Presidential Deja Vu
I feel like it’s 2000 all over again. If this were a courtroom (where it may well end up if the Kerry camp has its way) the judge would declare Bush the winner beyond a reasonable doubt. But, of course, the Kerry campaign is following in the footsteps of the illustrious Al Gore, and claiming that Ohio isn’t yet decided and they will “fight for every vote.” Where did I hear that one before?
In Ohio, with 100% of the precincts reporting, Bush has 2,777,645 votes, while Kerry has 2,632,547. This places Bush ahead by a significant 145,098 votes, or 2.6% of the total vote. It’s over, right? Not so fast.
While a quick check of Fox news lists Bush winning Ohio, and places him at 269 Electoral votes of the requisite 270, Clearly Biased Station and the Communist News Network have awarded more electoral votes (not counting Ohio) than Fox to Bush already, but are busy making noise about a supposed large number of “provisional ballots” that are still out. and claiming, therefore, that they won’t call the state.
Florida was far closer than Ohio in 2000 (about 1,210 votes), and you could understand, if not appreciate, why the DNC and friends made the nation endure the long period of uncertainty after the election last go round. This time, however, it seems the DNC and most of the media (surprise!) are stretching things a bit. Supposedly there are “about 200,000″ provisional ballots (according to CBS) out there, and apparently they believe that these will for some inexplicable reason fall over 75% in the Kerry camp (which would be required to get the 145,000 votes needed to take the state) and not mirror the rest of the state, therefore pushing Kerry over the top. And the left wing says the right wing are a bunch of religious zealots? Talk about someone making a leap of faith!
This go round, Bush even took the popular vote (51% to 48%). The people have spoken, and they have said “give us 4 more years.” It’s shameful to see that once again, thanks to the DNC, we’ll be waiting longer than we should to see that our request is granted.
Bret:
Unless the DNC drags things out past January 20, then you won’t be waiting any longer than normal for your request to be granted. If anything, you should be happy, because as you said, it provisional ballots can, in reality, only increase Bush’s numbers.
November 3, 2004, 8:47 amNeo:
Bret,
You know I didn’t mean the inauguration ceremony by that last statement. Let’s not debate semantics. The longer it takes this thing to reach a definite resolution, the longer the nation suffers, in very measurable ways (the stock market, for instance). The DNC didn’t care about this last go round, and I don’t think they will now. And please spare me the inevitable follow-up, “a few months of suffering is worth it to prevent 4 years of suffering.” We just prevented it as best we could by choosing the President we did.
November 3, 2004, 9:25 amfu:
I was about to comment on something, but I forgot what I was about to say…. except…
I am human…
November 4, 2004, 1:08 amBret:
Neo-
You’ve probably already seen the news about the gubernatorial race in Washington, but in case you haven’t, I wanted to point out that the GOP is doing exactly what you criticized the DNC for doing (the reasons are slightly different, but to the same effect). This dispute will go on past the inauguration, but the GOP isn’t backing down for the good of people, as you suggested the DNC should do (nor should they).
While you may argue that that this is different because it’s taking place on the state level, I would argue that it’s even more important to ensure every vote is fairly counted in the presidential election.
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050108-123154-8248r.htm
January 10, 2005, 11:07 amNeo:
Well, I would have to point out that this case is slightly different, in that the result turned out the other way until 2 recounts were done, and after the recounts, the spread is only 129 votes in the opposite direction. That’s a much less definitive result than we got a couple of months ago. I don’t know that it’s a fair comparison at all.
January 10, 2005, 11:22 amBret:
Too bad the GOP couldn’t get the Supreme Court to stop these recouts too. :-)
The bottom line is that the DNC and GOP have both used the law to try to enforce recounts, regardless of the resons. And both parties have been willing to drag the recounts out until a decisive result is achieved…. and there’s nothing wrong with that.
January 10, 2005, 2:05 pmNeo:
I don’t disagree. The question is when a decisive result was achieved, do you still push for recounts? In this case, the results are too close, and I would contend that after two counts (initial and recount number 1) resulting in one candidate winning, a 2nd recount resulting in the other candidate winning by a 129-vote margin is not decisive.
Thanks for the heads up on the glitch, I fixed it now.
January 10, 2005, 2:21 pm