oti0sus

Looking over my previous post, I find it oddly prescient. Why did I concentrate on the consequences of a Bush victory? I certainly didn't believe Bush would win. Since before the start of the Iraq war, I was convinced that the US was stepping into a mess and that Bush would be defeated when he ran for re-election. Clearly, I don't know the US electorate as well as Bush does, and maybe more importantly, apart from the deaths of a few US soldiers and a few more Iraqis, the costs of US occupation are not yet apparent.

I'm surprised at how poorly Kerry did. I didn't pay much attention to the early stages of the presidential race but I assume that the Iowa Democrats who put Kerry into the lead were serious people who made their judgement as shrewdly as they could with an eye on the ultimate prize. Unfortunately, Kerry's power of persuasion was limited almost exclusively to convincing Nader voters. Let's assume that Kerry received all of Gore's and Nader's 2000 votes: 51 million + 4 million = 55 million. According to the latest CNN figures, Kerry actually received 56 million. Bush, on the other hand, was up 9 million votes from the 2000 results.

There are about 100 million Americans who sat out the election, not voting for anyone. They are all but ignored by the political class and media. Obviously, apathy runs very deeply among these people, and it'll take more than the likes of Kerry or Bush to rouse them. Maybe a kick in the stomach will do the job. And if the dire warnings of Bush's fiscal train wreck have any validity, the kick may be coming. I suggest that if the Democratic or any other party wants to take power, motivating a greater number of apathetics would be an excellent start.

The above comments presuppose that the results were fair and not fraudulent. But was there fraud? Do the results reflect the voters' will? Nobody can say for certain because all the votes were not and will probably never will be counted. We know that there were thousands of uncounted in Florida 2000, and the same equipment was again used. Were the paperless voting machines rigged? As far as I can tell, taking the results at face value is a matter of faith. But I am skeptical. So were European election monitors. They were actually barred by Republicans from inspecting polling stations. Decrepit machinery, murky vote tabulation, partisan officials: better elections are run in much poorer countries with much less pride in their heritage of democracy.

I read the blogs in the week leading up to the election and there were repeated stories of fraud, tampering and intimidation. All this is now forgotten. With all the time and the billion dollars the Democrats spent to unseat Bush, I would have thought that they would wait until the final vote count is in before conceding defeat. But they can't seem to do it fast enough. Perhaps Bush has a point after all...