Unlike David I actually got some sleep. But this morning, I was woken by some loud bang-bang-bang pop music. But as the thuds thudded through my building and my brain, the thought gradually formed in the latter that there might now be a result in that… that… election… thing. Stagger into kitchen. On with TV.
Bush winning.
And Tony Blair losing. The Labour Party hates Bush, and hates hates hates that their leader has been cosying up to him these last three years. Another four years of Bush gazing out across the world, apparently not even knowing let alone caring that they hate him – well, it is just frightful. This could break Blair, by breaking the through-gritted-teeth support of his party for Blair’s vile vile policy of not hating Bush.
But ‘could’ is not ‘will’. Labour will suffer yes, but they will probably carry on suffering. Today as yesterday, the big questions in British party politics are: How long will Blair last? and: How will his successor conduct himself? For as long as Blair carries on the Conservatives are unelectable. If Blair’s successor gets how Blair has done this, then the crucifixion by opposition of the Conservatives will continue indefinitely, just as the crucifixion of Labour by the horror of having to share the planet with President George W. Bush will continue.
The ITV news is now saying that it is essential that Blair tells Bush that he must do what Kerry would have done. Retreat in his various wars, sign the Kyoto Treaty, blah blah blah. But we all know, and more to the point Bush and his cronies know, that you can only do well in a war if you show no sign of wanting to duck out of it. And America is not convinced about Kyoto. Dream on British media.
As for the USA, here is how it looks to me. The big story that I now see, for whatever that may be worth, is that Bush won despite a much increased turnout. When I went to bed, Kerry stroke British media optimism was based on the notion that all these New Voters who were even then queueing in their millions to actually vote in a Presidential Election for the very first time, would obviously help Kerry. Only settled old farts support Bush. Young people, bright eyed and (if you will part the expression) bushy tailed, will obviously back Kerry, on account of him being obviously nicer, better, wiser, better at talking, not so Christian, etc. etc. Ditto all those gypsies, tramps and thieves who last time around were too befuddled and too unregistered to vote. All these folks were now voting. Democrats, all of them. Got to be. Kerry camp happy. Bush camp ‘subdued’.
What actually happened was that the New Voters turned out in strength, yet Bush still won. Had Bush won with the kind of low and falling turnout that happened last time around, with the Settled Old Farts again voting for Bush but the New Voters again not actually voting, this result would have had a far less definite feel to it. Democrat fundamentalists would have spent another four years saying that they had won really, and that next time around this blip would be corrected.
But this was more than a blip. Either those New Voters are not as pro-Democrat as they were supposed to be, or a whole bunch of Settled Old Farts who had not voted last time around because they were too busy trying to work out how to set their new digital video whatchamacallit machines and forgot, managed to totter out to the polls this time around and vote for George W. Bush. Either way, that is a Bush win, and more of a win than last time.
Apparently Bush got more votes than anyone has ever got before in one of these things.
First commentary from either side that I’ve read which made me laugh and think.
Bravo.
Actually, it turnes out that the New Voters did not turn out in strength – at least not the young ones (I don’t know about the thieves etc.): it has been reported that the percentage of young voters was the same as in 2000. They seem to have only turned out for Bruce Springsteen.
Brian,
Maybe Bush won not despite the new voters but because of them.
Alisa,
Do young people listen to Bruce Springsteen? I would have thought his core audience was 30+ by now.
I agree with David Carr. Let’s not forget the South Park Republican Factor here. I have read a lot of stuff about how younger voters are in some ways more conservative than the ageing Baby Boom generation. People assumed that all young folk are Howard Dean groupies, Michael Moore worshipers, etc. I don’t think this is actually true, although I cannot prove it for sure.
Last night was the Baby Boom generation’s last big push to grab power. They lost.
For what it’s worth, CNN has exit poll data showing younger voters (18-29) more likely to have voted for Kerry. It also shows a very similar margin in favor of Kerry for those never having voted before. The mistake wasn’t in believing that these voters would be more likely to support Kerry, but in thinking that they would do so overwelmingly.
All in all, I don’t know how reliable that exit polling data may be, but it makes for interesting reading.
I agree with David Carr – Bush won because of the heavy turnout, sending a clear message to where a very large bulk of the American people stand when it comes to politics.
I live in a true blue state. No doubt at all that our electoral votes would go to Kerry. It looked to me that turnout was extraordinarily high anyway. I wonder how many people turned out because they considered the popular vote to be unusually important this time?
By the way, that number at the far right of Bush’s popular vote score, that’s me! Wave to the nice digit, everybody!
Good point, Andrew. Thanks for bringing me back to relity by reminding me of my true age;-)
As they put it on one network last night, EVERYBODY got out the vote this year! 18-29 year old’s voted 4-3 for kerry over bush, but they weren’t out in force other than proportional to other age groups.
There are STILL enough people who stay at home for someone who could get them out to vote to win if they got them all.
We can declare the Conservative Southern Democrat dead now: Zell Miller succeeded in handing his seat off to a Republican, and freakin’ Louisiana sent a R to the Senate!! The last of the South finally figured out how far the Democratic Party had drifted away from them..
And Daschle and Hollings lost!! Woot!!! Dems from Disney go home! 🙂
Bush won, “despite a large turnout”, Brian?
You are a Euro, so I can sympathize with your being taken in by The Current Wisdom.
But The Current Wisdom is olde, and you have been given entirely new information — information that is not so new on this side of the pond.
Since Ronald Reagan, that stupid moron cowboy gunslinger whom came on the scene and stole Liberalism from the Democrat party…Higher turnout means rather good things for the Republicans.
I just wish Bush would lean a little more in Dutch’s direction regarding overall world view….
My reference to Bush winning “despite” the large turnout was badly expressed, because I don’t think this either, as I immediately went on to say. What I was getting at was the state of mind which consists of (a) assuming (as the British media did on Tuesday night) that a big turnout was good news for Kerry but then (b) discovering (on Wednesday morning) that it hadn’t been, a contrast brought home very strongly to me because I slept in between the expounding of these two positions. “Despite” is the kind of word you use when you have no idea why something happened, but have at least registered that it did happen. If X will prevent Y, and yet Y happened, “despite” X … er, oh dear. What gives? I then immediately began to speculate about what gave.
As a writer I often glide between expressing my own opinion and describing someone else’s, and I see that in the above paragraph I did it again. This can be confusing. Sorry.
The ITV news is now saying that it is essential that Blair tells Bush that he must do what Kerry would have done. Retreat in his various wars, sign the Kyoto Treaty
This is a side issue, but do any of these newscasters have any clue that Bush can’t just “sign the Kyoto treaty” and make it so? I mean, I don’t expect the average Brit in the street to be familiar with the gory details of the US constitution, but you’d think reporters would understand that the Senate decides, and with the Senate’s previous vote on the matter.
Especially since the misunderstanding is used to stoke anti-Bush sentiment. (Or maybe I just answered my own question.)
jaed writes:
“Especially since the misunderstanding is used to stoke anti-Bush sentiment. (Or maybe I just answered my own question.)”
How well you understand the British media mindset.
Brian, you are correct, and I apologize. I saw the phrase, “in spite of a large turn out…” and immediately my spleen enlarged and got the better of me.
I read the rest of your piece, and all became clear.
I’d just like to thank you for your (meant in the plural) web site — I thought us idiots living in red-state-flyover-country were all alone in our thinking.
Thanks for putting up the good fight, and I shall end all ass kissing right-now-as-I-type.
Regards
I’m a 29-year-old new voter who registered to vote for the first time for Bush.