Some thoughts on the 2004 election:
[ul]
[li] 65,000 voters in Ohio could have overturned the will of 3.5 million Americans. That would have been an interesting challenge to the EC system.[/li]
Disregarding who the two candidates were, I would have loved for someone with a 3.5 million lead in the popular vote to lose the EC, because it would have created a huge outcry against the EC. Of particular interest is what the Republicans would have said if this had happened to them.
[li] “Why Bush won” and “Why the Democrats lost” discussions:[/li]
They are pretty useless because:
- The states went basically the same way they did in 2000, so Bush did not magically convince states to switch en masse. This is true even at the county level.
All he did was convince more of his supporters to show up to vote.
Hardly an accomplishment that needs a detailed explanation, or that needs an explanation of the failure of Kerry. It seems that people are quite set in their ways and vote for “their side” no matter who the candidate is.
- Also, 65,000 voters in OH could have changed this election, and so all the arguments about “this is why Bush won” are useless, because if these 65,000 people (a tiny fraction of the population) voted differently, people would be giving grand theories trying to explain “this is why Kerry won”.
[li] Without 100% voter turnout, it’s hard to say whether the country “has become more conservative” and that “liberals are out of touch with the mainstream”, or simply whether more conservatives came out to vote that day.[/li][li] Some people said that they didn’t vote for Kerry because of how shrill and whining a lot of his fans were and because of how his fans consider Bush-supporters to be stupid: Come on! [/li]
These people weren’t going to vote for Kerry anyway, so this is just mock horror at the “elitist” attitude.
In any case, in many Republican-leaning websites and other media there is open utter contempt of liberals (considering them stupid, deluded, traitors, “drink too much Kool Aid”, etc), so why aren’t people turned off by this, and are only turned off by some liberals’ contempt for Bush supporters?
[li] Long poll lines and polls in danger of closing before everyone gets to vote:[/li]
WTF? Couldn’t they have planned better to be able to serve all voters before closing time? (Since everyone expected a “record turnout”)
Are the election officials incompetent? Or, worse, was this done on purpose?
This is not the first presidential election they have organized (more like the 54th one), so you’d think they would have gotten the hang of it by now, and have learned to plan ahead.
In any case, there should be a law that clearly states what happens when people don’t get to vote before the polls close. Why should there be a need for judges to decide this on a case by case basis on election night?
[/ul]
Some minor points:
[ul]
[li] Each county in Ohio has its own method of verifying and counting provisional ballots: [/li] WTF? Why doesn’t Ohio have a state-wide rule?
[li] The “four more years” chanting at Republican rallies was waaay too Orwellian.[/li]
[li] In his acceptance speech, when Bush was thanking various people, when it came time to thank Rove, he paused, put a big smirk on his face and referred to Rove as “the architect”.[/li] I’m curious exactly which part of the Republican’s strategy was Rove’s brainchild.
[/ul]
