From IMCT - November 11, 2004

A close Bush advisor makes a point that has been simmering somewhere in the back of my mind for the past few days.

In order to win this election, Bush sold his soul to the religious right, and by proxy, he may have sold the soul (yeah, right) of the Republican Party as well. The religious right and the GOP are now concentric entities, and that could have an effect on the party for years to come.

Once Bush's run is up, where does the party go? The RR obviously feels the power of control it has over the GOP, and it won't hesitate to flex it. So when the next election rolls around, will the RR be satisfied with a moderate -- many of the favorites, like Guliani, Pataki and McCain, appear to be "moderates" by Repub standards -- or will it demand another overt evangelical like Bush?

If the RR prevails, then it would probably be at the cost of the mainstream favorites like Guliani, etc., and who knows, they might manage to nominate someone in the image of Alan Keyes. Although it's not clear that there's any limit to just how radical a candidate has to be before a majority of the nation rejects them, the RR might force the GOP to reluctantly explore those limits.

If the GOP nominates, say, a Northeastern Republican, would the coalition of the evangelicals stay on board, or would they lose interest if they feel the candidate is not so much "one of them?" Such fervor is hard to keep focused for an extended period of time.

Even a protracted primary battle between the moderate Repubs and the RR Repubs could do damage to the party. Pat Robertson, where are you?

It's sad that in many ways the Democratic Party's best hope is that the Republican Party will screw up or over-play its hand. However, we can at least hope this narrows the gap between the parties and gives the Dems a smaller gulf to bridge.

From IMCT - November 11, 2004

My daughter's third-grade class had a Veteran's Day program today, and at one point the class did a medley of fight songs (introduced by one very lovely and smart third-grader, I might add), with the members of the different branches of the armed forces standing during their fight song. All around the gymnasium, men (no women in this group) stood up at different intervals, and it made me realize how little we pay attention to the individual everyday heroes all around us.

Progressives are accused of being unpatriotic, and I have to admit I'm somewhat leery of unquestioning patriotic fervor. But I appreciate the enormous sacrifice our armed forces make; even the ones who come away completely unharmed physically make a great sacrifice in terms of time away from home and family.

I just believe that we should only ask them to make those tremendous sacrifices when absolutely necessary.

From IMCT - November 11, 2004

Moveon.org is getting together a petition to try to encourage Congress to investigate any voting irregularities from the election. Now, we know the Republican Congress isn't likely to open an investigation any time soon, but if we keep the story circulating long enough, maybe it will magically become a mainstream story and not just the nightmare of left-wing conspiracy hacks.

I'm not sure there's any tampering to be found, but we need to have no doubt. Truthfully, it's a no-win situation; if there was tampering and it could be proven, it could be a very divisive issue for this country. Of course, tampering would explain away the results of an election I still can't quite comprehend, while also striking a serious blow to the GOP -- although I'm not sure anything really sticks to them.

From IMCT - November 10, 2004

I'm a conspiracy theorist, and I don't subscribe to the belief of some that we should quickly "move on" after an apparent election loss. If something smells, we should hunt it down and rid ourselves of it; to allow such a serious transgression as election fraud to go unpunished is -- dare I say it? -- un-American.

With that in mind, taking a look at various analysis of the Florida voting totals, something sure looks fishy at first glance.

I'm no statistician or accountant, so I want to keep this as simple as possible. What other folks (thank them very much) have done is put those numbers in a spreadsheet, comparing the number of votes gathered by Bush and Kerry to the number of registered Republicans and Democrats. In short, the analysis basically shows what the vote would have been had everyone voted their registration vs. what the vote actually was.

Statistically speaking, one might expect both parties to capture a like percentage of the vote compared to their registration, while of course sharing any registered independents. So the key comparison is percentage of votes for each candidate compared to their total registration.

What makes this comparison noteworthy is that in the Florida counties using touchscreen voting machines, the numbers are pretty equal. In Broward County, for example, Bush got 236,794 votes in a county where 283,736 are registered Republicans, while Kerry got 441,733 in a county where 533,976 are registered Democrats. So Bush's vote total was 83.5 percent of the total registered Republicans, while Kerry's was 82.7 percent of registered Democrats. The key here is in the percentages, not the raw vote totals, and these percentages are reasonably equal in all the 15 touchscreen counties.

What's raising eyebrows are the totals in the counties which use ballots that are fed into optical scanners. In these counties, the trend has a heavy Republican tilt; in many counties, Bush's total is 200-300 percent or more of the total of registered Republicans, while Kerry's is often at 50 percent or below that of registered Democrats. Statistically speaking, it's hard to figure why the 15 touchscreen counties would be so different from the 50-some optical-scan counties.

Now, as I said, I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy, but if we are to be taken seriously, we need to take a long, hard look at this. I'm no expert in Florida politics (I've spent a total of around a week in the state), so it's hard to get a grip on these numbers, but one thing jumps out at me when comparing the touchscreen counties with the optical scan counties. In the TS counties, the numbers of registered Republicans vs. Democrats is generally quite equal, so statistically, there will be less deviation from the expected percentages. The fact is that the higher the number of people registered with a certain party, the more likely it is that the percentages will be off in the real vote totals.

That brings us to the OS counties. In a large number of those counties -- many of which went 60-40 percent or better for Bush-- we find that registered Democrats make up 60, 70 and even 80 percent of the total. That sounds mighty odd; why would a county with a large number of registered Democrats vote overwhelmingly Republican? Sure sounds like tampering.

Or maybe not. This is where my lack of knowledge of Florida politics sticks out like a sore thumb, so I'm going to assume a few things.

I notice that in some of these counties where the numbers are the most lopsided, 80 percent are registered Democrats, with less than 10 percent registered as independents; in many of the touchscreen counties, 20 percent or more are independents.

In my lovely Southern state, we have open primaries, where you pick which party you're going to vote for just before you walk into the booth. The local county races -- for sheriff, property assessor, etc. -- go through primaries and then a general election (why it matters whether the circuit court clerk is a Democrat or Republican, I'll never know). My state is certainly a red state, but it wasn't so long ago that it was a solid Democratic state, and so it goes that the real race for county offices comes in that Democratic primary; if there's anyone in the Republican primary, they're a lock to get beat in the general election. Therefore, many staunch Republicans will vote (and even run) each year in the Democratic primary, because that's what you have to do in order to have a say in who wins county offices. In February's primary with only a couple of minor county offices on the ballot, 6,517 people voted in the Democratic Presidential primary, 549 in the Republican. But the county went 15,619-10,549 (59-40 percent) for Bush in November. I imagine 75 percent of the voters would be registered Democrats if that was required, just so they could vote in those county races.

When I see all but eight percent of a Florida county's registered voters picking a party -- the majority of them the Democratic party -- I wonder if it works the same way there, despite Florida's recent (1960-on) history as a solid Republican-voting state.

The way to check this would be to see how these counties have voted historically. Have they normally voted closer to their registration? That's research for someone other than me, although I hope it gets done.

I'm not wanting to sound like a Republican apologist here -- those exit poll numbers make me believe something may well have gone awry in Florida and Ohio -- but I'd like for us to have good, solid facts before we go off tilting at windmills.

From IMCT - November 10, 2004

Yes, while I think Bill Clinton may be just the answer (as chairman of the Democratic National Committee) to get the national party back on track, I am not as fond of his wife running for national office... and I'm not the only one.

First off, let me make it perfectly clear -- I think Hillary Clinton would make a great President (and that's not just in comparison to the one we're currently saddled with). She's obviously a compassionate intellectual who has plenty of governmental experience, and it wouldn't be a stretch for someone with her credentials to make a run for the Democratic nomination.

However, being qualified for the job of President and actually getting it are two entirely different animals (need I give you any examples?).

As an unfortunate citizen of a red state, I can tell you that Clinton is a highly polarizing figure. I've heard Republicans wish aloud that she would run, because they know they'd trounce her in the South.

Why is she such a polarizing figure? Well, for those of you who don't understand the dynamic here in the South, strong women are viewed nervously, and not just by men. I once remember my own mother telling me when I was quite young that she didn't think a woman could handle the job of President.

It's easy to see why men would be uneasy with Clinton; she's an independent, strong woman, and that's often feared by those full of testosterone. You'd have to assume she could do no better than the 44 percent of the male vote Kerry got. But you can't assume she would automatically get 75 percent of the female vote. Frankly, among Southern women, I believe the lines would break about like they did for the last election; as many who would be lured to vote for her because she's a female would be turned off by something else.

It's hard for those of us who admire Hillary Clinton to see what problem a female could have with her, but there are a few (counter-intuitive) reasons. Let's face the facts: in evangilical Christian teachings, women clearly have a place, and it's not as President. Females aren't pastors at the evangelical churches whose members drove this past election; do you really think they're going to anoint one President? On some level -- not always a conscious one -- women believe women have a place, and it's not as an outspoken politician.

When it comes right down to it, if the next election is another "values"-based referendum and the Democrats don't manage to level the values playing field, then women are likely to go vote in the same numbers as 2004 for that person they've been told is more moral. Just like blood is thicker than water, morals are thicker than allegiance to your gender.

Although Clinton is thought of as being from Arkansas, she actually grew up in the blue state of Illinois and now is a senator in another blue state. She would certainly be branded a "Northeastern liberal." Whether we like it or not, that label stirs hatred in some.

Not that I'm starting the primary campaign of John Edwards this early, but he's my early favorite for the 2008 nominee. I heard several conservative types comment that they wished he had been the nominee, and not the second man on the ticket. Some will point out that the ticket didn't even carry his home state this year, but with him as the nominee in 2008, there's a chance the Democrats could again make inroads into the South. If just a state or two in the South became competitive, it could change the dynamic of the race.

However, if Clinton decides she wants to run for the nomination, she's likely to get it, what with the connections she has inside the party. I just fear that a ticket headed by Hillary Clinton would be just one more Democratic sacrificial lamb on the national stage. At some point, we need more than a moral victory.

From IMCT - November 9, 2004

It was mentioned somewhere how Bill Clinton should be considered for chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Not that I get a vote or anything (I'm getting used to this vote-not-counting stuff), but I for one would certainly be all for that.

First off, one would have to wonder if Clinton would even take the job. I'm sure it doesn't pay like the professional speaking circuit does. But he lit the way once -- he served eight years as president, in the middle of what is now looking like 20 years of Republicans in the White House -- so maybe he could do it again. After serving as President, pretty much any job is a demotion, but he might take it, as it currently looks like the next few years of leading the Democratic party could be, um, challenging.

Clinton would offer a couple of obvious benefits as DNC chairman. The chairman of the party is usually not a high-profile position, but having a high-profile person couldn't hurt. Not to criticize current chairman Terry McAuliffe or anything, but he doesn't elicit excitement, even from many staunch Democrats.

Democrats, are, by our nature, rather fickle creatures -- we don't follow anyone's lead very well. But if anyone could unify us and capture our attention, Clinton could do it. His almost-celebrity status would raise the national committee's profile. And he could certainly raise money from the base.

Suggesting Clinton for the chairmanship is not an indictment of McAuliffe. But under his watch (since 2001), we can't pretend like things have gone great. Now, this latest election can't be pinned on the DNC; assuming we actually lost fair and square, the issues defining the 2004 Presidential election go deeper than strategy calls.

The Democratic party may (may) be at a crossroads -- should it move farther left and further define itself as a clearer (it's not already clear?) alternative to the Republican party, or move more towards the center and try to steal some of the Republicans' thunder? I won't go too deeply into those two diverging theories at this time, but Clinton-as-leader would probably lead us closer to the latter strategy, as he campaigned as a Southern "New Democrat," moving slightly to the center on some issues.

Possibly a drawback to Clinton-as-chairman is the possibility that it would better position Hillary for a run for President in 2008 -- something I must say I'm against, like others. But it might be worth taking that risk.

From IMCT - November 2, 2004

My state voted 57-43 percent for Bush, my county 59-40. So, three out of five of my neighbors are Bush voters. How scary is that?