_____________
POLITICAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
I'm a registered Republican (by default), but consider
myself a conservative with a few libertarian leanings.
_____________
Foreword
Last November, I conducted a hypothetical interview with President George W. Bush (11/21, "Thank You, Mr. President"). Based on a large response I received from the people who read this piece, it was very successful. Apparently, it was also fair. I received only a very small amount of criticism about perceived bias, and it was almost evenly divided. Some people thought I favored the President; about an equal number felt I was too harsh on him.
Considering the excitement, trepidation and other emotional states today's election already has evoked, I thought it would be fun to revisit the Oval Office for another conversation with President Bush (albeit only a hypothetical get-together).
As I usually do when writing politically oriented material, I have posted my standard "disclosure statement." I believe that if some personal bias does come through, readers are entitled to know what direction it is coming from. (Maybe the mainstream media should consider adopting something like this?)
_____
Introduction
Before beginning the conversation, here are some data from the year-2000 election that may be helpful in assessing today's event.
---------------------------------------------
GENERAL SUMMARY OF 2000 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
---------------------------------------------
Electoral
Ticket Popular Vote % Vote
---------------------------------------------
Bush/Cheney 50,546,002 47.87 271
Gore/Lieberman 50,999,897 48.38 266
Nader/LaDuke 2,882,955 2.74 0
Others 1,066,246 1.01 0
---------------------------------------------
105,405,100 100.00 537*
=========== ====== ===
*One elector from the District
of Columbia did not cast a vote.
---------------------------------------------
The next table breaks out the last Presidential election's statewide percentage popular vote. Note, however, that the table's electoral-vote column is the distribution that will govern today's election, reflecting the changes among the states that resulted from the last census. Therefore, the states shown as won by Bush/Cheney in 2000 will not add to the 271 electoral votes the ticket received.
-----------------------------------------------------------
YEAR-2004 ELECTORAL VOTES AVAILABLE, PLUS: BUSH, GORE
AND NADER PERCENTAGE POPULAR VOTE IN YEAR-2000 ELECTION
(States Won by the Bush/Cheney Are in Bold)
-----------------------------------------------------------
2004 2000 Popular % 2004 2000 Popular %
Elec. --------------- Elec. ---------------
State Votes Bush Gore Nader State Votes Bush Gore Nader
--------------------------- ---------------------------
AL 9 56 42 1 MT 3 58 33 6
AK 3 59 28 10 NE 5 62 33 4
AZ 10 51 45 3 NV 5 50 46 2
AR 6 51 46 1 NH 4 48 47 4
CA 55 42 53 4 NJ 15 40 56 3
CO 9 51 42 5 NM 5 48 48 4
CT 7 38 56 4 NY 31 35 60 4
DE 3 42 55 3 NC 15 56 43 -
DC 3 9 85 5 ND 3 61 33 3
FL 27 49 49 2 OH 20 50 46 3
GA 15 55 43 1 OK 7 60 38 -
HI 4 37 56 6 OR 7 47 47 5
ID 4 67 28 2 PA 21 46 51 2
IL 21 43 55 2 RI 4 32 61 6
IN 11 57 41 1 SC 8 57 41 1
IA 7 48 49 2 SD 3 60 38 -
KS 6 58 37 3 TN 11 51 47 1
KY 8 57 41 2 TX 34 59 38 2
LA 9 53 45 1 UT 5 67 26 5
ME 4 44 49 6 VT 3 41 51 7
MD 10 40 56 3 VA 13 52 44 2
MA 12 33 60 6 WA 11 45 50 4
MI 17 46 51 2 WV 5 52 46 2
MN 10 46 58 5 WI 10 48 48 4
MS 6 58 41 1 WY 3 68 28 2
MO 11 50 47 2
-----------------------------------------------------------
287 -----------------------> + 251 = 538
-----------------------------------------------------------
The (hypothetical) scene opens late this morning, in the Oval Office, where a conversation (hypothetical) between President George W. Bush ("PB") and Doug Gillespie ("DG") is about to commence. ("03") are quotes from last year's interview "Thank You, Mr. President".
PB: Doug, welcome to the White House; it's good to see you again.
DG: Thank you, Mr. President. Considering your and Mrs. Bush's hellish schedule of the last few days, I appreciate your making this time available. And you and Mrs. Bush, as well as Senator and Mrs. Kerry, still have a late night ahead of you. For this reason, I realize we don't have much time to chat today.
PB: No we do not have a great deal of time right now. But I hope I won't have too late a night ahead of me. What do you make of the election? Our late polling numbers look pretty good.
DG: President Bush, I'm simply not sure what to make of the various polls. At first blush, they appear to portray an election too close to call. I'm not sure, however, that there isn't something else at work -- more like an election that may be too volatile to call.
PB: What do you mean?
DG: It's just three weeks shy of a year since we last met. At that time, a firm Democrat ticket was still well in the future. In my opinion, there could have been a considerably more formidable ticket put in place. One that had Joe Lieberman as its standard-bearer would have been the most formidable, I think.
PB: And?
DG: I think Kerry/Edwards was not the Democrat's best choice -- for a number of reasons. Yet, if you believe the polls, they are running a neck-and-neck race. So in this regard, you and Vice President Cheney may be lucky. That is, if I am correct that a ticket headed by Joe Lieberman would have been better for the opposition party.
PB: What were you getting at when you said an election too volatile to call?
DG: Well as you are more than aware, everyone has done the various combinations of which ticket needs to steal -- oops, "win" is the far better choice of words -- what states vis a vis the 2000 election to come up with the magic 270 electoral votes. This is simple math. The one factor -- the most important, I think -- that at which everyone is guessing is what the final turnout will be. We all know it is critical. As today progresses, we will have a better handle on what it is going to look like. But something bordering on an immense turnout, at least immense in relative terms, is the factor that could throw the polling data askew.
PB: I sense you are heading somewhere. Where are we going on this turnout issue?
DG: We are going a couple places, Mr. President. The first issue is one of demographics. Some people are estimating that perhaps 115 to 120 million people will vote today, maybe even more. This would be at least 10 million to 15 million more voters than in 2000. If this is what happens, it strongly suggests that younger people who ostensibly have been registered in huge numbers actually came out and voted.
PB: Who do you think this helps, Doug?
DG: I suspect it would be decidedly advantageous to your opposition, Mr. President. I'm sure you know why this is, but I'm equally sure you want to know why I think this is.
PB: Absolutely!
DG: Start with the obvious -- younger people have a tendency to be more liberal in their views.
PB: Agreed, but you think there's more to it, don't you?
DG: I do, indeed. I believe that given the current situation -- the Iraq situation, in particular -- the draft issue could be terribly important.
PB: But there is no draft issue. I and others in my Administration could not have made this more clear.
DG: Mr. President, I believe the opposition got out in front of you on this one, and that there still exists a strong belief among younger people there really is a "secret plan" to reinstate the draft.
PB: Doug, I hope you are wrong about this. What is the other place you want to go on the turnout issue? You said earlier there were a couple areas of interest here.
DG: The other area is an indelicate one, but an area I am absolutely convinced will become a cause celebre over the next day or two. It is the area of fraud, or at least of perceived fraud.
PB: You think this is a serious problem?
DG: I think it will emerge as an immense problem. And remember, I included perceived fraud as well as the real thing. Both parties are so acutely sensitive to the possibilities, that anything that looks not quite right will be taken as such. Heck, there were dozens of lawsuits already in progress before any polls ever opened.
PB: A moment ago, you said "younger people who ostensibly have been registered..." Is this to suggest there may have been a lot of people registered who do not actually exist?
DG: Exactly, Mr. President. I believe it is simply a sign of how embarrassingly lax much if not most of the country has become in this area. Over the last decade or so, I think we have seriously debased the country's once-sacred privilege of voting, using the "Motor-Voter" fad as one for instance.
PB: You think things like this are a bad idea?
DG: I think they are a horrible idea. I believe the Founders would be ashamed of things like this. Remember, Mr. President, at least one -- perhaps more -- of the 9/11 highjackers from New Jersey held a valid New Jersey driver's license. Although I'm not sure, I would not be at all surprised to find that they were also registered to vote in New Jersey. Everyone who is legal to vote and wishes to do so, should. But the system simply has made it too easy for significant abuse.
PB: Speaking of New Jersey, when Sean Hannity interviewed me recently, he was animated about how much "in play" New Jersey was for the Republican ticket. You live in New Jersey, Doug, what do you think?
DG: Before giving you an answer, President Bush, I want to go back to something we talked about last November, to wit:
03 PB: ...Since your views regarding my political future are downbeat, I certainly want to hear them.
03 DG: Not downbeat, Mr. President, maybe just a little more circumspect than the ones you hear most often. Along these lines, let me say that I don't think you are always well served by the legion of conservative cheerleaders in the land of talk radio. And remember, this opinion comes from someone who not only is a political conservative, but who also is a conservative talk-radio junkie!
DG: Mr. President, Sean Hannity is a great cheerleader, no question about it. And if you were to win today in New Jersey, it suggests the strong likelihood of a national victory. But in my view, notwithstanding Sean's optimism, it is highly improbable you will carry New Jersey. The state's Democratic machine is exceptionally adept at "finding" some votes in close races, and regrettably, the Republican organization in the state is, for all intents and purposes, dysfunctional.
PB: So, Doug, if you are correct about the perception or reality of widespread election fraud, what are the immediate consequences?
DG: The US financial markets should be an immediate casualty, particularly so if developments were to leave in doubt who the country's President was for any appreciable time. I wrote an article last month touching on the subject. It was entitled, "Stocks and the Coming Electoral Chaos," and I'll see you get a copy.
PB: Doug, I need to run along momentarily -- any final thoughts or maybe even a prediction?
DG: I have several additional thoughts, Mr. President. One revolves around the idea that over the coming four years, whoever is elected today may wish they had not been. This deal primarily with economic and financial-market considerations. With that as a teaser, I'm sure you will want to follow up on it. As to today's outcome...
PB: Indeed.
DG: I think you, personally, President Bush, will have a unique problem, should you prevail today. I believe your adversaries will do exactly as they did after the last election. They will wage an immediate, massive and continuing assault on the legitimacy of your Presidency. This might even lead to an attempt in the months ahead to begin impeachment proceedings. This may sound extreme; in my opinion, do not rule it out. As to whether you get another term, I believe the answer to that rests mainly with two voter genre: (1) young, first-time voters and (2) the old "Reagan Democrats." The former hurt you, but a resurrection and large turnout of the latter help your chances for victory a great deal.
PB: Thanks, Doug!
____________
|
