Does a second term corrupt absolutely?

** Interesting observation in a truthout.org article.

If despair and despondency still color your world after the election, remember this: Every second-term President since Eisenhower has met with a blizzard of shame and disgrace before they left office. Nixon didn't get to finish his term and needed Ford to keep him out of prison, Reagan needed Bush Sr. to pardon a whole mob of cretins to kill the Iran/Contra scandal, and Clinton was impeached for lying about consensual sex.

NOT a mandate - by the numbers

** From anotherliberalblog

Some historical perspecitve on the election

Yes, I'm devastated by Kerry's defeat as well, but I take some solace in the fact that it was a pretty pathetic victory for an incumbent. Bush and the Republicans will claim a great victory (a mandate, even), but the numbers (from 1900 on--see below, download the Word or PDF version) tell a different story:

Assuming Bush gets New Mexico and Iowa, he will have gotten the lowest percentage of electoral votes (54%) of any incumbent running for reelection since Wilson. If those two states should swing Kerry's way (NM might), it'll be even lower.

He will have won with the lowest percentage of the popular vote (51%) of any incumbent running for reelection since Truman (well, technically since Clinton, but he also ran against Perot, who was a more significant 3rd-party candidate than Thurmond and Wallace were in '48)

He will have won by the lowest margin of the popular vote (3.5M) of any incumbent running for reelection since Truman (2.1M, and back then only 50M voted).

He will have won the three states that put him over 270 (OH, NM and IA--assuming the last two go his way) by only 161,989 (not counting the provisional ballots, absentee, etc.).

So, this is NOT a smashing incumbent victory like those of Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, LBJ or FDR. It was a bit pitiful for an incumbent, frankly, especially after 9/11. There's really no mandate here; this is still basically a 50-50 country, and we'll live to fight and win another day.

The coming culture war

** With the Bush victory comes the prospect of religously-based governance. Is Federalism the answer?

From Josh Marshal's Talking points memo

-- What we're seeing, I think, is a huge fundamentalist Christian revival in this country, a religious movement that is now explicitly political as well. It is unsurprising, of course, given the uncertainty of today's world, the devastating attacks on our country, and the emergence of so many more liberal cultures in urban America. And it is completely legitimate in this country for such views to be represented in public policy, however much I disagree with them. But the intensity of the passion, and the inherently totalist nature of religiously motivated politics means deep social conflict if we are not careful. Our safety valve must be federalism. We have to live and let live. As blue states become more secular, and red states become less so, the only alternative to a national religious war is to allow different states to pursue different options. That goes for things like decriminalization of marijuana, abortion rights, stem cell research and marriage rights. Forcing California and Mississippi into one model is a recipe for disaster. Federalism is now more important than ever. I just hope that

Republican federalists understand this. I fear they don't.

Why the Electoral College?

** Every election kicks off another round of jabs at the Electoral College system. Informative article on kuro5hin.org fills in the background on why it was favored over Direct Election. The main reasons had to do with the limitations on communication in the 18th century, limitations that no longer exist. If there's going to be a change in the EC it needs to start with being informed, and this article does a good job.

Framing the Electoral College