It ain't over 'til it's over

The presidential election is on Tuesday, November 2.  I'm thinking of that date somewhat like the individual days of the presidential debates.  What happens on that date provides some kind of basis for what follows.  But what happens in the days following may well prove to be more critical.

Don't expect the election to be over on November 2.

My expectation is that Kerry will win this election.  Like any partisan, I'm susceptible to forecasting what I would like to see.  The polls are confusing even for us hardcore political junkies.  But the polls as near as I can make out show a likely very close race.  (A fact of no little chagrin to at least one Kerry supporter familiar to the AOL-J community.)

Bush's general approval ratings have been running under 50%, which is a strong sign that late deciders are likely to "break" for Kerry.  It's conventionally assumed to be a very bad sign for an incumbent president going into the election with approval ratings under 50%.

The Democrats also have a potentially powerful boost in new voters, and in the fact that voters inclined to lean Democratic will be highly motivated to turn out.  Bush is a highly polarizing candidate.  And the Iraq War is such an awful mess, with such far-reaching implications, that more people than usual are very aware that this election has serious consequences for their future.  In the long run, the greatest benefit of democracy may well be the fact that ordinary people despise war.  (Though no one is entirely immune to the effects of war fever.)

But the Democrats and Democratic-leaning groups like labor unions have a far more impressive get-out-the-vote (GOTV to the serious political junkie) operation ready to go than in 2000.  The Republicans don't have anything comparable in place.

But the Republicans stole the 2000 election.  Al Gore won the popular election decisively, by more than 500,000 votes.  But the Bush dynasty got the decision in front of the Republican-dominated Supreme Court, and the Scalia Five handed the presidency to Bush.

The Bush dynasty will steal the 2004 election if they get the chance.  They aren't all that effective fighting terrorism.  But they can be ruthless when it comes to fighting for political power, regardless of what the outcome of the election actually is.

The Republicans are banking heavily on voter suppression to depress voting in Democratic-leaning precincts in key states.  Their willingness to embrace highly dubious practices to suppress Democratic voters and to undercount Demcratic votes should be a matter of concern to anyone who cares about the American system of democratic government (as opposed to just using it as a symbol of American moral superiority to justify wars to kill foreigners).

Little Brother Jeb was working on shoring up the Florida front well before this year, Bush dynasty style: Jeb Bush's secret weapon by Greg Palast, Salon.com  11/01/02.  The U.S. Civil Rights Commission issued a report in June 2001 on how the Florida branch of the Bush dynasty handled the 2000 election:  Voting Irregularities in Florida During the 2000 Presidential Election:

Voting is the language of our democracy. As the Supreme Court observed, “no right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live.” It is clear that many people in Florida were denied this precious right. The Commission’s investigation and report also demonstrate that although this denial in Florida fell most heavily on African Americans, it also affected many others, including, but not limited to, individuals with disabilities, people requiring language assistance, and former felons.

Some Americans, who wanted to vote, were eligible to vote, and who tried to vote, were nevertheless denied this precious right to vote. The error-plagued election in Florida must never be repeated.

But, yes, they will do it again if they can get away with it.

A number of bloggers have been following this.  AOL-J'er JustCherie posted about this recently about Voting Anxieties Across the Country.  Leading political blogs like Josh Marshall's Talking Point Memo, Steve Gilliard, Daily Kos and Hesiod have been giving particular attention to this issue.

And unless Kerry wins by such an unlikely large margin that the Bush dynasty sees no realistic shot at overturning the results of this election, Bush's crew will sue in various states seeking to tie up the process for weeks or months, trying of course to get the decision into the hands of the Scalia Five once again, where they can be sure of the outcome regardless of the actual votes on November 2.

As Joshua Green notes in his Nov 2004 Atlantic Monthly article Karl Rove in a Corner, Rove's 1994 Alabama judicial election campaign provided a prelude to Florida 2000.  When the initial count went against Rove's side, he challenged the results.  It's not a bad thing to challenge the results if there is a reasonable grounds for believing a miscount may have occurred.  But what's striking are the particulars of Rove's approach:

Rove had other plans, and immediately moved for a recount. "Karl called the next morning," says a former Rove staffer. "He said, 'We came real close. You guys did a great job. But now we really need to rally around Perry Hooper. We've got a real good shot at this, but we need to win over the people of Alabama.'" Rove explained how this was to be done. "Our role was to try to keep people motivated about Perry Hooper's election," the staffer continued, "and then to undermine the other side's support by casting them as liars, cheaters, stealers, immoral—all of that." (Rove did not respond to requests for an interview for this article.)

If this election is at all close with Kerry being declared the winner, the Bush dynasty will go all out to get this thing in front of the Scalia Five.  It's highly unlikely that the presidential election will be over when the polls close on November 2.