I’m listening to John Kerry’s concession speech as I’m writing this post. There’s a very discernible tear in his voice. He’s been quite warm, genuine, and gracious. As with Al Gore in 2000, nothing has become his race so much as his leaving it. I really believe that if either of these guys had campaigned with the same tone and emotion as they had in their concession speeches, they’d have won their elections.
UPDATE: Apparently, I’m not the only one who’s thought this way.
I’m writing this under the reasonable assumptions that John Kerry will not win the White House in 2004 and that the Republicans have increased the size of their majorities in both the House and the Senate. In addition the Democrats have suffered the humiliation of their Senate Minority leader Tom Daschle being rejected at the polls in his home state and increasing Republican State house memberships in many states.
The George W. Bush re-election, the health problems of Chief Justice Rehnquist, and the relatively advanced age of the current court will mean that it’s overwhelmingly likely that Mr. Bush will have the opportunity to appoint one or several new members to the Supreme Court. The increased Republican Senate majority will make it that much harder to prevent candidates that Senate Democrats find unacceptable by parliamentary tactics.
Influence of more conservative political philosophies than many Democrats will be pleased with are likely to wax far into the future.
Over the last few weeks the strategy of the Kerry campaign has become clearer. Match Republican spending on campaign advertising. Concentrate on the traditional Democratic strengths of bread-and-butter issues like health care, education, jobs. Rely on the strength of the Democratic ground game: voter registration and turnout. And let current events take their course, assuming that they will not reflect well on Bush.
The result are in and the conclusion is overwhelming: that strategy didn’t work.
The polling place where I work as an election judge does not have an Internet connection that’s available to me so instead of actually live-blogging the election I’ve kept a journal.
4:58am I arrived at the polling place a little early this morning around. It’s in the gym of a local public elementary school and it’s about a block from home. My wife took a couple of the dogs and walked with me to the polling place. I kissed her goodbye, gave the dogs a pat, and went in. I’m the first one there. 5:02am The custodian has wheeled up the ESC (election supply cabinet) using a hand truck. Good on him. He apparently didn’t like my re-positioning it—a big blue box about the size of a refrigerator and only a little lighter—last time so he’s being pro-active. This way I won’t scratch his floor.
I’ve taken a short break during the election to potty the dogs and vote myself. My assigned precinct currently has about 55% turnout. My home precinct has the same. Judging by past elections this would put us on target for a 85-90% turnout. Every is in pretty good spirits. I’m pleasantly surprised.
Make of it what you will.
The final 2004 edition of the Toast-O-Meter will be available this morning (link not available as of this posting). Check in at PoliBlog.
But Steven Taylor’s handy guide to state elections is available. A one-stop guide to all the state elections. This is the really important stuff, folks.
Posting will be light here tomorrow. I rise at the gruesome hour of 4:00am and I’ll be out the door before 5:00am to begin my election judge duties. These duties will last until roughly 9:00pm tomorrow evening. On Wednesday I’ll be sick as a dog and a single mass of pain from head to toe.
I’d like to live-blog the actual election process but it’s just not possible to get an Internet connection from the polling place. I will keep a journal and I’ll post that journal bright and early on Wednesday morning.
If we’re very, very lucky we’ll know then who the President will be for the next four years. I’m not banking on it.
Jeff Medcalf of Caerdroia has a very nice post on the true meaning of Halloween. Check it out.
In Catholicism Halloween is All Hallows’ Eve, the first day of a three day remembrance of those who have died. The second day is The Feast of All Saints or All Hallows’ Day. On this day we remember and honor all of the hallowed dead, the saints, known and unknown. The third day is All Souls’ Day, celebrated on November 2. In Mexico it is called Dia de los Muertos, Day of the Dead, and is celebrated with the skull-shaped sugar candy you may have seen. On All Souls’ Day we remember our own beloved dead, particularly those who have died in the last year. There are many practices for celebrating this day. Some parishes keep Books of Life, in which they record parishioners who have died during the year or anyone the parishioners wish to remember. Another old custom is to pray for the repose of the souls of your deceased loved ones in a number of different churches.
Praying for the souls of the dead is a very ancient Christian custom with attestations as early as the first or second century A. D. It’s the source of the doctrine of Purgatory.
Our society is sadly lacking in rituals of commemoration of the dead and that, in my opinion, is a real loss. Such commemorations are extremely ancient, probably as old as the species itself, and the foundation of many religions.
One particularly good way to remember and honor your deceased family and friends is to do something that a deceased family member or friend would have liked to do if he or she were still here. And that is the very root material of Christianity. We remember Jesus of Nazareth by doing something He would have liked to do.
Of course, others have a different idea of the true meaning of Halloween.
On GMA this morning, they ran a portion of a taped interview of John Kerry by Peter Jennings. Jennings asked the following question: “Mr. Kerry, can you name three mistakes you’ve made in the course of the campaign? Things that you wish you hadn’t done or had done differently?” Kerry, of course and at some length, declined to answer.
Good on Jennings for asking this. This makes the point that it’s wrong and demeaning to ask a candidate a question whose only real purpose is to humiliate the candidate and give the candidate’s political opponents ammunition. And, best of all, Jennings made the point as a newsman should—by asking a question rather than by pontificating.
James Lileks is also semi-live-blogging Halloween:
Most amusing moments: three boys screamed “BUSH IS SCARY VOTE FOR KERRY,” whereupon I took back the bowl of candy. The look on their faces was priceless.
“Aren’t you going to vote for Kerry?” asked one.
“Your choice: I can vote for Kerry and you get one piece, or I vote for Bush and you get two.”
Total pieces dispensed: six
Be careful, James. They got Socrates for “corrupting youth”, i.e., making them think.
Centerfeud directs our attention to a pair of speculative Washington Post columns.
Michael Waldman on President Kerry’s first term.
Ramesh Ponnuru on President Bush’s second term.
Darn. I’d planned on doing this myself tomorrow. This makes a good bookend to my post below.
