Bin Laden Tape Adds Twist to Election

After a lengthy hiatus, Osama bin Laden released another tape Friday, in which he taunts President Bush and threatens the national security. The effects of the tape on the election are unknown. In all likelihood, the tape will not affect the election because most voters have already decided who they are going to vote for. It could help Kerry because it reminds Americans that bin Laden has not been caught. However, some politicians are viewing this as an aid to Bush. Kerry had been controlling the political agenda, but the bin Laden tape is outside of his control. Furthermore, Bush has often used the events of 9/11 to his advantage, claiming that the country is at war and that he had the best chance of winning that war. The new bin Laden tape might remind voters of Bush's perceived strength in defending our country. But with just a matter of hours remaining until Election Day, the tape is unlikely to change the minds of many voters.

Works Consulted
Nagourney, Adam. "Terrorist Tape, Political Angst." The New York Times 31 Oct.
2004. 31 Oct 2004 http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/31/politics/campaign/31assess.html.

And the Winner Is...

With just three days remaining until the election, the internet and newspapers are filled with Electoral College maps as analysts try to figure out who will win the election. But what should one make of all of these different predictions? Some say Bush will win, some say Kerry will win, some say Pennsylvania is a swing state, and some say that Michigan is a swing state. To make this all easier to interpret, I have compiled a number of sources in order to make one prediction.
Start with the solid states. Bush has locked up Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming for a total of 218 electoral votes. Kerry is safe in California, Connecticut, Delaware, Washington D.C., Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, giving him 186 electoral votes.
That leaves 11 states and 134 electoral votes up for grabs. Most analysts seem to think Bush will win Colorado and its 9 electoral votes as the President currently owns a lead of about 4 percentage points in the state. A couple of analysts give Kerry the edge here, and both campaigns will still visit before the election, but Bush appears to have a hold on Colorado. He takes the 9 votes, upping his total to 227.
Until the last few days, Hawaii was considered to be a lock for Senator Kerry, but recent polls have shown the race there to be closer than it had been. Still, most analysts give Kerry the edge, as his lead ranges from very slim to having a solid grasp on Hawaii. There are still some who give Bush a slight lead here, but neither campaign will visit. Kerry takes Hawaii's 4 votes, so he's up to 190.
Michigan has been oscillating between a swing state and a Kerry state, and right now it appears to be somewhere in between. Most analysts still give Kerry the edge here as the state's economy has suffered under Bush. A few people give Michigan to Bush or consider it a swing state, but Kerry's grasp is firm. He gets the 17 votes to push him up to 207.
Like Michigan, New Hampshire has been considered either a swing state or a Kerry state for most of the election season. Kerry's lead here is slim, and both camps will visit, but his lead appears to be enough to garner the 4 electoral votes and increase his total to 211.
Pennsylvania is a prized state as its 21 electoral votes could change the face of the election. It certainly is one of the key swing states, and both candidates are campaigning actively here. However, the polls show anything between a dead heat and a comfortable Kerry lead. Give Kerry the edge here, boosting him to 232 electoral votes.
The rest of the pack is not as clear cut. Florida, the center of the election controversy in 2000, may again be the key state. Polls show something between a tie and a one point Bush lead. Likewise, Ohio polls are extremely close, ranging from a four point Bush lead to a three point Kerry lead. Both campaigns will be active in both of these states over the next few days. If either candidate takes both of these states, he will probably win the election. However, going with recent trends, one can assume that Bush takes Florida and Kerry takes Ohio. Neither of these are locks; rather, they are weak predictions. Florida's 27 votes give Bush 254, and Ohio's 20 give Kerry 252.
Iowa is also very close right now. While different polls give the lead to different candidates, Bush seems to own the slight edge. It's still too close to put in the bag, and both candidates will be visiting before the election, but right now, Iowa is leaning towards Bush. He takes the 7 votes, increasing his total to 261. New Mexico is in a similar situation. Polls are very close, although Bush enjoys up to a 6% lead in some. The candidates will both travel to New Mexico before the election, but Bush appears to have a slim lead. Give him the 5 votes, and he's up to 266, just 4 votes shy of a victory.
What Iowa and New Mexico are to Bush, Wisconsin is to Kerry. He seems to have a very slim edge here, although not enough to prevent the campaigns to target Wisconsin over the next few days. Kerry takes the 10 votes, pushing him up to 262, just 8 short of the necessary 270.
That leaves but one state: Minnesota. It could turn out to be this year's Florida. Some polls show a tie, others show slim leads for either candidate, and there is no clear-cut frontrunner. The winner here takes the cake, wins the election, and runs our country for the next four years. But who will the winner be? In what is turning out to be the tightest race in the country, give the edge to Kerry. A recount is entirely possible, as are a plethora of lawsuits, so this election may not be decided on Election Day. Regardless of who wins, this election will be forever remembered in American history.

Works Consulted
Electoral College 2004 Projected/2000 Final Results. 28 Oct. 2004. Rasmussen Reports.
29 Oct. 2004 http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Electoral%20College%20 Table.htm.
Electoral Vote Predictor 2004. 29 Oct. 2004. 29 Oct. 2004 http://www.electoral
-vote.com/.
Nagourney, Adam and Ben Werschkul. 2004 Election Guide. 29 Oct. 2004. The New
York Times. 29 Oct. 2004 http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/politics/ 2004_ELECTIONGUIDE_GRAPHIC/.
Saleton, William, David Kenner, and Louisa Herron Thomas. Election Scorecard. 29
Oct. 2004. 29 Oct. 2004 http://www.slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2108751&.
Williams, Kathryn and Andrew Romano. "The Tipping Point." Newsweek 1 Nov. 2004:
24-5.

Early Voting Changes Face of Election

The new trend in this year's election seems to be early voting. Twenty-three states offer early voting this year, as opposed to thirteen in the 2000 election, and voters are taking advantage. Polls have already seen a relatively large voter turnout in states that offer early voting such as Wisconsin and Florida. But why do voters want to come to the polls early? As one senior citizen put it, "I don't know if I'll die tomorrow" (qtd. in Lyman). For others, it's a matter of convenience or of anxiousness. As for the effects of early voting on the candidates, both parties claim that the new trend benefits their own presidential nominee. It also affects the campaign strategies, as money must be spent differently, politicians must travel to different places at different times, and what's normally a last minute get-out-the-vote push becomes a two week affair. Early voting could also have disadvantages if something important happens between the time the votes are cast and Election Day. Regardless of how many people vote early this year, nobody will know the winner until November --or possibly later.

Works Cited
Lyman, Rick and William Yardley. "Sharp Increase in Early Voting Alters Campaign." The New York Times 29 Oct. 2004. 29 Oct. 2004 http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/politics/campaign/29early.html.

Will Missing Explosives mean Missing Votes for Bush?

The news this week has been headlined by the disappearance of 380 tons of explosives at Al Qaqaa, a military complex in Iraq. However, it is unknown whether the explosives were lost while Sadaam Hussein was in power or while the Americans controlled Iraq. This could have important political consequences. If the weapons were lost under the Americans, the Democrats could attack Bush for losing the explosives. If they were lost under Hussein, Bush is off the hook. Both candidates have taken this issue seriously. Kerry has criticized the current administration not only for incompetence in Iraq, but also for not providing an explanation for such an important national security issue. Shortly after Kerry made these accusations, Bush spoke of the missing explosives for the first time. He pounced on Kerry for jumping to conclusions and not being aware of what was really going on in Iraq. But with just a week until the election, can the missing weapons really affect the election? It's unlikely but possible. In all probability, there are very few undecided voters remaining at this point, although they could determine the outcome of the election. However, the undecided voters are more likely to vote for a candidate based on more important issues (such as going to war itself, economic issues, social issues, etc.) than this. Also, because no one knows when the weapons were lost, Bush cannot be blamed. The worst case scenario for Bush would be that he loses a handful of votes over this issue, probably not enough to change the outcome of the election.

Works Consulted
Stout, David. "Bush Says Kerry 'Jumps to Conclusions' on Iraq Explosives." The New York Times 27 Oct. 2004. 27 Oct. 2004 http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/27/politics/campaign/27CND-CAMP.html.

How the Election is Showing us What's Wrong with the Intelligence Community

Ever since last March, when terrorist bombings in Madrid affected the national elections in Spain, the United States has been concerned about a terrorist attack leading up to its elections, on November 2. The problem is different intelligence agencies are getting conflicting information. The CIA previously had discredited a person who warned of such an attack. On Saturday, however, the FBI made arrests and investigated leads that could suggest such an attack. Nothing specific has been discovered about potential attacks, including where, who, how, and when the attacks would take place. The problem, however, lies in the disagreement between the CIA and the FBI. How can the government defend our country if they cannot agree on such general principles as the likelihood of an attack? This incident demonstrates terrible efficiency in the intelligence community; both agencies spend time investigating only to reach conflicting conclusions. Those intelligence reforms are coming, and they cannot come fast enough.

Works Consulted
Arrests Made in Possible Election Day Plot. 24 Oct. 2004. Fox News. 24 Oct. 2004
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136410,00.html.

The Bulge on Bush's Back

Over the last couple of weeks, much has been made about a mysterious bulge on President Bush's back during the first debate. Many believe it to be a radio receiver, allowing Mr. Bush to receive answers from an offstage advisor. The story has gained so much momentum that "it has become what literary critics call an objective correlative, or an object that evokes large emotions and ideas" (Bumiller). There's even an entire website devoted to the subject (see http://bushwired.blogspot.com/).
Frankly, this scandal is ridiculous. First, if Bush was receiving answers, wouldn't he have performed better in the debate? Said Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, "if he had an earpiece on during that debate and those are the best answers that he could do, then he should be impeached and everybody who works for him should never be allowed to work again" (qtd. in Bumiller). A majority of Americans believe that Bush lost that debate and did not meet their expectations. He seemed confused and unconfident, two signs which certainly point towards Bush not receiving help.
The second problem with the radio transmitter theory is the political risk. In the event that Bush was caught with a receiver, he could start packing his bags now and head back to Texas because there would be no way he could win the election. "I honestly don't think the man is going to risk his presidency taking a transmitter into the debate," (qtd. in Bumiller) said McAuliffe. Also, for the theory to be true, Bush would've had to have an earpiece. The cameras showed Bush's face continuously throughout the entire debate and nobody saw any earpieces, while in the short time that Bush's back was visible, this bulge was found.
The bulge in Bush's back was pretty apparent, so if it wasn't a radio receiver, what was it? "The box was one of those shock collars," joked Bush's campaign manager Ken Mehlman. "Every time he scowled he was shocked" (qtd. in Bumiller). Another explanation came from chief of staff Andrew Card, who claimed "it was just a poorly tailored suit" (qtd. in Bumiller). That's unlikely, considering this is the President of the United States who can afford to have top-of-the-line suits custom tailored. Besides, a bulge that obvious is not likely to be from the suit. The most likely explanation for the bulge is that it was some type of security measure, either a bulletproof vest or tracking device.
Bush-backers (no pun intended), fear not. If Bush's opponent, Senator John Kerry, has not made reference to the bulge, the radio transmitter theory is probably illegitimate. However, the White House has to stop denying that the bulge was there and merely tell the public what it was. Not only could that help the President, but it would certainly help the citizens of the United States as we would no longer have to read websites devoted entirely to this ridiculous scandal.

Works Cited
Bumiller, Elisabeth. "Talk of Bubble Leads to Battle Over Bulge." New York Times 18
Oct. 2004, natl. ed.: A14.

Michigan Status No Longer in Doubt

For a significant period of time, John Kerry was behind in the traditionally Democratic state of Michigan. Michigan has a Democratic governor and two Democratic senators. Gore won by a large margin in 2000, and Michigan has been hit hard with job losses under President Bush. Kerry was struggling, however, because of a lack of popular support among senior citizens and because of a lack of a clear message. Now, however, Kerry's performance in the debates has pushed him ahead of Bush. Ironically, neither candidate did significant campaigning in Michigan despite its 17 electoral votes that seemed to be up for grabs until a week or two ago, probably because Michigan consistently votes Democrat. Now, political analysts can refocus their attention on the three most significant swing states: Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.

Works Consulted
Apple Jr., R.W. "Kerry in the Lead, but Almost by Default." The New York Times 21
Oct. 2004. 21 Oct. 2004 http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/21/politics/campaign/ 21michigan.html?pagewanted=1.