Vox Popoli

For whom did you vote?

37% (R) George Bush (276)

34% (L) Michael Badnarik (254)

14% (C) Michael Peroutka (105)

10% (N) I didn’t vote (74)

04% (D) John Kerry (27)

00% (I) Ralph Nader (3)

00% (G) David Cobb (0)

Total Votes: 739

Yep, this is about as accurate as the early exit polls saying that Kerry was winning every swing state by 20 percent margins. Keep that in mind next time before you start getting your panties in a bunch.

I’m just curious to see the difference between how readers here will actually vote compared to how they said they’d vote a few months back. If you recall, the results then were about 40 percent Bush, 40 percent Badnarik, 15 percent Peroutka and 5 percent Kerry. Unfortunately, I forgot to add the non-vote option, so the numbers will definitely be off.

Anyhow, vote once and only vote if you actually voted – or did not vote. My guess is that Bush will now be around 40 percent, Badnarik, Peroutka and No Vote will all be in the vicinity of 20 percent. Kerry as before, at five percent.

As for the real election, I stand by my prediction that Bush will win with more than 300 electoral college votes. I also predict that the Constitution and Libertarian parties will do a little better than expected, perhaps 2 percent together, and that voter turnout will not be any higher than normal.

UPDATE: Larry Kudlow posts on NRO: “The Horse Race Blog, which I know you’re all watching, has similar numbers. He expects the margin to be 51.0 to 47.3 with Bush garnering 306-327 EVs while Kerry gets 211-232.” In other words, about what I’ve been saying for six months, although I’d prefer to see the LP+CP total north of 2 percent. We’ll see.

Electoral College totals

Bush: 286

Kerry: 252

Not quite the 300+ victory I expected, but a comfortable one with the first clear majority of the popular vote in years. Not too bad, considering that I called a solid win for Bush six months ago. The Libertarian total of less than 400,000 is quite disappointing, though, and the LP+CP total won’t even reach 500,000. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that the American people prefer strong government to liberty, though, as Toqueville and Schumpeter predicted this long ago.

All according to the 2000 pattern so far. I’m calling FL myself based on the county changes from 2000 all going in the Republicans’ favor.

From NRO: 2nd round of exit polls

Kerry-Bush FL 50-49 OH 50-49 PA 54-45 WI 51-46 MI 51-47

However, In early 2000, exit polls showed: Gore +3 in Florida; Gore-Bush even in CO (Bush won by 9) Gore +4 in AZ (Bush won by 6)

Mark Steyn points out that the exit polls claiming 57-41 Kerry in NH and 60-40 Kerry in PA are not even remotely credible. Furthermore, the early polls were 59 percent female, yeah, that’s right, now the Three Monkeys are starting to see the light with regards to the suffragettes. Anyhow, the polls that scared KJL so are as meaningless as an exit poll of unregistered gay French communists.

KJL tries to hold panicked Republicans together on NRO:

bush down 4 in OH, down 4 in FL, down 1 in NM, down 1 in MI down 2 IA

Do not, again, do not take any exit poll resports too seriously. JUST GET OUT THE VOTE. Exit polls not always reliable, ESPECIALLY early ones. AND, this isn’t over until the polls close. So please get to work while there is still time.

DO NOT get depressed. DO NOT get mad. JUST GET OUT THE VOTE.

I contend this is the most important election of many of our lifetimes. I’m almost willing to make a deal and give the Dems 2008 if we can have this one.

What do you want to bet she’ll completely forget that statement by the time 2008 rolls around, regardless of who wins. Especially because it could be the Lizard Queen making it THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION OF OUR LIFETIME! Again. However she is right about the exit polls, as they are interesting but largely meaningless. I daresay that the ones that people are excitedly talking about have little more relevance than the one here, which shows a neck-and-neck race between Badnarik and Bush.

From the Washington Times:

The visit to the Pentagon yesterday by Chinese Gen. Liang Guanglie was deliberately kept quiet to avoid calling attention to the now-stalled U.S.-Chinese military-to-military exchange program, defense officials said….

The White House has been pressuring Mr. Rumsfeld and the Pentagon to resume the program as a way to court Chinese support for the war on terrorism and other U.S. policies. Mr. Rumsfeld met yesterday with Gen. Liang, who is considered the most powerful member of the Chinese military as the chief of the general staff. Defense officials say Gen. Liang is an advocate of “liberation warfare” against Taiwan and as leader of the Nanjing military district near Taiwan is considered the man who would lead any conflict against Taiwan….

Anyone up for trading Taiwan for the Middle East? I doubt that’s openly on the table, but I’m sure the possibility has been raised by the Chinese. If you think about it, it’s got to be tempting to unprincipled geostrategists who can, at one fell swoop, get rid of an economic competitor – most laptops are now made in Taiwan, underneath the marketing plastic my new 3.4 GHz beast is a Taiwanese Clevo – and secure all the manpower you’d ever need for nation building.

A failure to remember the lessons of the past is the great weakness of the voting populace and is exploited by the bifactional ruling party every four years. The present election is always the election at which everything is uniquely at stake; the idea that the global jihad was the deadliest threat to ever face America would have been rightly laughed at by those voters worried about an aggressive Soviet Union in 1980. The hysterical Three Monkeys who now warn of the lethal dangers of a Kerry presidency – as if the nation didn’t already recently survive two terms of a soulless ambition seeker with an annoyingly leftist wife – forget how they swore up and down that keeping Gore out of office was the most important vote anyone would ever make.

On the other side of the false divide, the Little Red Book Democrats spit foam-flecked drivel in comparing George Delano unfavorably to Hitler, Caligula and Genghis Khan, somehow managing to skip over the fact that this Republican president has done them the service of expanding the central government further and faster than Kennedy, Carter or Clinton. Like the Three Monkeys, the Little Red Books are mesmerized by the initial in parentheses before the name. Everything in the Party, nothing outside the Party, nothing against the Party.

But the bipolar construct is an old one. It has been a mirage since the elections of 1900, when JP Morgan and John D. Rockefeller were selecting the candidates for both parties. You may seriously believe that it makes a vital difference to the nation whether George Bush or John Kerry are elected president; it does not.

Both Bush and Kerry will severely disappoint their supporters because the president is not a dictator. He is primarily a symbol, and a largely powerless one at that. Only a candidate completely devoted to dismantling the federal leviathan can hope to wield any real power and that is mostly negative. A president can shut down the government, either by executive order or recalcitrance vis-a-vis Congress, but that is precisely the opposite of what both George Bush and John Kerry plan to do.

There is no party of small government in Washington DC. A vote for either candidate of the major party is a vote for big government now and bigger government in the future. If that suits you, then by all means vote for one of them. If not, it’s far better that you vote for no one at all than betray your principles based on rationalizations of lesser evils and secret plans.

This cracked me up. These two articles are right next to each other on Editor & Publisher:

Daily newspapers in 11 states with “anti-gay” constitutional amendments on the Nov. 2 ballot are editorializing against the measures by more than 10-1, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) is reporting. “When you look at newspaper endorsements and editorial pages, the vast majority of them are calling on voters to defeat these amendments,” said GLAAD Executive Director Joan M. Garry in a statement.

and

According to an analysis of the latest FAS-FAX circulations figures, due out this afternoon, the Newspaper Association of America reported today that overall daily circulation dropped .9% and Sunday circulation decreased 1.5%.

No, there’s surely no connection. Businesses that hate their customers and attempt to force on them things they dislike usually increase their sales, don’t they?

JA writes in response to David Kupelian’s open letter to third-party voters:

I couldn’t sit back and not comment on David Kupelian’s attempt to sway voters. For starters, Kupelian’s comments were nothing but simplistic fear-mongering. I’ve heard it since I first got interested in politics in the 9th grade (Carter running against Ford). It’s pathetic.

Idiotic neo-cons need to quit trying to blame principled Christians as if it is their fault if the neo-con’s candidate doesn’t win. Perhaps if Bush was a candidate for Christians (and true conservatives in general), he’d get our vote. He’s not, and only the uninformed Christian will vote for him. If Kerry wins, it will be because he got enough electoral votes. Same for Bush. Kupelian’s argument is as insulting as it is ignorant. I reject Kupelian’s argument with this quote: “Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” — John Quincy Adams

What is shallow and unworthy is Kupelian’s pathetic attempt to shame Christians into voting for Bush. Has Kupelian no faith in God? My God is not so small that He allows others to determine what will happen on earth beyond what He wishes. The argument of ‘every Christian is a sinner’ is no argument for voting for Bush at all….

Kupelian even goes so far as to twist ‘the lesser of two evils is the ‘good’ choice.’ That’s almost saying evil is good and good is evil. It’s twisted logic at best, if not outright lies. A vote for Bush or Kerry ensures the continued decline of our Constitution, our sovereignty, our culture and our liberty. Neither man is worthy, and I know one of the two will be in the White House. But not by my hand. We will reap what we sow, as a nation, and it will not be good with either of these men in charge.

If David Kupelian is a man of faith, it is a small faith, and one filled more with fear of this life than of our Father in Heaven. God is a big God, and His ways are mysterious to us. To quote Mother Theresa, “God didn’t call me to be successful, He called me to be faithful.” If Kupelian’s faith is in the Republican Party, he worships a false god.

Now, Kupelian is no “idiotic neo-con”, many principled Christians will vote for Bush, (and for that matter, Kerry) and I also happen to disagree with the statement that God does not allow others to determine things beyond what He wishes. (I believe that this world is fallen and under the authority of an evil god that Jesus Christ called “the prince of this world”) But JA’s criticism is at heart well-founded. Christianity is not only not of this world, but even in this world it goes far beyond the United States. For example, the lesser of two evils argument expressed by Buchanan, Kupelian and Farah of late would have required Christians to support the Conservative Chirac in France because the Socialist Jospin was indubitably worse. It’s nonsense, the only question is at which point you are willing to recognize it as such.

Political pragmatism is not only counter-productive, but fatal in the long-run. Testimony to this is how the Republicans of today often appear to be to the left of many, if not most, of the Democrats of 40 years ago.

JD sees God in a Republican image:

You support the Libertarian party in voice and vote if not in party assignment. I’m sick and tired of people attempting to deny allegiance for some foolhardy notion of objectivity. Cold or Hot, lukewarm is not. The constitutional party while novel in its approach does warrant the same affiliation you and others appropriate to the Libertarian Party. Let’s be clear.

What about fully (albeit passively) legalizing abortion, gay marriage, drugs, prostitution and gambling is in line with the teachings of the Bible? Please explain this to me and your readers. Does liberty equal license for these lost souls? According to the Word – by no means!

Let’s stop this charade and get down to business. If you don’t vote for Bush you are stepping on the gas peddle weather you can feel your numbed foot or not.

JD’s argument reveals a serious failure to understand the Bible. He is conflating morality and legality. Step back a second and consider: God certainly has the ability to force us to obey His Law, (think about it as the law of gravity, not the law of the land), and yet He does not. He gives us the ability to choose to obey or not, and to subsequently experience the natural consequences of our actions.

That’s precisely what libertarians advocate. You can use drugs, if you wish, but you will risk experiencing the natural consequences of your addiction, just as God permits men and women to sin against Him and to subsequently experience the natural consequences of their sin. A God made in the Republican image would not permit people to sin against him in this manner. JD understands this on some level, or he would not use the weasel word “passively”. Allowing another human being to make a decision to sin should never be confused with committing that sin yourself; the two things are entirely different.

No man can send another’s soul to Heaven or to Hell. This does not stop some from trying either one or the other.

Jay Nordlinger writes on NRO:

I have said that left-wingers run stealthy campaigns. I have also said that Americans make free choices, and are responsible for them. How to reconcile these two possibly contradictory assertions? Well, first, a left-wing candidate can’t run so stealthily — and the media can’t be so complicit — that the candidate is utterly unknown. And, second, I often find myself in the position of reminding my fellow conservatives that the country is not nearly as conservative as we like to suppose.

While I disagree with Mr. Nordlinger’s quasi-deification of George Bush, I think he raises a very salient point here. All too often, libertarians and conservatives assume that if only they knew, the people would behave differently. The truth is that by and large, people largely do know or at least have a glimmering of understanding, the problem is that they just don’t care.

One of the great tragedies of Les Miserables is the sad picture of the students, optimistically manning their barricade in the vain hope that the people will rise with them. But the people NEVER RISE. Change always begins with the intellectuals, from the elites, not from the groundswell. The quiet meetings behind closed doors are always much more important than iconic symbols such as the storming of the Bastille.

The die is already cast. George Bush will not change the direction of the nation, indeed, he has promised precisely the opposite. So do what is right because it is right, not because you believe there is a chance of success. If you choose instead to serve expedience and pragmatism, you may as well go all the way and embrace the Nietschean will to power. In my opinion, it is every bit as justified and moral.

People often ask me how they can contribute or otherwise support my writing, seeing that I haven’t published a political book (yet) and I don’t have Amazon sub-store or a tip jar. (By the way, I don’t recommend that anyone work with the corporate thieves at Paypal; I’ve never used it but a search on Slashdot will soon explain why.)

But one thing that I would appreciate, if you really would like to contribute somehow to my long march towards Rushian levels of societal influence, is to consider purchasing The War in Heaven or The World in Shadow, either for yourself or for someone on your Christmas list who likes reading fiction, especially fantasy or sci-fi. For those who are younger or are less inclined to the literary, Patrick, the artists and I just finished the first volume in the three-volume Archangels: The Fall comic series, which is a serious, intense and visually striking tale of Satan’s fall and Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection as seen through the eyes of the archangel Michael. The cover of the first volume can be seen on the right; I’ve never been a comic book – sorry, graphic novel – guy, but as a medium for short stories, I’ve learned that it actually does have some unique strengths.

Anyhow, I am pleasantly surprised at how well the comic has turned out and I thought that some of you might be interested in hearing about it. Please note that the signed copies are signed by Patrick, the series creator, and not me.

The OC has something to say about tomorrow too:

All I wanted was a little undivided Dad time with The Kid. Just an hour or two of sitting on the couch together, chilling out, and watching something harmless and mindless on the tube. For just — oh, two hours — I would have been really happy to not think about work, or the election, or terrorism, or the local political crapstorm currently swirling around my gun club, or anything else except sharing a few innocent laughs with my 9-year-old son. The broadcast showing of “Monsters Inc.” last night looked like just the ticket.

I can hear you snickering already. Yeah. Right. Dream on.

His innocence survived the first few political commercial barrages, but about half an hour into the show, after one particularly nasty exchange of ads and counter-ads, The Kid finally turned to me with a question.

“Dad? What’s abortion?”

My wife, who has been after me for some weeks now to give him The Talk, immediately got out one of her medical dictionaries and started explaining fertilization and conception in explicit anatomical detail. This, as usual, just confused the little guy even further, so I interrupted and gave him a somewhat simpler answer.

“An abortion is when a woman who is pregnant decides that she doesn’t want to be a mommy, so they kill the baby and take it out of her.”

His eyes went wide. “That’s disgusting! There should be a law against that!” He considered it a few moments further, then climbed into my lap and sat there, shuddering, for the next half-hour, while his mother and I worked to convince him that we would never, ever, even think of doing something like that. But as he settled down, I got to thinking: a 9-year-old gets it.

Why doesn’t John Kerry?

I won’t be voting for George Bush tomorrow. I rather expect the OC will. I hope that some of the more rabid Republicans, Democrats, and yes, libertarians (all seven of us who haven’t caved to the GOP scare tactics) will note that it’s not only possible to have reasonable and civilized differences of opinion with others, it’s a lot more pleasant for everyone involved.

An inability to listen to someone disagree with you is a testimony to the weakness of YOUR position. Keep that in mind the next time you can feel the steam building between your ears.