David David

I saw Frank Lunz last night too and he also had me totally convinced. How depressing it all is. It's also interesting to note how inaccurate the exit polls were... once again. But if the high turnout is any reflection of what might happen here next year then we could be in for a very interesting general election. so it looks like 4 more years of rightwing, fundamentalist, scaremongering, polarising bulls**t. stop the world i want to get off...

Shaun Shaun

A few random thoughts on last night's shenanigans:

- Many of us might not like the result, but we can't question it like last time. The actual share of the vote really wasn't all that tight (or at least, as tight as everyone had expected) - and with the Republicans strengthening their hold on both houses of Congress, this all represents a clear mandate for Bush: one which will surely embolden both him and the more hawkish members of the administration.

- For the Democrats, it's back to the drawing board. The bottom line is, they could either have chosen a liberal advocating a liberal agenda, or a moderate in favour of moderate policies; but it was political suicide to choose a liberal who then ATTEMPTED to be moderate. The 'flip-flop' charges of the Republicans stuck because Kerry never articulated a clear vision of the world - it's all very well criticising your opponent, but (especially in a time of war) you have to give people reason to vote for you as well.

Including 2000 and the midterms of 2002, this is now the third straight election in which the Democrats have failed to present a clear, distinct alternative to the electorate. Political junkies can see the huge differences between them and the GOP - but ordinary voters plainly can't. There's no such chickenshit hesitancy from the Republicans: everyone knows where they stand - and until the Democrats show they have the courage of their convictions, they're likely to face a continual uphill struggle.

- I also saw Frank Lunz on Newsnight yesterday. Boy, did he (and John Zogby, and others) get it wrong. Why? Well, according to analyses I've seen, many exit polls surveyed a disproportionate number of women, who tended to go with Kerry: a remarkably elementary error for such experienced pollsters to make, really. Zogby also admitted that his forecast of a Kerry win had been based on a HUNCH of a late swing to the Democrats, rather than any hard evidence. Can you believe that?

And amazingly, most pollsters had also failed to identify the no.1 priority of swing voters. No, not Iraq; not the war on terror; not even the economy or jobs. Those critical undecided voters broke for Bush largely because of his stance on gay marriage and abortion - issues which pollsters had assumed would be way down the list. From a British perspective, it's just unfathomable how a poor citizen in a rundown area of Ohio can regard gay marriage as more important than his prospect of being able to provide for his family; but truly, this seems to have been the case. More and more of the US electorate is dividing on religious lines; and the moral, evangelical tone of Bush's politics does ultimately seem to have won him another four years.

Shaun Shaun

Perhaps a better way of expressing it, Will, is that too often Kerry seemed only to be using his head, and never his heart. There's nothing unique in Americans wanting to see real passion and conviction expressed by their politicians - it's the same in the UK, and elsewhere too. I think this is a consequence of what Clinton did, both for and to the Democrats: he absolutely had to drag them away from the union-obsessed, unelectable rabble of Mondale, Dukakis and Ted Kennedy, and towards the centre ground; but in doing this, the party lost its true sense of itself. So one minute, Kerry pledges to repeal the Republican tax break; the next, he goes shooting in Ohio. One minute, he proposes an all-but universal healthcare system; the next, he refuses to endorse gay marriage. Exactly what, wondered many Americans, does this guy stand for? It's a fair question, wouldn't you say?

And it's not going to get any easier for the Democratic donkey to get back in the race. The US has been slowly inching rightwards (first economically, then socially) ever since the Civil Rights Act of 1965. After four decades of this process, the Democrats find themselves exiled to the coasts and a few chunks of the north - while the conservative base becomes more entrenched everywhere else. To stand any chance, the Dems have got to start swinging one or two southern states, and especially midwestern ones like Missouri, back towards them - and they'll only be able to do this by adopting a more conservative agenda themselves. Clinton pulled this off, but we've seen the medium-term consequences of this; now the party has to do it again, while at the same time offering a distinctive message, and all the while running the risk of alienating itself from its liberal base.

One thing's for sure: Boston, great city though it is, ain't gonna to be the hometown of a President any time soon. I'm surprised you describe it as "none-too-happy", though: give most Beantowners a choice between Kerry winning the Presidency, and the Red Sox winning the World Series, and - politics or no politics - there isn't much doubt what they'd plump for. Go Sox!