Guess what? Kerry won!

For several days now, I have been bedeviled by several things. First, the sickening reversal of the early exit polls that had Kerry in the lead. Second, the Democrats' ridiculous self-laceration over not being able to gaybash as well as Karl Rove can. (Remember, he's had years of practice.) And third, the spurious notion that Bush's slim victory is somehow a "mandate."



The whole thing doesn't smell right--the swing in the exit polls; the complete failure of all the conventional wisdom (that heavy turnout helps the Dems, that incumbents suffer when an electorate is largely undecided going into the booth); Bush's weak performance in the debates; the relentless downer of the war; the crappy economy...There's simply no way that Bush could've won--unless a vast chunk of the population is irrational, wild-eyed zealots that can't be reasoned with.



As unlikely as that is, the media has seized on it as the magic formula; people in the Red states are apparently insane. Suddenly, the fear of losing your job and/or getting your ass shot off in Iraq is completely overwhelmed by a fear of gay marriage. Would you act this way? Can homophobia alone swing an election? I'd say that's very unlikely. I've lived in Greenwich Village and I've lived in Jefferson City, Missouri and in my experience, people just aren't that different.



So I think that the GOP stole it again, and I've been waiting for somebody smarter than me to address this. Greg Palast, the journalist who wrote "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy," is, and has. His verdict? The GOP stole it, again.



Here's a snip from an article called Kerry won. Here's the facts: "[GOP challenges at Ohio polls] apparently resulted in voters getting these funky "provisional" ballots—a kind of voting placebo—which may or may not be counted. Blackwell estimates there were 175,000; Democrats say 250,000. Pick your number. But as challenges were aimed at minorities, no one doubts these are, again, overwhelmingly Democratic. Count them up, add in the spoiled punch cards (easy to tally with the human eye in a recount), and the totals begin to match the exit polls; and, golly, you've got yourself a new president. Remember, Bush won by 136,483 votes in Ohio."



WTF? Reading this, it actually seems LIKELY that Kerry took Ohio--and thus the Presidency! Front-page news, right? But don't expect to find this in The New York Times. The people who run that consider themselves to be very worldly and smart, and the last thing that institution would admit is that they got hoodwinked AGAIN. Protecting our democracy is not as important as minimizing their embarrassment (see: Miller, Judith).



The notion of a GOP ass-whipping of the Democrats is the coastal elite's backhanded compliment to itself. Recognizing that a combination of spoiled ballots in minority areas, vote suppression, and unverifiable touch-screen voting--problems predicted well before the election and entirely preventable, had the GOP-controlled electioneers been held to reasonable standards of impartiality--cost the Democrats the White House is a no-win situation for the mainstream media. It angers the guy in the White House, whom they need access to--whether he's legitimate or not. It weakens the system that they are so heavily invested in. It opens them up to criticism as conspiracy theorists and liberal symps. And it makes them liable to be called unpatriotic--even in the name of something as nonpartisan as fair and free elections.







Put it this way: it's a lot easier for the self-appointed guardians of this country to put forward the bogus idea that people who (this is important) don't read The New York Times are a bunch of gay-hating troglodytes than to deal with the possibility that the US is in the hands of a bunch of amoral shysters. The more intolerant and irrational the Red states are, the more the Blue ones can pat themselves on the back. With power comes responsibility, and being the minority party gives you still a great deal of the spoils with almost none of the blame.



Of course, what things like this come down to is the world you want to live in--what strikes you as more likely, based on your experience. To me, it's much more likely that the GOP stole it (remember, they've done it before) than that millions of people suddenly hate gay marriage enough to vote counter to their clear self-interest. I can't prove I'm right--the Times and the Dems could, but they won't. But blaming Kerry's apparent defeat on the masses (who don't read the Times, so the Times isn't responsible to/for them) is much too convenient for me to swallow.



Face it, dear reader: you're extra depressed about Kerry because IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. Kerry's loss is like a mysterious death, and like a mysterious death, it raises questions. A lot of people will say "What's the use of finding out what happened? It won't bring him back." I don't happen to be one of those people who value peace more than truth. Are you?