How Many Hours Before Iraqi Elections Are Declared Worthless?
Dean
Weekend Pundit asks a very cynical question: How long after the Iraqi election before the New York Times proclaims them either a sham or a disaster?
He predicts poll closing -2 hours.
I think he's much too cynical. The Times will not declare the elections illegitimate and a disaster until at least 2 hours after the polls close, though they'll be telling us all along that they expect a mess. Of course, either way, the rest of the mainstream press will folllow along like the obedient lapdogs that they are.
Anyway, I'm rambling. So let's get back to specifics:
Weekend Pundit says two hours BEFORE polls close. I'm predicting two hours AFTER poll close.
Anyone want to put their own markers in?
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- No More "Insurgents"
- Victory
- Turnout In Iraq...
- Iraqi Election Quiz
- How Many Hours Before Iraqi Elections Are Declared Worthless?
- Human Rights Advancements...
- The Blogosphere's Fascist Apologists
- Women's Rights
- Meetings With Iraqi Bloggers, Breaking My Own Rules, And Related Thoughts
Then the real condemnation of the result will be when the polls close.
You can call this preparation for a full-out attack on the elections on January 30 or already undermining a great achievement in world diplomacy.
Bush = Jesus = Hitler = McCarthy
Let us all pause for a moment and consider the possibility that GWB is not actually insane. Maybe he has a plan that can work.
Might want to work on irony recognition as well :)
Almost as if the Ku Klux Klan in the 1860s had comprised black men trying to frighten away other black men from taking part in an election designed to bring them freedom and equal rights in their government.
So may the gods all screw the New York Times and all other western liberal news media that spread the same line. None of them have anything to do with Iraq's destiny, and people like me -- now the majority of Americans -- no longer care about their opinions.
And all that will happen if the Zarqawi gang frightens off extensive numbers of Sun'a from the Iraqi polls is that the Shi'a and the Kurds shall rule the country over which the Sun'a monopolized all the political power since the coming of the Arabs and Islam to Mesopotamia, almost 14 centuries ago.
And won't that be just too god-damned bad.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Don't you understand by now that the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, NBC News, CBS News, ABC News, MSNBC and all the other old fashioned liberal organizations that used to be able to form people's opionions for them, no longer count for much of anything at all?
There is an entirely new media, in which you and people like you already play a key role. Among other things the bloggers have already accomplished was to destroy CBS News, their credibility, and whatever remains of the career of their key news announcer.
We now have a presidency that elected against the utter hostility of the liberal news media. That president's party controls both houses of the Congress of the United States against the utter hostility of the liberal news media. That party also controls the majority of the state legislatures, against the utter hostility of the liberal news media.
The Supreme Court of the United States is shortly to get a new chief justice and at least one associate justice. The president most likely will select Justice Antonin Scalia for the chief justice seat, with two outsiders to fill what probably will then be two vacancies for associate justices.
A Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee will recommend approval of the president's choices, against the utter hostility of the Democrats on that committee and of the liberal news media.
Then the Senate as a whole will confirm the president's choices, against the utter hostility of the Democrats in the Senate and of the liberal news media. Maybe at last this will be the sudden end of the filibuster rule, at long last.
Don't you understand, at last, that the non-liberals won the election? That the non-liberals control the machinery of American government at all significant levels? That the non-liberals are going to call the shots? And that, in the end, the liberals and their media ass-lickers can do nothing but howl in the back rows of the chorus of a large and otherwise empty opera house?
So sit back. Tend to your new kid. Play gin rummy with Rosemary. Watch a good DVD movie. Have an Anchor Steam if your main squeeze will permit it.
But stop worrying about how the already dying dinosaurs of the old news media are going to respond to this, that or anything else. They really, truly no longer count.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
But I'm not at all sure what I feel ought to count as "legitimate". I mean, there are already major problems with this election, such that it wouldn't be viewed as "legitimate" by US standards. But applying US standards to the election in Iraq would be ludicrous, I think we can all agree. So what should the standard be? I have no idea, but I'd love to hear what the rest of you think.
MSM : Right-wing :: Karl Rove : Left wing
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Damned good question. I think for puropses of legitimazing the elections (as far as they can be legitimized in this fashion) we would really need to see a super majority turnout, say better than sixty percent overall. As a subset of that number, the Sunni turnout is a very important factor as they are the ones bearing the brunt of the "insurgent" attacks and intimidation. It's unrealistic to expect 60+ percent turnout amongst the Sunnis, but even 40% would be a good sign.
I'm an optimist. I think the Iraqis are far more courageous and determined than many on the left are willing to admit.
I think the elections will turn out pretty well, at least in that they will do a good job of accurately reflecting the Iraqi populaces desires.
As for what is the minimum standard for the elections to be deemed legitimate... how about 47.2%. That was the voter turnout in the 1996 presidential election where Bill Clinton won a second term. I don't seem to remember the MSM complaining that election was in any way illegitimate, do you?
And Arnold, while I agree that President Bush will probably get two and possibly even three Supreme Court nomination chances, I believe he will elevate Clarence Thomas - not Scalia - to Chief Justice. The reason I believe that to be the case is because there have been several news articles of late (the Harry Reid interview on Meet The Press being the most illustrative) where Democrats have all but endorsed Scalia. Why? Because the Democrats know that to mount any serious challenge to the elevation of Thomas gives the appearance of racism. He's already on the bench, is at least as qualified as Scalia technically, and more centrist in his politics. Personally, I really hope it happens that way (although I would be very happy with Scalia as CJ) just so we can all witness the liberal elitists contort their politically correct rhetoric to try and justify their opposition to a black man becoming the top Jurist in the country!
The way I see it, the only way this election can be illegitimate is if there's evidence of widespread fraud.
Supposing, say, that only 10% of the population shows up in the "safe" (relatively speaking) areas, and 5% shows up in the "unsafe" ones, that's still better representation than the Iraqi people have ever gotten before.
The goal here shouldn't be to make this a perfect election, though we obviously want it to be as good as possible. A truly independent, free Iraq in which the people have a say in the country (through a representative system, most likely, not a true democracy) isn't going to happen overnight, and I don't think anyone expects it to. (Though, the pessimists assume the optimists DO expect it, and will use that perception of expectation to condemn the election as a failure.) The fact is, as long as we can lay the groundwork for a better system in the future, I'm happy.
As Steven Den Beste wrote here:
Actually, Eddy and Vogel have touched upon a very convenient way for the MSM to blow them off: by measuring the percentage of actual voters.
Eddy says (emphasis added)
By that logic every US presidential election between 1972 and 2000 has not been legitimate. Naturally everyone in the MSM (not to mention everyone who wants Bush, and the Iraqis to fail) will ignore such inconvenient facts.
Here's a simpler metric: if the majority of the Iraqis accept the election as legitimate, then it is.
Bear in mind, I pretty much hold Arnold Harris's postion on this- the MSM is irrelevent in most cases because their reaction is so predictable. My origial question was simply my way of pointing that out, again.
Honestly, in my view if elections are held in most of the country without violence, and evidence of fraud is low, they're a success. Yes, even if some Sunni areas are unable to vote due to excess violence, although if that happens it's a damned shame and measures should be taken to try to hold a re-vote for areas where voting was stopped due to that.
That's the thing though: if they go off at all, they're already better than anything that has happened there in history.
Regardless of whatever metric we choose to apply, my gut tells me that no one, even the NYT, will be able to pronounce the Iraqi election either way for quite some time.
Damn. I'm agreeing with Drew. Heh.
On the other hand: since when does the Times ever let reality get in the way? If they decide the elections are a failure on day one, they'll say so.
And if they're wrong, they'll admit it. Very quietly. On page A20. Without telling anyone it's there. :)
New button: IAAWD
I've done it, too. As I said, I thoroughly agree with your your reply to the troll you thought I was. Problem is, for everything I think up as a satire or reductio ad absurdam, there's somebody who means it seriously. A frightening thought. Anyway, thank you.