Update: Friday, Nov. 5: I've updated the IA/FL numbers a bit to a) include non-Bush/Kerry votes and to b) update with latest CNN #s.

{To those who are interested in my thoughts on if this was a fair election, my comments are about 1/2 way down.}

I began writing this essay Wednesday morning shortly after learning that it was down to Ohio and not counting the provisional ballots, the vote was projected for Bush.

I finished the draft and decided to let it sit instead of immediately putting it on the blog. At some level I felt that this is such a truly momentous set of results across a host of races that rather than rush in with a quick judgment, letting this sit for a while as I edited and added items as they occurred to me and as events unfolded would help me collect my thoughts and hopefully articulate a viewpoint which is more coherent than not.

So Kerry conceded. After thinking about it for a while, I could see why he did it although I admit that initially it felt something a bit like betrayal. Put simply, the #s weren't there. Even if some great % of the provisional ballots (PBs) went to Kerry, they wouldn't be enough to offset the Bush lead.

This evening it also dawned on me that by conceding within 24h of the close of the election Kerry avoided a whole lot of people spending a lot of time, energy and money (TE&M) in a Quixotic endeavor such as it turned out Gore engaged in 2000 (if you've been paying attention since 2000 you *know* that if the margin had been slimmer and Kerry had a chance to win by having a full and accurate count of all the votes that the case *would* end of in front of the Supremes who would use their non-precedent setting precedent from 2000 to justify hearing another case in which to cast favor on Prince George).

(Does anyone else recall a quote attributed to O'Connor in 2000 to the effect that she desired a Bush victory since she would like to retire under a Republican president?)

By *not* spending that TE&M it's still available. It may be crashing due to a post-election letdown coupled with disappointment, but that's normal. A court fight in Ohio (particularly multiple court fights) would interfere with the retreat, regroup, rest, and reinvigorate process in which the left / progressives needs in order to get back into the game. The net is that I think we're disappointed but that in the long run I think we're better off w/o the court fight as we'll be able to begin preparing for the 2006 mid-terms and then 2008 sooner and with a greater TE&M reserve than otherwise.

BTW, it would truly have been a Universal joke if Kerry won Ohio and thus the election while losing the popular vote. I wonder if he would have pulled a Bush and declared a mandate?

Regardless of whether Bush or Kerry won Ohio / the election, I find it frightening that more people than not (if we assume the vote counting was accurate and that (sparsely reported) GOP voter suppression efforts disenfranchised fewer than about 4 million voters nationwide, a bit more on this below) voted to legitimize an illegitimate administration who's response to the worst terrorist attack on US soil was to lie the nation into a costly war, which has taken a huge toll on American and Iraqi lives, diverted monies from domestic programs and resulted in a loss in the political capital of America throughout the world (particularly disappointing is the loss of capital and goodwill built up on 9/11).

Whether the American voters who reached this conclusion about Mr. Bush based on thoughtful reasoning or allowed 9/11 to trump all other considerations is almost beside the point.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

A bit on the state and local level before I continue my thoughts on the rightward shift:

Tom DeLay's plan power grab appeared to work - four of the five Democratic seats targeted by redistricting went Republican (the ousted Democrats being Frost, Stenholm, Sandlin and Lampson). Only Chet Edwards in Waco defeated his Republican challenger.

Lloyd Doggett defended his new district 25 which stretches from Austin south to the border. McCaul, the Republican running in District 10, from Austin to Houston, picked up about 84% of the vote.

In Travis County Jack Stick, one of the freshman Republicans who supported DeLay's machinations, was defeated by Democrat Mark Strama while Democrat Patrick Rose who was targeted for his part in thwarting DeLay's plans fended off his Republican challenger, Alan Askew.

Oh, and we passed the Capitol Metro rail proposal. It's unclear if that's a good thing or not :-).

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Back to the larger horror...

In examining (admittedly in a bit of a haphazard fashion) the continued shift to the right in the Senate and House it appears that by the slimmest of margins (overall) that the American people have collectively thrown their lot in with the Republicans or the Diebolds did their job.

While I don't know if Mr. Diebold CEO delivered on his promise to deliver Ohio's electoral votes to Bush via rigging two points bear repeating:

1. As Randi Rhodes pointed out, do you really believe we had a record turnout and that people stood in hours in the rain, etc. to maintain the status quo?

2. AFAIK few people are talking about the difference between the exit polling showing Kerry doing well with the final vote.

I find this unconvincing in light of this noting the polling of early voters *had* been done.

If we're to believe the Des Moines Register, 27% of Iowa adults had early voted with Kerry leading 52% to 41%. According to CNN Bush won Iowa w/50% of the vote (745,734) to Kerry's 49% (732,483) I don't have Iowa turnout numbers relative to # of actual voters but let's assume that 60% (a high turnout) of registered voters turned out in total (early + Nov. 2. voters). If 27% have already voted early, then than leaves 33% left to vote on Nov. 2.

So of a total of 1,490,375 votes cast, 27/60 * 1,490,375 = 670,669 were early votes breaking down for Kerry 52% (348,748) to Bush's 41% (274,974) with 46,947 (7%) I've accounted for as 'Other'.

This left 1,490,375 - 670,669 = 819,706 votes on Nov. 2. For the final result of Bush 50% (745,980) to Kerry's 49% (732,764) you'd need the Nov. 2 votes to break for Bush 57% (471,006) to Kerry's 47% (384,016) with Other losing 4% (-35,316) (a comment on the negative votes below).

How likely is this? And there were how many provisional ballots, 150-175K?

(Oddly enough, the TPM link to the Des Moines article returns "Error: Invalid article key (D2,20041030,NEWS09,41030009,AR).")

According to a Gallup poll 30% of Florida's registered voters had already voted, through early voting or by absentee, resulting in Kerry leading Bush 51% to 43%.

According to CNN Bush won Florida w/52% of the vote (3,911,825) to Kerry's 47% (3,534,609) with 61,293 (1%) I've accounted for as 'Other'.

Again using 60% as the voter turnout rate, this means that 30% of the voters voted on Nov. 2.

So of a total of 7,507,727 votes cast, 30/60 * 7,507,727 = 3,378,477 were early votes breaking down for Kerry 52% (1,756,808) to Bush's 43% (1,385,176).

This left 7,507,727 - 3,378,477 = 4,129,250 votes on Nov. 2. For the final result of Bush 52% (3,911,825) to Kerry's 47% (3,534,609) you'd need the Nov. 2 votes to break for Bush 61% (2,526,649) to Kerry 43% (1,777,801) with Other losing 4% (-175,200).

Again, how likely is this?

(I wouldn't place *too* much emphasis on the negative votes for 'Other'. This most likely results from starting w/the early vote poll numbers not summing to 1, perhaps due to the obiquitous 'margin of error'.

These are reversals of the early voting pattern and eerily mirrors the particularly troubling comment from the first link - "The exit polls missed the mark very badly last night (before they were reweighted to correspond to the actual results). The national exit poll consistently showed Kerry leading by 3 points -- just the reverse of the actual vote."

This is eerie unless you've read Bev Harris's Black Box Voting: Ballot Tampering in the 21st Century and know that this is something to expect if the voting machines have been rigged.

Folks this isn't the first race or even the second in which this *exact* same thing happened. Isn't it odd that in the races in which the final tally was the reverse of the polls, that the beneficiary is a Republican?

The quoted comment is also troubling for it's acknowledgement that the poll results were "reweighted to correspond to the actual results." The legitimacy of reweighting rests on the assumption that the vote was accurately tallied, and even then, do we really expect to need weights which reverse our polls i.e. the polling is negatively correlated with the vote results? IMHO this assumption of an accurate vote should be questioned by more people.

I admit upfront that my analysis of the Iowa and Florida votes could be seriously flawed. The 27% could refer to 27% of likely voters and not all voters as I assumed it meant. I could have the total turnout lower than it actually was. I'm not a pollster and so don't know there that could be very reasonable reasons to believe your poll was inversely correlated with the actual event your were trying to measure. Etc. What I think is beside the point. The point is, what do you *think*?

Over the days and weeks to come keep informed, read Black Box Voting: Ballot Tampering in the 21st Century, and decide for yourself if this was a legitimate election.

To those who know me, no, I don't plan to make this election another of my Quixotic quests but I thought that if I've analyzed the numbers right that some witnessing of this travesty should occur.

But to the voter (of whatever political flavor) who thinks we had a fair and open election - what would it take to make you question that assumption? In 2008, when the Republicans squeak by for another win and more seats in Congress despite the country being Bushwhacked for another four ruinous years, will you still believe the people turned out in record numbers to vote for more of the same?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Assuming that this election was legit, that means a lot of folks think Bush and other Republicans are the men and women to lead us through the next four years.

I hope you're right as we have the War in Iraq to end, OBL and other related terrorist to find, high-paying jobs to create, deficits to cover, and a multitude of social wounds to heal.

Bush was quoted today as saying "I will need your support and I will work to earn it". Ya'll Republicans don't mind if we call him on it if he doesn't keep his word, do you? Will you help us help him keep his word?

One part of the human in me wishes to envision a future in which the logical conclusion of the right's direction is rapidly and conclusively reached yet affecting only those who made that choice.

I realize though that Reality works in much more subtle ways. I believe that putting that kind of psychic energy out there only sets yourself up for getting hammered by that which you wish to have your 'opponent' hammered. In the final analysis I tend to the conclusion given down by mystics across all times - First, do no harm - and then to ask of the Universe once again, this time, please prove me wrong.

But still, it's hard.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

For those of us who remain convinced that the country is throwing itself over the abyss, keep in mind that the right spent years building the grassroots base to achieve power working their way up from down ballot (e.g. dog-catcher). The 2000 election was the wakeup call for the left / moderates. While it would have been nice to get back in the game this time, it looks like we have more work ahead of us.

Josh Marshall also has some insightful thoughts regarding that here (near the bottom of the post).

"Well, here we are. And this is the test for people who care about this kind of politics and these sorts of values -- making sure that what has been started is not allowed to falter. This isn't 1964 or 1972 or 1980. This wasn't a blow-out or a repudiation. It was close to a tie -- unfortunately, on the other guy's side. Let's not put our heads in the sand but let's also not get knocked of our game. Democrats need to think critically and seriously about why this didn't turn out 51% for Kerry or 55% for Kerry (and we'll get to those points in the future). But it would be a terrible mistake to stop thinking in terms of those ten years Simon described.

"Take time to feel the desolation and disappointment. But I remain confident that time is not on the side of the kind of values and politics that President Bush represents. It took conservatives two decades to build up the institutional muscle they have today. Though I was always nervous about the result, I thought we could win this election. But it was always naive to believe that that sort of institutional heft could be put together in 24 or 36 months."

Despite the very likely possibility that another four years of Our Leader's regime will be worse than the last four, there remain several bright spots:

1. Bush inherits his own messes and thus won't be able to blame Clinton for any of them.

2. The theory that a 2nd Bush term victory will lead to the destruction of the Republican party can now be tested.

3. It should not be forgotten that in this race quite a few Republicans with credentials (military brass, foreign policy dudes, business leaders, etc.) came out against Bush. We know that Bush values loyalty and discipline above most all else so these guys are now shut out of the Republican party. In addition to making overtures to these guys to help build a moderate base the left / progressives should remember that as the Republicans veer more to the right, they're going to sacrifice more of their intellectuals.

More thoughts as they arise and time allows.

Brendan