Positives for Kerry and final pre-election craziness

We all hope that within 48 hours we'll know who the next president will be, and I can't imagine there are really that many people who have not decided how they plan to vote. (Although I've heard pundits saying that many “undecideds” claim they decide at the last minute, either on their way to the polls or even in the voting booth.). Still, if you're one of those who is still looking for reasons to vote for Kerry, don't miss Half-Cocked's megalist of reasons why he's voting for Kerry—and why you should, too. Here's another “Why for Kerry” from blogger Ed Cone. Also, if you haven't yet read the Kerry campaign's own description of Kerry's record, you really should. Sure, you can expect it to be biased, but after all of the Bush campaign's rhetoric about how Kerry's a flip-flopper who's got nothing to show for 20 years in the Senate (which is just flatly untrue), it's only fair you know Kerry's side of the story before you make up your voting mind. I heard Cokie Roberts on NPR this morning saying something like all the issues are breaking in Kerry's favor, but now there's a new category that voters are considering, the “other” category for issues like “leadership” and “security,” and that category is starting to break for Bush. Hype! Don't you believe it! Every time I hear Cokie Roberts it's like fingernails on a chalkboard; she's a Republican spinmeister in the guise of an NPR commentator (which is a lot like a wolf in sheep's clothing) and I long ago learned not to trust a thing she says. This spin has Rove written all over it. But that's nothing. It's down to turnout, and the Dems have the lead there. Polls of the huge numbers who have already voted give Kerry a big lead in Florida and Iowa. Of course, there's no way to predict how the widespread and growing voter suppression efforts will affect the outcome. It seems an Ohio judge is trying to limit some of those efforts by ruling that challengers won't be allowed at all in Ohio:

A federal judge issued an order early Monday barring political party challengers from polling places throughout Ohio during Tuesday's election. State Republicans planned to appeal. U.S. District Judge Susan Dlott found that the application of Ohio's statute allowing challengers at polling places is unconstitutional. She said the presence of challengers inexperienced in the electoral process questioning voters about their eligibility would impede voting. . . . Dlott ruled on a lawsuit by a black Cincinnati couple who said Republican plans to deploy challengers to largely black precincts in Hamilton County was meant to intimidate and block black voters. Republicans said they wanted to prevent voter fraud. Dlott said in her order that the evidence “does not indicate that the presence of additional challengers would serve Ohio's interest in preventing voter fraud better than would the system of election judges.”

It's hard to believe the ruling will exclude all challengers, but would it be a bad idea if it did? Why don't we leave it up to the poll workers to determine who's registered, who's not, and who should be put in the question (provisional) pile? But nevermind, no need to worry. The Redskins lost yesterday, which means Kerry will win tomorrow, game, set, match.

Posted November 1, 2004 08:49 AM | election 2004