as i had expected, bush has won… or it would seem so anyway. i think that kerry hoping he’ll get over 90% of the provisional vote is … sad. in any case, you’ll note, at the time of this writing (early wednesday morning) cnn has not called ohio and fox has not called nevada… thereby leaving the totals under the required 270 for both networks. why? probably to keep people glued to their set. and possibly to not lose face by declaring a winner too early.

bush has currently broken the record for popular votes… and it’s sad to think nearly all major news sources would have wanted you to think bush was so hated and the nation was so divided, when in fact, this is even the first time since bush sr. that a candidate has won more than 50% of the vote.

were kerry to win ohio by some miracle (or, more likely, litigation), that would give kerry enough electoral votes to win the election despite a 3.5 million deficit in popular vote. so far, only two presidents have won the election despite losing the popular vote: bush in 2000 and and harrison in 1888. bush lost by 0.522 % and harrison by 0.555%.

if kerry were to win this election it would be with roughly 3.1% deficit in popular vote. what would all the people that were complaining about bush’s 2000 victory and its 0.5% difference in popular vote say about this? would it even be an issue? or would the press just be glad bush lost? that would be 3.5 million votes for bush that, for all intents and purposes, didn’t count. here’s a possible kerryism: we’ll make sure every vote counts, and every vote gets counted (so long as it’s in our favor (in major political hotbed states (despite a near statistical improbability))).

so far, bush has lost only one election, and ironically it was probably because his opponent accused bush of being too intellectual and intellegent to represent his constituents.