Since Tuesday, certain corners of the blogosphere have been abuzz with tales of Election Day irregularities. I haven’t commented on them because even though I believe some funny stuff went on, I don’t believe the problem was widespread enough to determine the outcome of the election.
But that doesn’t mean instances of Election Day shenanigans shouldn’t be called out. To the contrary, election funny business should be scrutinized–if, for no other reason–to ensure that the next election will be better. Despite the so-called election reforms in 2002, our system is still a mess. And it’s a poor reflection on the world’s sole superpower.
Apparently, The Bloggerman will be covering Election Day irregularities on his show this week. Why did officials in Warren County, Ohio feel the need to lock out outside observers during the vote count for purposes of “Homeland Security”? Perhaps we’ll find out.
As I’ve noted here before, if you’re not watching “Countdown with Keith Olbermann,” you should be.
Say “No” To Hillary
Josh Marshall has a good post on why the Democrats should not nominate Hillary Clinton for president in 2008. He cites two reasons: first, because it’s not good for America to continue having presidential and/or party power concentrated in two families (Clintons and Bushes); and second because Hillary would have a difficult time winning.
I don’t have anything against Senator Clinton’s ideology or her as a person. But I think it would a disaster waiting to happen if the Democrats nominate her. If John Kerry can’t be competitive across the south and west, there’s no way Hillary’s going to sell in red state America. Unfortunately, image and personality seem be as important factors for a successful presidential candidate these days as message and policy. And Hillary has been demonized for way too long for her to overcome the negative currency attached to her name.
Framing The Debate
Michael Erard has a piece on how political consultants–Frank Luntz and George Lakoff in particular–work to frame political debates in specific terms in order to give their side an advantage.
This is an area where Republicans have had great success. They’re able to boil complex issues into a few simple phrases which even Joe Blow of the AM radio think tank can digest and regurgitate at will.
You could even see this contrast during the presidential debates. John Kerry came loaded with facts and statistics to support his arguments. On the other hand, Bush relied heavily on his simple talking points. Now to me, it appeared as if Kerry had a much better command of the issues. But apparently to many voters, Bush succeeded simply by repeating enough magic buzz words.
Double-Edged Sword
Bill Gertz, Moonie “agent of prophecy”?
Popular President
I did a comparison with the vote total Bush received Tuesday and that of past presidents.
Bush got 16 million more votes than LBJ (1964), 36 million more votes than FDR (1932), and 57 million more votes than Lincoln (1860). There’s no popular vote total for the 1789 election, but if had been Bush undoubtedly would have received even more votes than George Washington.
Wow, George W. Bush is the most popular president ever!
“First Gerrymandered President”
Digby offers an insightful look into how the election was won.