Post Election Analysis

Now that we have all had some time to let things sink in, time to absorb the results, hear the pundits, and grok the spin, here is the post-election wrap-up from Resistance is futile!

First, what happened during the ballot reporting? One thing is for certain: the blatantly false exit-poll data suggests a last-ditch effort by partisan forces working within the MSM to tip the scales for Kerry. This could be the death knell for the MSM. America can see with her own eyes that the once-trusted press is nothing more than a shill for the democRat machine. So what is the spin from the MSM? Bloggers are to blame. That’s right, they blame me. Well, more to the point, they blame the big dogs of the Blogosphere. But they are barking up the wrong tree. As anyone who reads the big blogs can tell you, exit-poll data was either not reported at all, was reported with a heavy grain of salt, or was reported as evidence of the problems with the MSM. The only blogs that hyped the exit-polls were those who have made no bones about being partisan forces for Kerry.

A blanket statement about the Blogosphere shows ignorance. There are literally thousands of small blogs like mine. For every right-wing blog, there is a left-wing equivalent. There are tiny blogs with single-digit readership. There are blogs like mine that get maybe a hundred hits on a good day. And then there are giants like the Puppy Blender who rival major newspapers in reporting power. Saying “blogs are responsible for the frenzy over exit polls” is like saying “journalists were responsible for Watergate.” No, criminals working for a political campaign and an attempted cover-up by Richard Nixon were responsible for Watergate. Two journalists got the ball rolling on investigating and reporting Watergate and the mainstream media of the era was responsible for transforming Watergate from a two-bit offense into a scandal that brought down the President.

How do blogs correlate? Criminals working for a political campaign caused the exit-poll fiasco. A few bloggers noticed early on that the exit-poll data was out of whack. Time will tell if the Blogosphere as a whole transform the issue from a curiosity into a major scandal. But bloggers sure as hell didn’t cause it.

What does the MSM reaction tell us? It tells us that they are afraid. Blogs have become part of the media as a whole. Blogs are competition. Competition is good. Competition results in a better product, better availability, better reporting time, and better overall quality for the customer. You, dear reader, know more about the world today because the presence of blogs forces all your media sources to do a better job. But competition also reduces market share. What’s good for the consumer is not necessarily good for the seller. Twenty years ago, a few television networks and the New York Times had almost exclusive control over the information you received on a daily basis. That meant two things: they had the power to control the information (they became big players in shaping policy) and they had the lion’s share of the profits from the sale of information. Now, they have lost huge amounts of power and profit. Newspaper readership is down. Television networks are losing out to cable and satellite. Internet users are a big demographic, and growing steadily. The MSM is fighting to survive.

What does a cornered rat do? It bites. That is what we are seeing today as the MSM blames blogs for the exit-poll debacle. The MSM is lashing out in terror. This is a mistake. Nixon made a mistake by going defensive over Watergate. Nixon was popular. Nixon had just won a huge election. Nixon could have used Watergate to his advantage. If, when the first whispers of a scandal had been uttered, Nixon had come out to the public, held himself and his staff accountable, promised to root out the corruption from his administration, and worked with investigators to uncover all the truth, he would have been hailed as a hero. The short-term damage from the scandal would have quickly given way to admiration and respect. He would have gone down in history as a great President, not only for his integrity, but also for the many now forgotten achievements of his administration. Nixon did a lot that was good, but who remembers it? And who ultimately lost out? The people. Because of Nixon’s paranoia and sense of self-importance, scandal rocked the nation, the administration went down, and a reactionary people allowed a liberal transformation of government to reverse the progress made in Vietnam, the Cold War, and the economy. It took two terms of Reagan just to begin to undo the damage of the Carter years, and the political division is still stalling much needed reform to this day.

The MSM today is where Nixon was in 1973.

The MSM can go into defensive mode. This will backfire. Truth will come out, perceptions will be made, and, ultimately, the people will decide that the MSM can no longer be trusted. And in the information business, trust is everything. Without trust, the New York Times and CBS lose everything. And while part of me would giggle with glee, ultimately it would be a sad day. Once upon a time, these sources of information actually did great things. For decades, the MSM worked as a credible force for the people. The free press has made corrupt politicians accountable for their misdeeds. But that will be forgotten; our children will grow up only considering the MSM to be just another corrupt institution of its own in the tradition of Nixon, McCarthy, DixieCrats, Teapot Dome, the Carpetbaggers, etc.

Or, the MSM can embrace the challenge. So here is an open plea to CBS, the New York Times, and the polling services: come clean. Tell us what you know and when you knew it. Tell us who has been doing what, and why. Then ask the alternative media—the blogs, the cable news, talk radio, everybody—to work with you on shaking the bias and corruption out the industry. Do this, and the future of the information age will be bright for the world. Do this, and tomorrow we can wake up, read the news from whatever source we choose, and have faith that we are getting the right information. It’s the best thing for you; it’s the best thing for the people.

Resist, and you will be destroyed. Resistance is futile! There is a reason why I chose that name for my blog. But more to the point: resist, and while your network television newsrooms and big-city newspapers go out of business, the Blogosphere will, by reactionary process, become a one-sided echo-chamber of opposing thought. And it will be all that is left for the distribution of information. That type of monopoly on information, even when it comes from a political orientation I admire, will ultimately be good for no one.

MSM, the choice is yours. Make it fast. Make it right.

After exit-poll-gate, we look at the results of the election:

Bush won. Bush won BIG. Here are some facts to bandy about:

Bush received more popular votes than any other President in history, more than Reagan in 1984, and close to 8 million more than he received in 2000. Liberals are already spinning this as merely an anomaly of the high turnout. But consider this: turnout has always—always—been considered the best friend of the democRat party. It has been an axiom that the more people get out the vote, the more votes come in for the democRat. Well, this was the biggest turnout ever—and Bush’s percentage of the vote grew enormously compared to 2000. And this big turnout for Bush came in spite of the biggest campaign against an incumbent, ever. It came in spite of 30 continuous days of Abu Ghraib photos on the front page of the New York Times. It came in spite of a full year of daily accusations that Bush has given us the worst economy since the Great Depression. It came in spite of daily updates on the death toll in Iraq. It came in spite of daily reminders of the failure to find Saddam’s WMDs. It came in spite of the 9/11 commission. It came in spite of Halliburton. It came in spite of endless retreads of the Bush National Guard story. It came in spite of 527’s spending what may well add up to billions—yes, billions—to defeat Bush. In spite of the hardest fight any incumbent of any party has ever faced, George W. Bush won and won big.

Bush didn’t just win the popular vote. Bush broke a three-election trend of plurality. Clinton won with 42% of the popular vote in 1992, and it was called a mandate for change. Clinton took 48% of the popular vote in 1996, and it was called a validation. Newsflash: in 1992 and 1996, more people voted against Bill Clinton than for Bill Clinton. But the conventional wisdom of the time tells us that Clinton won the endorsement of the people. I will not dispute that 2000 represented a failure of Bush and the Republicans to make a case for a conservative agenda. But 2004 is a radical departure from 2000. For the first time since 1988, a clear majority of people cast their vote for a candidate. And they did it in the largest number, ever. The victory for Bush is a validation of his first term. By an overwhelming number, voters came out to say “Bush is the President; Bush is the elected President; Bush has our support to govern as President.”

Let there never again be uttered any reference to Bush being illegitimate, selected, appointed, or any of that balderdash. The people had a chance to tell the world that the last four years were a mistake. They didn’t. Instead, they endorsed the last four years. The people have spoken. Bush is our choice, has been our choice, and will continue to be our choice for Four More Years.

Sorry, Al.

Looking at the Electoral College: it’s a gain for Bush. While Bush lost New Hampshire, he more than offset that with wins in New Mexico and Iowa. I know Iowa still hasn’t been officially called—but Bush has a clear lead, and a greater lead than Al Gore had there in 2000. What’s more, in every state besides New Hampshire, Bush gained votes compared to 2000. Even in Kerry’s home of Massachusetts, Bush took a higher percentage against Kerry than he did against Gore. The Red Zone is growing. The Blue Zone is shrinking. We are still a fairly divided nation, but the division is shrinking and one side—the conservative side—is gaining ground.

Now looking at the balance of power in Congress and the states:

Republicans have picked up a net of 4 Senate seats and are projected to gain approximately 5 in the House once the final few races are decided. Governorships continue to be dominated by Republicans, and state legislators—already dominated by Republicans—have moved further right. Nationally, at all levels of government, there is an ongoing rightward shift. This is all the more significant because this is the first election ever in which a Republican incumbent President has been re-elected in conjunction with gains in Congress. What does this mean?

America is already a Republican nation, and is becoming more clearly so each election.

This all adds up to a mandate for Bush, and a mandate for a conservative political agenda. But the liberal spin machine is already doing its darndest to shift your attention away. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! Listen to the big giant talking force before you! Bush has no mandate! We are divided!

As I said, divided we are, but the gap is moving further and further to one side. The real power of the democRat party is fading. Real support for a liberal agenda is waning. America WANTS that for which Bush stands.

Therefore, Bush should be given the reigns to govern. And it should be given without partisan constraints.

The spin:

Bush needs to use this win to heal the nation and reach across the aisle to end partisan politics!

Translation: liberal democRats will not accept defeat. They think they are still entitled to a huge share of the power, and Bush should just give them what they want. Remember, to a liberal, partisan politics means “politics where we don’t get what we want.” Newsflash: your ideology has lost. The wounds that need healing are self-inflicted. The partisan politics are a result of your refusal to reach across the aisle. The election mandate for Bush means that you don’t get to run the show anymore. You don’t have the power. Bush and the Republican Congress have the mandate to put forward their agenda. Now you can either help heal the wounds and reach across the aisle to end the partisan politics, or you can continue to attack, stonewall, filibuster, and blame.

Hint to the liberals:

If you play nice and give Bush the leeway to put forward his agenda, you will win back seats in 2006 and have a shot at the White House in 2008. If you obstruct, you will go down in bitter defeat and eventually go the way of the Whigs.

Here is some clever analysis:

In order for you to win an election, you need to have an issue on which to run. The left has entrenched itself as the party of progressive change. That means your issue is changing that which is socially unjust.

Example:

If you allow Bush to advance his policies, you gain a wedge issue. If Bush appoints judges who might threaten abortion rights, then suddenly you have an issue: vote for us to restore a woman’s right to choose! But if Bush fails to appoint such judges, then it’s a non-issue. After 4 years of Bush, women still have the right to choose an abortion. So women don’t need democRats to secure that right. But Republicans get to campaign in their strongholds on the platform of getting Bush the votes he needs to be able to nominate the judges he wants. Result? Republicans pick up Senate seats. The more democRats succeed in blocking Bush’s judicial nominations, the more Senate seats Republicans win, while at the same time, the fewer democRat voters are motivated to fight for reproductive rights. Therefore, granting Bush his mandate today leads to a stronger democRat campaign in the future.

This is the first step towards President Hillary Rodham Clinton.

John Kerry’s loss is Hillary Clinton’s gain. And the way Kerry conceded indicates that the Clinton arm of his campaign has exerted control over the Kennedy arm.

I fully expected Kerry to litigate the election results, no matter how lopsided. I expected Ohio to be recounting pregnant chads for weeks. John Edwards certainly had us going there, with his “keep fighting until every ballot is counted” rhetoric. And yet, the morning after, John Kerry gave what is widely regarded as a gracious concession.

What gives?

Well, Kerry’s campaign has for some time been composed of two factions: his base, filled with Kennedy agents; and party players, filled with Clinton agents. The base are the people who fueled the 2000 recounts. They are the angry radicals. They are the army of 10,000 lawyers ready to sue over every cry of disenfranchisement. The party players, on the other hand, are ready to concede defeat today in order to plant the seeds for 2008. The lack of a post-election brouhaha indicates to me that the Clinton camp took over.

This is the second step towards President Hillary, and it flows from what I said above.

Hillary will need a strong platform to win the White House because, as much as the “anybody but Bush” wing energized the race for Kerry, an “anybody but Hillary” wing will energize the 2008 race for the Republican nominee. In order to offset, Hillary needs to both have a solid liberal base and an energized moderate vote.

The liberal base will be out in full force if, four years from now, Bush has succeeded in appointing conservative judges who threaten Roe v. Wade. But if the moderates see another 2000 post-election battle, especially after it looks so decisive for Bush, they may be all but permanently put off of the democRat party. Moderates want to see everyone getting along happily. Moderates do not want to see a month of lawsuits over a few thousand possibly miscounted ballots when Bush has 3 or 4 million more votes than Kerry. The Kennedy crowd doesn’t understand this. The Clinton crowd does.

Hillary has just become the leader of the democRat party, and done it without stepping forward and saying a word.

The Senate will have a new minority leader. So long, Tom! All evidence suggests it will be Harry Reid of Nevada. You would think that Hillary would be aggressively courting the job. You would be wrong. Hillary knows that 2006 could be another bad year for democRats. She needs someone to blame. That will be whoever takes charge of the party leadership. The best thing for Hillary is for her party to shift further left, and lose again in 2006. That will allow her to step in and promise to take the party back to the moderate center in 2008, which will appeal to swing voters (the far left will still have to back her because there will be no alternative). That means letting someone else take the action now, and the blame then.

Hillary also knows that in 2006 she will be voted out of the Senate thanks to either George Pataki or Rudi Giuliani. She can’t beat either one. She won’t seek re-election.

If Hillary were the sitting minority leader and lost her first re-election bid, her political career would end. Permanently. If Hillary took the leadership role, only to leave the Senate just two years later, it would seriously undermine her credibility in running for the White House. Therefore, she must distance herself from party leadership and leave the Senate in 2006. She has the best possible excuse for leaving: running for President.

Joe Lieberman took a lot of heat for running for VP while also running for re-election to the Senate. Bob Dole earned a lot of respect by resigning from the Senate during his Presidential bid. All Hillary has to do is announce that she is leaving the Senate after fulfilling her full six-year term in order to make running for the White House her full-time job. She can say that principle keeps her from staying in the Senate, because a Presidential campaign will prevent her from serving the needs of New York. It wouldn’t be fair to her constituents. That would also elevate her above the likes of Kerry and Edwards, who were lambasted by the Right for missing so many Senate votes.

Hillary will run, win the nomination as the party savior, put Barack Obama on the ticket as her VP—breaking the color barrier and re-establishing the democRats as the only party for African-Americans—and will become the toughest opponent the Republicans have faced since FDR.

For this reason, Republicans need to begin the STOP HILLARY movement TODAY.

Conventional wisdom—and Dick Morris—argue that you don’t want to throw the dirt too early, because whoever survives the early attacks emerges as the strongest challenger. We saw that with the democRat primaries this year. Howard Dean was hit with everything early on by Republicans, expecting him to run away with the nomination. It backfired. Dean was knocked out early, and John Kerry emerged as a powerful opponent, and largely undamaged by the early onslaught. Dick Morris was right. Kerry was a tough opponent for Bush. If we had left Dean alone until after the first few primaries, until after he had enough momentum to ride out some attacks and win the nomination, he would have gone down in flames in the general election.

Hillary beats the conventional wisdom.

We already know Hillary. Hillary has already survived the mudslinging. She got hit with everything for eight years as First Lady. She got hit with everything in her Senate race. And she is still the front runner. Declaring war on Hillary today will not stop her from winning the party nomination in 2008. But it can weaken her. And no matter how weak she gets, there is no one else to replace her as the flag bearer come 2008. The only potential rival, John Edwards, is already discredited as the loser of 2004 and his “sue for votes” attitude has already been put out to pasture thanks to Kerry’s concession—doubtlessly at the urging of the Clinton-camp.

The best strategy for the Republicans in 2008 is to begin waging war against Hillary Rodham Clinton right now.

Comments

[niloniak]

and here I thought Bush won in spite of the exit polls due to ballot machine tampering. that's what the folks at work are saying...

[Gullyborg]

Yes, because as we all know, polling a few hundred random people (who bother to respond to the poll) is a far better method of guaging support than counting the ballots.

The people at your work obviously live in a bubble, an echo chamber of anti-Bush thought, with no real grasp of the greater world around them.

I am reminded of Pauline Kael, the infamous columnist for The New Yorker, who in 1972 expressed disbelief that Nixon could have really won with over 60% of the vote, because, as she said, she didn't know a single person who voted for that SOB. Does that say more about who the public supported, or about her limited social circle?