Bush won, and Kerry lost, right? Probably. But, then again...
There are some intriguing things going on in Ohio. No, you've not heard about them on CNN, because the media isn't paying attention -- they're reporting on the latest Bush lapdog to get a political appointment. But depending on how a few things develop over the next few days, this could become at the very least a story worth following.
To piece this together, let's start on Nov. 3. Kerry conceded the day after the election, referencing the fact that there weren't enough provisional ballots to make up the 136,000-vote difference in Ohio. Unlike Florida2000, where the margin was in the thousands just after the election, this was a sizable number of votes, and it would take a seismic shift to change the landscape.
A few days later, that number dropped by almost 4,000 when a computer error was shown to have credited Bush with more votes than voters in Franklin County (we all feel confident that's the only such tomfoolery). That's not earth-shattering, of course, and not enough to change the dynamic of the race.
More recently, two third-party candidates -- the Green Party's David Cobb and the Libertarian Party's Michael Badnarik, strange bedfellows if there ever were ones -- asked for a recount. Now, under Ohio law, a recount is automatically triggered if the margin is less than one-quarter of one percent. If it isn't, a candidate can ask for a recount, but they must agree to pay for the cost of such, about $110,000 in this case.
Just like Ralph Nader was getting help from Republicans before the election, these two candidates no doubt could get some financial help from Democrats in this endeavor. Of course , such a recount would possibly benefit Kerry, but certainly not these candidates. More on that later.
The thing which triggered the blinking light in my head was a minor note in a story today about Kerry's day in the Senate. Kerry has kept a low profile since the election, and only gave interviews to hometown news outlets on Wednesday. When one reported asked about him running again in 2008, Kerry reminded the questioner that Ohio is still counting votes from 2004.
Hmm. I thought he gave up on Ohio.
The Ohio math is a longshot, but it might be a shot; this story lays out the optimistic case. There are 155,000 provisional ballots; in 2000, 90 percent of those ballots were allowed, and the further assumption is that since those are historically disproportionately from Democratic strongholds (the story says 90 percent went for Gore in 2000, but that would seem overly optimistic), those ballots could cut into the 132,000.
You ready to pull out your Florida2000 handbook? We have 93,000 undervotes, ballots where no vote was registered. Once again, those are expected to be disproportionately unrealized Democratic votes, because they're from poor or minority areas.
In Ohio, the law says if fewer than two corners are attached, the vote counts. Now, I would imagine lots of undervotes are such because they have two corners attached, but I'm no expert in chads. But the good news behind that law is that the varying standards for counting votes in 2000 was (technically) the reason the Supreme Court shut down the recount in Bush v. Gore. So, at the very least, the Supreme Court Five would have to come up with a new excuse for stopping a recount.
Anyway, in a best-case scenario, all this could certainly cut into that 132,000-vote margin, and possibly even erase it. It's a longshot, but when the stakes are this high....
Now, as for Kerry's silence since the election, for one thing, he probably slept for a week (the guy certainly worked his tail off, regardless of any tactical errors his campaign made). But maybe, just maybe, he's staying out of the fray, letting this recount thing work its way along, while he plays the role of disinterested observer. Die-hard Democrats didn't blame Gore in 2000 for fighting, and we wouldn't have minded Kerry coming out with fists a-swingin', but we're not everybody. Such things could quietly gain more momentum behind the scenes.
The fact that the recount is being asked for by two candidates with no direct stake in the outcome is interesting. On the Green Party's website, the press release (linked above) talks of making sure every vote is counted, and it's not a stretch to see how a Green Party loyalist would rather have Kerry than Bush. The Libertarian Party is another story. Could they be surrogates of Kerry/the DNC?
Anyway, if there is a recount, it will almost certainly get media attention, and at the very least, make the Bushies sweat. There is a possibility it wouldn't be completed until after the Ohio vote is certified, and that could cause a crisis should Kerry actually surpass Bush.
Hey, maybe we can put the "Oh!" back in Ohio.
No comments:
Post a Comment