Though a few will console themselves in thinking that the election was stolen, the reality is that President Bush and his new conservative friends in Congress came in with a net fair winning percentage. This is not to say that things went on without a hitch. For instance, in Florida and North Carolina, reports of electronic voting machine problems suggest yet again the importance of a paper trail.
A glitch in North Carolina involving a machine that mistakenly was thought to be able to handle thousands of more votes than it could resulted in a loss of those votes with no way to re-count them. A minor statewide race was decided by less than that but in 2000 a few states' electoral votes were as well. Luckily, for what it is worth, the election for President or control of the Congress was not decided by so close margins that this affected the outcome. Still, just like Ohio could have made Kerry the second president in the row with a loss in the popular vote, the system's problems must be faced.
It is also useful as the event slowly seeps in and all to get a realistic view of what occurred. First, the gains in the Senate came mainly from red states, though the win in Florida (more of a purple state as was Nevada, which had a 51/49 split for Bush ... the same might be said for one or two of the Great Lakes states that went to Kerry) is more troubling. Thus, though Harry Reid (NV) as minority leader might still be a bit too cautious, Senate Democrats probably will be a little less moderate (Bush apologist) than they were last time. btw a "purple state" (see map) is basically one that is largely closely divided.
This is good, for instance, if President Bush does something like considering Justice Thomas as Chief Justice, especially if Sen. Specter shows some degree of guts and is a halfway fair chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The new new senators are exciting too: from red/purple Colorado and the voice of the future from Illinois. On the House side, the net wins came from Texas, thanks to the crooked mid-decade redistricting that is still under court review. The closest race in Texas was Rep. Tom DeLay (55-45).
Finally, since local races did not get much press [all my local choices won, including state assembly, and I really don't care], it might be useful to look at ballot measures. Alabama had one regarding ending school segregation -- it was too close too call. All the measures against gay marriage, including Oregon (where the matter is currently in the courts), passed. Various other depressing losses is one in California (where stem cell research funding did pass) which would have only made violent felonies be included as a "third strike" in its strict three strikes and you are out law, a few states that limited damage awards in tort cases, and a chance to end the criminality of possession of marijuana (Montana did allow medicinal pot).
Positives included raises in minimum raise (Florida/Nevada), expanded patients rights (Florida), environmental measures (e.g., CO, WA, MO), education funding (NV, NC, AK, OK), and rejection of caps on noneconomic medical malpractice damages (WY). In various cases, the people voted for things opposed or hindered by the person their state elected for national office. And, a majority of the voters don't like how the country (run by Republicans) is going. This will not stop the President and company to try to argue that "the people have spoken," so they have every right to do any number of ill advised or blatantly wrong things.*
Meanwhile, the fight against the bad things the President and his supporters are doing must continue. I highlighted the gay issue last time, but to those who say "hey, I have nothing against gays," clearly there are many other problems. For instance, there is the war in Iraq and all its permutations. The latest: not only does it now seem to be clear evidence of looting of explosives, similar lack of planning and oversight has hindered the collection of evidence for war crime trials. We have heard little about such things, even though basically it is a primary aspect of the only reason left that justifies the war. Likewise, the president's economic problems, ways he does business, and so forth did not suddenly become fine and dandy.
As to his "mandate," not only is the win small (smallest of all incumbents, if large as raw numbers, given the increased voter turnout) and existing at all only in certain areas, the actual reason for it is unclear. For instance, Paul Krugman today suggests 9/11 concerns was the margin of victory. Others say it was the anti-gay backlash. The fact many did not truly understand his policies or reality itself (no, Saddam was not involved in the attacks of the towers in 1993 or 2001) also must be factored in. This does not stop people from blaming the election on presumed failure of Democrats to talk about values (putting aside Edwards dripped with down home country values and Kerry is a church going Catholic) or whatever.
[Give me a hometown boy from Ohio or some other close state, take away the incumbent and war factor, and I'll give you a Democratic victory. Heck, give me a hometown boy with the right determination and skill, I bet we'd be still counting votes now. It also merits notice that Bush didn't even get NH this time, making Maine to DC all Kerry country. Along with the fact non-whites, an ever growing body of people, still strongly went Democrat, this demographic should be troubling to Republicans with a long range focus. Maybe, they should learn how to understand us a bit too.]
Such is life -- a failure to take a careful accounting of what you get when you vote in a President Bush will tend to bite you and all the rest of us in the ass. The opportunity, however, is opened that with the proper amount of effort and leadership that a narrowly divided electorate can be geared into the right direction. In fact, even in the darkest of red states, people are worried about things that can open the way for liberals, libertarians, conservatives, and all the good people out there to work together to help us to have a saner, fairer country.
The fact that the current bunch only furthers poisons the well, truly makes it HARDER to unite together (leading to some of the loyal opposition to become part of the problem) even if we have some serious differences, is one of our biggest problems. But, to quote a fairly good book, no one promised us a rose garden.
---
* Besides discussing our troubled economic future, one account gave a fairly good example of this phenomena: "Meanwhile, at yesterday's press conference, the president indicated that priority number one will be his ill-defined ambition for Social Security reform (the notion that you can claim an electoral mandate for a plan you not only didn't campaign on but haven't even yet devised is a bit absurd, but it's going to be theater-of-the-absurd time every day for the next four years), which has an estimated price tag somewhere in the trillions."