Well, President George W. Bush received the largest numerical vote in the history of the United States. He also won by a majority—which hasn't be done in 16 years. He also won by both popular and electorial votes.
Interestingly, there was very little difference in the actual states carried, but the majorities by which they were carried were very different. Looking at the various news maps, it looks like the only two states to change hands from the 2000 election are New Hampshire and New Mexico. So, it would appear that the major difference between this election and the last election was that both sides were able to get out the vote, but the Republicans managed to get it out more.
As I mentioned before, I really like to watch the election coverage. I do admit I'm one of those hicks that watches FOXNews as my primary news source, but I did quite a bit of channel surfing last night. I mostly flipped back and fourth between FOX and CNN, but I did look at the other channels from time to time, just to see what they had to say. It was very interesting to see when each state was called on the channels. MSNBC and FOXNews were the only two that called Ohio last night, but no one called enough votes to make for a 270 electoral majority. I also noted that CNN tended to call the Kerry states sooner than anyone else and FOXNews tended to call the Bush states sooner. I don't know if this implies bias or just differences of opinion, but I find all of this fascinating.
I do need to correct my Kansas prediction. I predicted that Douglas and Johnson county would vote for Kerry, but I was wrong. I forgot that Johnson is the home of those "Johnson County-types," that is, the affluent of Kansas City, Kansas for those from elsewhere in the country. Anyway, the counties that voted for Kerry were Douglas and Wyandotte (Kansas City proper).
Finally, my rant: I just came from the Union and heard a guy say, "Well, so much for the democratic process." What is that supposed to mean? The democratic process is only good if your guy wins? I'd say that Bush's margin as it currently stands is significant. The people have spoken. If you don't like it, that's just sour grapes. The Republicans had 40+ years prior to Reagan to say such things, now it looks like the tide is turning in their favor—maybe.
In any case, I'm not convinced that the Republicans are going to do anything good with their power anyway. I may vote Republican, in general, but I don't happen to like politicians of any affiliation. Politics is about power and power is and always will be abused. Therefore, I try to pick my votes to count for the candidate that will abuse his power in the least offensive ways. Hopefully, my vote will help get some folks in office that will occasionally do TheRightThing(tm), too...but I won't count on it.
