[Mb-civic] A clear victory this time Economist

Wed Nov 3 10:31:02 PST 2004

A clear victory this time

Nov 3rd 2004 
>From The Economist Global Agenda

John Kerry has admitted defeat in the crucial swing state of Ohio and called
George Bush to congratulate him on his re-election as American president. Mr
Bush's victory is much more decisive than in 2000. Will the nature of the
result change his style in office?

AFP

Get article background

IT WAS every bit as close as advertised, but in the end, George Bush and his
vaunted campaign team have attained victory in America¹s presidential
election, held on Tuesday November 2nd. Exit polls throughout the day
confirmed that the race would be close, and many even seemed to show that
John Kerry had an edge. But as the votes were counted in the decisive swing
states, particularly the three biggest of Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio, Mr
Bush¹s victory began to look certain.

 The first of the big three to be called by analysts was Pennsylvania, which
fell relatively comfortably to Mr Kerry, as pre-election polls showed it
might. But at around midnight on the American east coast, Mr Bush got a big
boost when it became clear that he was ahead by a clear margin in Florida,
which the television networks soon called for the president.

 All eyes then turned to Ohio. The electoral maths required that Mr Kerry
take the last of the big three swing states to stay in the race. Otherwise,
he would have to pull off a nearly impossible victory in all of the
remaining swing states and a Bush-leaning state or two. As Ohio¹s returns
came in, they showed, as in Florida, a small but persistent lead for Mr
Bush. When over 90% of the precincts had reported, the result seemed
assured.

For several hours, the Kerry campaign insisted that 250,000 overseas and
³provisional² votes (ie, those whose validity is yet to be determined)
remained to be counted in Ohio, and Mr Kerry thus refused to concede. John
Edwards, Mr Kerry¹s vice-presidential running mate, gave a short but feisty
speech saying ³every vote will be counted.² But Mr Kerry needed to win an
unlikely 70% or more of the outstanding votes in the state to close Mr
Bush¹s lead. He quickly came under pressure from Republicans and some
Democrats to throw in the towel. Late on Wednesday morning, after intense
talks with his aides and prominent Democrats, he did just that, calling Mr
Bush to congratulate him on his victory. According to reports, he also urged
the president to strive to unite a divided country.

Several factors magnify the scope of Mr Bush¹s victory. One is the overall
vote tally. Fortunately for the president, and for the bitterly divided
country, he seems to have won the popular vote by a clear majority of 51% to
48% (with 98% of the national vote counted)‹a lead of more than 3m votes
over Mr Kerry. And this came on record turnout of about 115m, which the
Democrats had hoped would work in their favour.

In 2000, Al Gore took some half a million more votes than Mr Bush, causing
many of the Democratic Party faithful to call their man the real winner for
the duration of Mr Bush¹s first term. This time, with the electoral-college
and popular votes in harmony, the result looks more like the true verdict of
the American people than the result of an outdated system.

 Another wound from 2000 may be healed with this year¹s election as well.
Four years ago, Mr Bush won the election after a 36-day recount that
included allegations of disenfranchisement of blacks, misleading ballots and
other shenanigans. The fiasco, ended by a Supreme Court decision, gave Mr
Bush Florida and thus electoral-college victory, but it was a tainted win.
This year, thousands of lawyers and monitors flocked to polling stations,
especially in Florida and Ohio, to check for voter fraud and the like.
Pundits fretted that legal troubles could prevent a clear result for days or
even weeks. But no major irregularities were reported on election day‹it
seems that Democrats will have no butterfly ballots or hanging chads with
which to question the legitimacy of Mr Bush¹s re-election.

 That is not the end of the good news for Republicans. In elections held
alongside the presidential vote, they also held control of Congress,
stretching their lead in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
The House was never going to change hands, as most of its districts have
been gerrymandered to keep incumbents safe. But there were some tight races
in the Senate elections, in which a third of seats were up for grabs. In the
event, the Republicans increased their slim majority by at least three seats
(one race is still undecided). They won formerly Democratic seats in
Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina and Florida. The Democrats poached
two Republican seats, in Illinois and Colorado. But they lost a crucial race
in South Dakota, where Tom Daschle, the Democrats' leader in the Senate, was
edged out by John Thune. It was the first time a party leader had lost such
an election in more than 50 years, and it seemed to sum up the Democrats'
fortunes on the day.

What will all of this mean for a second Bush term? After winning a disputed
election and losing the popular vote in 2000, Mr Bush nonetheless governed
proudly (or shamelessly, as the Democrats would have it) as a staunch
conservative. This year, his victory will be much more decisive. Does this
mean an even stronger dose of conservative policy? Tax cuts were one of the
biggest legacies from Mr Bush's first term. But with a sharp fiscal
deterioration in his first four years in office, there is little room for
more of the same in the next four. In foreign policy, Mr Bush¹s big move was
the war in Iraq. He will be determined to stay the course there, keeping
America¹s large contingent of soldiers on the ground until elections are
held (they are scheduled for January) and the new Iraqi government
establishes itself.

After a bitterly fought election, Democrats and liberals will hope that Mr
Bush now governs from the centre. But they have hoped that before, and were
disappointed. With a more decisive victory under his belt, expect him to try
to consolidate and expand the gains of his victorious conservative movement.