thinks otherwise should take a careful look at what happened to Tom Daschle.
I saw Bush at his appearance in the high school auditorium in Richland Center, Wisconsin last Tuesday. It was a singularly event for me. Bush is much more impressive in person than he is in a television debate with a slick lawyer. He makes his point by use of analogies, in a style that I remember Franklin D Roosevelt using in some speeches I heard when I was a child.
Although he talked briefly about Iraq and terrorism, his Richland Center talk focused on inter-relationships among lowering taxes, growing jobs in new industries, having an educational system that will better prepare people to earn a living in these new industries, and having a health care system that small employers and independent businesses could afford to buy into.
Bush brought a handful of local people to his Richland Center talk and put them up on the stage, where he largely let each of them tell their own stories about how his policies already have had a major beneficial effect on them. One man was a small factory owner who had been able to purchase some major capital equipment items and hire more employees because of tax breaks. Another was a young man who had been able to buy his first house with his wife and get out of rental apartments. He had spent part of his morning that day talking with a local farmer in Bosstown, Wisconsin about the specific economics of his particaly part of the dairying industry. And so on.
Above all, he talked about the benefits of making the United States and "wonership" society, where the largest possible number of citizens own their own property, own businesses with which to support themselves, and could be considers stake-holders in the society. I understand this completely, because it describes me and my family as we know ourselves.
I'm still overcoming the fatigue of endless work on behalf of Bush's re-election, culminating in a day yesterday as a poll checker and poll watcher that began at 6:45 am in our local precinct in the Town of Cross Plains, in Dane County, Wisconsin, and did not end until late at night with the return of numerous poll watch materials at the Bush-Cheney campaign headquarters over on the far east side of Madison, which is most of the way across this big county.
Was it all worth it? You're damned right it was.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Heheheheh. It's been a tough campaign season. I think we could make a fairly reliable guess that a more centrist Democrat would have hit Bush really hard where he was vulnerable, war-supporting moderates and liberals. Lieberman or Gephardt would have closed this race right up, and possibly won.
If Kerry did that, I'd be surprised. Which is one of many reasons I didn't vote for him. This will certainly be a way of testing the validity of our opinions.
You apparently believe he's a good stand-up guy who will do the right thing, and I don't. One of us is wrong, and I hope its me. I don't enjoy thinking jaded thoughts about Kerry. (Note: "jaded" doesn't necessarily equate with "wrong")
Bush Ohio lead : 136k votes
Kerry PA lead: 122k votes
More votes were cast in PA, so the PA % victory by Kerry is less than Bush's Ohio victory. Why have I not seen a single reporter ask how many peovisional ballots are uncounted in states Kerry won?
Bush has won, and everyone knows it except the loons.
And here's my thing (and I do plan to respond to Dean's next post about what's next for Dems when I put down this three-week-old baby): I'm bitterly disappointed; I'm probably even pissed; and while Bush's victory does not restore my faith in human nature - because I really, really do believe he's the wrong president, of the wrong country at the wrong time :) - the turnout and participation in this election has certainly re-emphasized, if not renewed, my faith in the Democratic process. Remember, this was supposed to be a screwed-up, litigation war of an election, and droves still turned out and voted. I hope it doesn't get ruined now, and I don't think it will. Save me an order of crow for the end of the day, though.
I just love you both. You both have _style_.