Between Two Worlds

RatherBiased.com: "John Kerry conceded the election before Dan Rather did."

James Taranto recounts the best and worst moments of the presidential campaign.

I agree here with Powerline regarding one of the biggest winners from last night:

There are lots of winners tonight. President Bush, pre-eminently; John Thune; Lisa Murkowski; Mel Martinez, and various others. But one of the big winners has to be Hugh Hewitt. Hugh has been a tower of strength throughout the campaign--not a pollyanna, but a rational voice of conservative confidence. Hugh steadied the troops whenever panic started to set in. He made the issues clear in his best-selling If It's Not Close, They Can't Cheat. He rallied pro-Republican forces in various media to work together for the practical end of re-electing President George W. Bush and as many Republican Senators and Congressmen as possible. Why? Because electing Democrats is going to get us killed.

In this election cycle, Hugh has taken his place among the foremost figures in American public life. I may be wrong, and I mean no disrespect to Rush Limbaugh or other eminent talk show hosts, but it strikes me that no one has understood the congruence of media--radio, print media and the blogosphere--anywhere near as well as Hugh. No one has built as good a network of radio stations and web sites--like ours--as Hugh. No one has led conservatives into battle with such a clear conscience and such a lucid vision for the future as Hugh. When many of us, including me, doubted, Hugh was the ever-present voice of assurance. After the candidates themselves, and after the Swift Boat Vets, the wonderful returns we've seen tonight are a tribute to the vision of Hugh Hewitt. He is at the very top of the conservative punditocracy.

DEACON adds: Let's also remember Hugh's famous battle-cry -- "if it's not close, they can't cheat." Of course, Hugh may not have anticipated the Democrats' response -- try to cheat by redefining the meaning of "close."

Couldn't agree more with Ann Althouse, guest-blogging at Instapundit:

SPEAKING OF THE GRACEFUL ACCEPTANCE OF LOSS ... Senator Kerry, how about a concession speech? Remember how good Al Gore looked in 2000, when he finally gave his concession speech? Gore had reason to drag out the vote counting, given how close things were, and we survived that ordeal. But when he conceded he had a beautiful, eloquent dignity. I was sorry when Angry Al Gore emerged in the 2004 campaign season and dispelled that fine image he had left us with at the end of the 2000 struggle. Senator Kerry, for your own legacy, you should give a beautiful, dignified concession speech this morning. You have many supporters, and you can help them recover from the loss and accept the reality of the situation in a positive spirit. You do not have the cause that Gore had to drag out the post-election counting. What good can that do? Please use the opportunity that you have today to help Americans pull together and move beyond the long, harsh argument we've just had with each other.

UPDATE: This blog gets results! I posted this, and then 2 seconds later, Kerry announces that he has called President Bush and that he will deliver his concession speech at noon, central time.

While sitting in the Chevrolet dealership for four hours this morning, trying to work my way through John Feinberg's The Many Face of Evil, I was subjected to lots of mindless morning TV. Diane Sawyer interviewed P. Diddy Combs about the election. (I'm so thankful I got to see such insightful political analysis!) P. Diddy was wearing a "Vote or Die" t-shirt. Then Ruben Studdard sang a nice song on Regis and Kellie--and both of his backup singers were wearing "Vote or Die" t-shirts. Apparently Hilary Clinton thinks the "Vote or Die" slogan is "accurate." From what I can tell, P. Diddy isn't all the concerned about voters being informed--he just wants them to get out and vote.

Can anyone explain for me what exactly "Vote or Die" means? I could see saying "Vote for John Kerry or Die"--if you believe in the draft-scare, believe that Bush will draft you, and that by electing Kerry there won't be a draft--i.e., you won't die. I could see saying "Vote for Bush or Die"--if you believe that he is fighting the Global War on Terror overseas so that we don't have to fight it here at home, that Kerry will open us up to another attack on our homeland, and that by electing Bush there won't be such an attack--i.e., you won't die. But what in the world does simply "Vote or Die" mean? A threat?!

Help me out here.

Here's a nice Election Scorecard to bookmark for tonight. It will be updated every half hour, starting at 6 PM (central time).

It'll be interesting to see how bandwidth holds up tonight. Some of servers for the big-time bloggers seem to have already crashed, and it's only mid-afternoon!

BTW, here's an short, excellent post by Cliff May over at NRO:

It’s 3 PM on November 2, 2004. There has not been a terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11/01.

If Osama bin Laden could have attacked us over the past three years, he would have.

If OBL could attack us today, he would.

Whoever is responsible for keeping the barbarians outside the gates deserves praise – and re-election.

I voted this morning at about 7:30 AM. The lines weren't too bad--15 minutes, start to finish. What a wonderful privilege and responsibility it is to vote, knowing that we, the people, determine who our leaders are.

Here's another election-watching guide, this time from Jim Gerharty over at the Kerry Spot.

6 P.M. EST

At 6 P.M., polls close in Indiana and Kentucky. The evening gets off to a slow, comfortable beginning, as Indiana and Kentucky are both Bush states, and solidly so.

7 P.M. EST

At 7 P.M., polls close in Georgia, South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia, and the east side of Florida and New Hampshire, sort of.

In New Hampshire, state law permits its 13 cities to keep their polls open until 8 P.M.

Because the majority of the state's polls have closed by 7 P.M., the networks have no problem considering this hour as the earliest hour of potential projection. However, with New Hampshire being a key swing state, a wise network would hold off a bit if the exit poll does not show an overwhelming winner.

In light of that, expect CBS (and perhaps some other foolish networks) to declare both Florida and New Hampshire for Kerry at this hour, even though the polls are still open.

Georgia, South Carolina, and Virginia should all be safe Bush states, and Vermont should be safe Kerry.

7:30 P.M. EST

At 7:30 P.M., polls close in Ohio, West Virginia, and most of North Carolina.

Like New Hampshire, the Tarheel State allows its County Boards of Elections to decide whether to keep polls open until 8:30 P.M. EST. Outside of metropolitan areas, this local option is not often utilized and so the networks usually call the state around 7:30 P.M., even though the polls are still open.

Expect CBS to call North Carolina for John Edwards, and then adjust their projection several hours later.

Ohio will be key, but if it is as close as everyone is predicting, the final count shouldn't be in until much later in the evening — perhaps midnight. Be wary of early calls on this state.

If Kerry were to somehow win West Virginia, it would be a sign of an early night and a big Kerry win.

8 P.M. EST

At 8 P.M., polls close in Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi, the rest of New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, and the west side of Florida.

By this hour, we may have our best sense of how the night is going — depending on whether the exit-polling data is showing a clear winner in Florida, Michigan. and Pennsylvania. MI and PA should both be close, and thus the projection of a final winner in these key states could and should take a while. If either one looks like it is tipping for Bush, then it will be an early night, as it will be nearly-impossible for Kerry to make up losing those 20-plus electoral votes in each.

You already know about Florida — this may be the most key indicator of the night. If Florida looks like a Bush win fairly early, then the GOP turnout effort will likely have worked and it will be a good sign for all the other swing states. If Kerry is leading, then it will be a sign that Democrats have held their traditional advantage in getting their base voters to the polls.

It will be interesting if the networks are keeping track of separate exit-polling data for Maine's Second Congressional District. If Bush wins that electoral vote, it would be a key indication that he's running ahead of where he was in 2000, and could be in for a big night.

Kerry's share of the vote in Massachusetts should be interesting, although there is no doubt he will win.

Democrats had once hoped to win Missouri — Bush's margin here could be an interesting indicator. If it's close, he might be in trouble, and Kerry might regret conceding this state so early.

By this hour, there should be a clearer picture about New Hampshire.

8:30 P.M. EST

At 8:30 P.M., polls close in Arkansas and the rest of North Carolina.

The most optimistic Democrats were hoping Clinton magic would give Kerry a win in Arkansas, and that Edwards was going to help win North Carolina. Few polls have shown either state all that close, and I expect their results to get only a casual glance as the discussion of the 8 P.M. finishers continues.

9 P.M. EST

At 9 P.M., polls close in Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

More and more, New Mexico is striking me as a key, key state. It only has five electoral votes, but if this blue state turns red, it creates many headaches for Kerry. A Bush win here offsets any bad news from New Hampshire.

As for Wisconsin and Minnesota, each one is turning into a junior version of Pennsylvania or Michigan. If Kerry sweeps these two, he's in good shape. If he drops one, he could still win, but will be lucky to break 280. If he drops both, it's just about over.

There are few people who still think Kerry could win Colorado, but if he pulled off an upset there, it would be huge. The proportional-electoral-vote ballot initiative is likely to go down, but that's another factor worth keeping an eye on.

10 P.M. EST

At 10 P.M., polls close in North Dakota, Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Iowa.

By now, we should have some answers about the close races from earlier in the evening, and perhaps the first official post-election lawsuits will be filed. Democratic lawyers will begin boarding their chartered jets, reacting to any state that Bush won that Team Kerry felt they should have won. Iowa will be an interesting test — if Bush picks it up, it may be one of the last indicators of the evening.

11 P.M. EST

At 11 P.M., polls close in California, Washington, Hawaii, and Oregon.

The big three should be Kerry — but Hawaii will be fun to watch. The Bush team seems ebullient about its chances here, and boy, wouldn't reporters love to do some on-the-spot reporting about this state's results after the election? "Boss, Hawaii's going for Bush is the big story of this election. I need to spend at least a week researching this."

Midnight EST

At midnight., polls close in Alaska.

Hopefully, by this hour we will have a president. Maybe not. Network coverage is slated to continue until at least 1 A.M. Bars will hopefully be open well into the morning hours for the political faithful to celebrate or to commiserate.

The New York Times "asked bloggers from all points on the political spectrum to say what they thought was the most important event or moment of the campaign that, we hope, comes to an end today." They have responses from Greg Djerejian, Wonkette, Polipundit, Kaus, Ann Althouse, Kevin Drum, David Adesnik, Powerline, Instapundit, and a couple of others.

John Fund, writing in the Wall Street Journal, offers his predictions (Bush wins 296 electoral college votes. Compare my prediction of 300 electoral votes for Bush. I wonder if this is because pundits like Fund think that Kerry will win Hawaii (4 votes), whereas I think Bush will.). And he also offers a helpful hour-by-hour guide to tonight's results as they role in.

The states that went for George W. Bush four years ago are listed in red. Those that went for Al Gore are listed in blue--followed by the state's electoral vote count. I've edited it down to the bare essentials. (Fund also lists codes and analysis on all the other races going on, too--but I'm just focusing in this post on the presidential race. If you're interested, go read and bookmark the article.) I'm assuming, by the way, that all of these times are EASTERN standard time.

Here we go:

6 p.m.

• Indiana 11
• Kentucky 8
  

7 p.m.

• Georgia 15
• New Hampshire 4
  
• South Carolina 8
• Vermont 3
• Virginia 13

7:30 p.m.

• North Carolina 15
• Ohio 20
  
• West Virginia 5
  

Expect a long. bloody night in Ohio, where dueling teams of Democratic and Republican lawyers have spent the past several weeks in court trying to squeeze some advantage out of the state's election rules. We may see lawsuits over polling hours, provisional ballots and challengers to voters--and that's if the state isn't that close.

8 p.m.

• Alabama 9
• Connecticut 7
  
• Delaware 3
  
• District of Columbia 3
• Florida 27
• Illinois 21
• Kansas 6
  
• Maine 4
• Maryland 10
  
• Massachusetts 12
• Michigan 17
• Mississippi 6
• Missouri 11
• New Jersey 15
• North Dakota 3
  
• Oklahoma 8
  
• Pennsylvania 21
• Tennessee 11
• Texas 34

By now, some clear trends on which party is winning should be emerging.

Florida, which went through such national embarrassment in 2000 during its 36-day recount, has decided to play it safe this year. Its officials will not release any vote totals until the entire state (including the Panhandle counties that close at 8 p.m. Eastern) has voted. In the end, color Florida red for President Bush again, and this time by a significantly larger margin than the 537-vote spread of 2000. . . .

Florida, along with Ohio and Pennsylvania, is one of the three essential electoral prizes in the race for president. If Mr. Kerry wins any two of those three, he will be in a strong position to defeat President Bush (though Mr. Bush could still prevail depending on how the Upper Midwest states, Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota, come in).

Missouri is a must-win state for the Republicans for president. If the race is close, look for Republicans to revive allegations of voter fraud and irregularities that got some ink in 2000.. . .

The other big presidential prize in this cohort of states is Pennsylvania. The Bush campaign is bullish; columnist Robert Novak reports that it dropped one million pieces of pro-life literature on Sunday in churches in this culturally conservative state. Boston Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling even hobbled out on stage in a Pittsburgh rally yesterday to declare his support for President Bush. If Bush does win here, he will be a prohibitive favorite to win a second term. But the massive ground game run by Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell is likely to produce an unprecedented 400,000-vote margin for Mr. Kerry in Philadelphia, a city that has as many registered voters as it has adults over the age of 18. Despite charges of voter fraud, the final victor in the Keystone State is likely to be Mr. Kerry. . .

Michigan is likely to be another heartbreaker for President Bush.

8:30 p.m.

• Arkansas 6

9 p.m.

• Arizona 10
  
• Colorado 9
  
• Louisiana 9
• Minnesota 10
• Nebraska 5
• New Mexico 5
• New York 31
  
• Rhode Island 4
• South Dakota 3
• Wisconsin 10
  
• Wyoming 3

Colorado . . . a state that now looks as if President Bush will win it without breaking too much of a sweat.

In the presidential race, New Mexico, Wisconsin and to a lesser extent Minnesota are Gore states that are within reach for President Bush. If he loses Ohio, he'll need Wisconsin and one other Upper Midwest state to win re-election.

10 p.m.

• Idaho 4
  
• Iowa 7
• Montana 3
  
• Nevada 5
• Utah 5
  

11 p.m.

• California 55
  
• Hawaii 4
  
• Oregon 7
  
• Washington 11
  

Midnight

• Alaska 3
  

At approximately 2 AM last Friday in the Twin Cities, Nathan Roise and his girlfriend were working late at the office. They noticed some commotion outside. When they went out to investigate, they found four males and two females attempting to take a "George W. Bush" bumper sticker off of his car. Nathan ended up being jumped, kicked, and dragged for approximately two blocks. He was released from the emergency room on Saturday morning. Nathan doesn't have health insurance, and has had trouble getting the Minneapolis Police Department to try to catch these thugs.

The election-year violent seems pretty consistent this year--"peace-loving" liberals trying to crush dissent by whatever means necessary.

Check out National Review's interview with Mel Gibson regarding his passionate opposition to California's Prop. 71 on embryonic stem cells. And here's the commercial he made against it.

Joe Carter at Evangelical Outpost does not believe that Christians are morally obligated to vote for George W. Bush. But he does believe that, "no Christian can, in good conscience, vote to elect John Kerry." In fact, he thinks a vote for Kerry would be immoral. The whole article is well worth reading, as I agree entirely with his perspective: "Choosing a candidate who has admitted that he will side with Roe over the rule of law is as immoral as voting for a candidate who promised to ensure that Dred Scott was not overturned."

My friend Marla Helseth has written a thoughtful article for this blog on "Black Identity and the Cause of Christ," dealing with the African American community and the current political season. I encourage you to read and consider it.

In a recent article, conservative black commentator Star Parker makes a profound statement about black voters. She says that even though religion plays a very significant role in the lives of the black community—more so than whites—“the interesting reality over recent years has been that blacks have not taken their faith with them into the voting booth, as do whites.” In other words, the convictions that define blacks as Christians are central to their lives in general, but are apparently set aside when choosing between political candidates. The result has been a nearly unbroken allegiance by blacks to the Democratic Party for the last 50 years. The fact that much of the black community professes to be Christian and yet continues to vote for a political party that increasingly supports unbiblical practices such as abortion on demand, same-sex marriage, and embryonic stem cell research, starkly reveals the black community’s inherent disconnect between faith and partisanship, and betrays a certain hypocrisy in their worldview.

One explanation for this disconnect can be found in the influential power of family tradition. At times, without having examined the facts of the political issues at hand, blacks will admit they’re voting Democrat because it is how their family has always voted. Fear of breaking from the family party and an over-confidence that “family knows best” keeps many black Christians from giving the issues and the political candidates the thoughtful, biblical analysis required to make a decision informed by both faith and reason. When we make decisions without first aligning them to biblical truth, we are acting no different than the non-Christian world, and in that sense we are not doing our best to honor and glorify God.

The second explanation for this disparity between the black community’s faith and their political practice is more controversial, but in my opinion, it gets to the crux of the issue. Many blacks do not allow their Christian faith to influence their voting practices because the primary way they view themselves is not as Christians first, but as black people first. Their race, or “blackness,” defines who they are, rather than the Bible. Peter Kirsanow of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights hints at this by stating, “…the 50-year black allegiance to the Democrat party has fostered a vague perception that to vote Republican renders a black voter ‘inauthentic.’ Voting Democrat is…less than an expression of support for a particular candidate than it is a matter of racial validation and solidarity.” Consequently, instead of looking to political leaders whose positions adhere most closely to Scripture, a candidate is chosen based on what he will do to advance the “cause” of African-Americans. Some black Christians will support a candidate not because he will work to end the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion, but because he will create wealth opportunities for minority businesses. Other candidates are very clear that they endorse the creation and destruction of embryonic stem cells, yet they get a large portion of the black Christian vote because they promise to disperse greater funding to black colleges. For the Christian, both of these instances are examples of placing priorities in the wrong order.

Once we profess faith in Jesus Christ, all that we were before we believed becomes secondary, and that includes our ethnicity. If you are a Jew, you are no longer a Jew. If you are a Greek, you are no longer a Greek. If you are an African-American, or even if you are male or female—you are no longer defined by these outward things. The apostle Paul was a Hebrew of Hebrews and had every reason to put confidence in the flesh. Yet he counted it all rubbish once he glimpsed the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ (Phil. 3:4-8). The black Christian should no longer see themselves as black first. The decisions we make, or the causes we support, should not be based solely on how best to advance our own ethnic group. But how we expend our lives as Christians should rest instead on what will advance the cause of Christ and His kingdom for all people. And we cannot be hypocrites by lending our support to political candidates that promote causes which only benefit our particular race of people while closing our eyes to the unbiblical, evil practices those same candidates endorse. We must be discerning and let our vote count toward the man or woman who (albeit imperfectly) honors God and the truth of Scripture with their political platform as much as possible. As Christians, whatever race we are and whatever culture we are in, is secondary to what Scripture says of us. Now we are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, so that we may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called us out of darkness into his marvelous light (1 Pet. 2:9). Rather than voting to remain loyal to one’s race or party, vote in such a way that will reflect the excellency of biblical truth as much as possible.

If you want to see the predictions of the pundits, check out this RealClearPolitics page. Bob Novak (of the Chicago Sun-Times), Kate O'Beirne (of the National Review), and Tony Eastland (of the Weekly Standard) have predictions closest to mine.

Gregory Djerejian gives Andrew Sullivan's endorsement of Kerry a thorough fisking.

This morning's New York Post editorial:

If President Bush is re-elected tomor row, the victory will have come de spite the best efforts of two erstwhile American journalistic icons — the Grey Lady of Times Square and Edward R. Murrow's Tiffany Network: The New York Times and CBS News.

If nothing else, the notion that "objectivity" animates America's media elite has been exposed this year for what it truly is — at best, a quaint myth; at worst, a pernicious lie.

. . . Bush may or may not win tomorrow.

But both CBS News and The New York Times come out of this election with their self-proclaimed "reputation for fairness" thoroughly in tatters.

(HT: Instapundit)

The HorseRace Blog is a very helpful site if you are looking for analysis of the polls.

Here's where he sees the electoral-vote math right now.

The Blogging Caesar at ElectionProjection.com--whose methodology, I believe, is much more reliable than Electoral-Vote.com--has posted his final predictions (including a state-by-state analysis).

According to the National Council on Public Polls Polling Review Board, the Mason-Dixon Polling and Research organization did the most number of polls (23) in the 2002 elections, and yet they only predicted one race incorrectly. (In case you're curious, Zogby did worse. He's a notoriously unreliable pollster.)

On Saturday night, Mason Dixon released their latest polls. They have Bush ahead of Kerry in the battleground states of Florida (4 points), Ohio (2 points), Iowa (5 points), Minnesota (1 point), Colorado (7 points), Nevada (6 points), Missouri (4 points). Kerry is ahead of Bush in Michigan (2 points), New Hampshire (2 points), Oregon (6 points), Pennsylvania (2 points), and Wisconsion (2 points).

Robert Novak has a helpful column today (HT: Polipundit) on what to watch for on Tuesday night:

Americans glued to their television sets Tuesday night should get a pretty good idea of the outcome of the presidential election by 8 p.m. CST with the returns from the all-important battleground states of Florida (27 electoral votes) and Ohio (20).

These are the possible outcomes:

• The early returns show either President Bush or Sen. John Kerry has clearly won both of these two states. In that case, you can call the double winner “Mr. President” for the next four years.
• Bush is the clear early winner in either Florida or Ohio. That probably guarantees Bush’s re-election. Kerry then would have a steep hill to climb, forced to pick up states where he now seems to be trailing.
• There is no early outcome in either of those two states, or Kerry clearly wins one state and the other state’s results are unclear. Then, look for a long election night – or perhaps a long month of November – before the winner of the presidential race is determined.

Contrary to my confident prediction that the Redskins would rule over the Packers today, it looks like the Packers had a good, decisive victory. Oh well--I still stand by my prediction regarding the Presidential race!

The Minneapolis Star Tribune shows that Kerry has opened an 8-point lead over Bush in Minnesota, 48-41. Now if you are supporting Bush and you aren't familiar with the Strib, you might think that's bad news. Nope. We Minnesotans know that whenever you see a Strib poll, you automatically add 10 points to the Republican number. (Every election the Strib reliably runs polls that are outlandishly skewed toward the Democrats.) By my calculations, then, Bush has a small lead in Minnesota. By way of comparison, the more historically reliable Pioneer Press has Bush leading 48-47. The example of the Strib is one of the reasons to be cautiously skeptical about electoral-college predictors (like Electoral-Vote.com) that have simple methods taking each state poll at face value. Part of my prediction is that Bush will carry Minnesota. If that happens, it should make the Strib embarrassed and cause them to re-examine their deeply unreliable polling methodology. But that will never happen.

Update: You have to check out a post from November of 2002, posted over at Powerline. They report on the final pre-election poll in the Coleman-Mondale race. The Strib's poll had Mondale over Coleman, 46-41. The Pioneer Press, on the other hand, had Coleman over Mondale, 47-41. Coleman ended up beating Mondale, 50-47. When I wrote above that Minnesota conservatives know to add about 10 points to the Republican numbers in a Strib poll, I wasn't joking.

John Podhoretz on the Osama tape:

But something does jump out at you when you consider the message bin Laden was delivering to the United States. It was remarkably defensive, with bin Laden offering some kind of bizarre truce to the American people: "To the U.S. people," he said, "my talk is to you about the best way to avoid another disaster."

How thoughtful of him.

He told us that neither Bush nor Kerry could protect America: "Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda," he said. "Your security is in your own hands."

In other words, if the American people would somehow agree to consider the security needs of bin Laden and his followers (whether that means just al Qaeda or the entire Arab and Muslim world isn't clear), we'd be safe.

"Do not play with our security, and spontaneously you will secure yourself," he said.

This is, I think, a profound rhetorical change from the man who vowed in 2002 that "the United States will not survive, will not feel any safety or any security."

Usually, bin Laden and his people tend to use the most purple and terrifying language about the damage they're going to do to the United States, as we saw earlier in the week when the American al Qaeda follower "Azzam" said on his videotape that "the streets of America will run red with blood."

Now bin Laden is talking truce.

What's changed, perhaps, is the ferocity of the American response to 9/11. Since then, Osama has been on the run, his Afghanistan safe haven destroyed, his movement under relentless financial and military assault. By offering America a deal, no matter how twisted and pointless the deal might be, the quality that he might be showing us isn't strength, but weakness.

Maybe he's feeling the weariness suggested in the videotaped statement last month by his No. 2 man, Ayman al-Zawahiri: "Oh young men of Islam," he said, "if we are killed or captured, you should carry on the fight."

Maybe they're buckling.

And here's Wretchard at the Belmont Club:

It is important to notice what he has stopped saying in this speech. He has stopped talking about the restoration of the Global Caliphate. There is no more mention of the return of Andalusia. There is no more anticipation that Islam will sweep the world. He is no longer boasting that Americans run at the slightest wounds; that they are more cowardly than the Russians. He is not talking about future operations to swathe the world in fire but dwelling on past glories. He is basically saying if you leave us alone we will leave you alone. Though it is couched in his customary orbicular phraseology he is basically asking for time out.

The American answer to Osama's proposal will be given on Election Day. One response is to agree that the United States of America will henceforth act like Sweden, which is on track to become majority Islamic sometime after the middle of this century. The electorate best knows which candidate will serve this end; which candidate most promises to be European-like in attitude and they can choose that path with both eyes open. The electorate can strike that bargain and Osama may keep his word. The other course is to reject Osama's terms utterly; to recognize the pleading in his outwardly belligerent manner and reply that his fugitive existence; the loss of his sanctuaries; the annihilation of his men are but the merest foretaste of what is yet to come: to say that to enemies such as he, the initials 'US' will always mean Unconditional Surrender.

Osama has stated his terms. He awaits America's answer.

Bush will have at least 300 electoral votes, and will win 33 states for a decisive victory. Nevertheless, the networks will be slow to call it for Bush, doing everything in their power to avoid the fiasco of 2000. Numerous allegations of voter fraud and disinfranchisement--along with lawsuits--will come fast and furious. But most people will see through this and have little patience for the paranoia and sore-lossership. I would not be surprised to see some forms of violence and possibly rioting following the announcement of Bush's victory.

Tuesday night hopefully will tell--and you can see if I sound like a prophet, or am scurrying to clean the egg off of my face!

A helpful site to bookmark in the next few days is the Wall St. Journal's Electoral College Calculator. You can play with the possible electoral scenarios.

Two sites that have been tracking the polls and their electoral implications are ElectionProjection.com and Electoral-Vote.com. The former is run by a strong Bush supporter; the latter by a strong Kerry supporter. They have different methodologies (both of which are explained on their site). Electoral-Vote.com uses a very simple formula for tabulating his predictions; ElectionProjection.com uses a more complicated formula that incorporates a number of different factors. (For details, see here.)

The best advice on poll-watching is not to pay too much attention to the daily fluctuations, but to consider the averages and the trends. The best place to do that is at RealClearPolitics.com. The RCP combined average poll has Bush up by 2.6 at the time of this writing.

The candidates, of course, don't just rely on the public polls. They have internal polls that help them determine the battleground state visits in these final few days. ABC News' The Note has the candidates schedules. Of interest: Cheney will soon be visiting Hawaii, which has been a liberal stronghold for the past 20 years. Bush now leads Kerry by less than 1 percent. Further, Kerry is visiting a number of states that Gore won in 2000, but which are no longer considered safe.

One interesting question in these final days is whether the new Osama bin Laden tape (partial WaPo transcript here) will help Bush or Kerry. I strongly suspect it will help Bush. In fact, I think it could make the election result much closer than conventional wisdom is now suggesting. (Cf. N.Z. Bear's opinion that "Osama bin Laden probably just gave the election to Bush.) Some think the tape will favor Kerry, since it reminds us that OBL is still uncaptured. That's plausible. But consider these factors:

(1) It reminds us of 9/11--one of America's darkest hours and one of Bush's finest.

(2) It highlights terrorism, which the polls show that Bush leads Kerry on this issue at an astonishing spread of 61 to 28.

(3) It seems pretty clear that OBL wants Bush to lose. Many will reason: if OBL is against a victory for W., I'm for it!

(4) It echoes the Democratic talking points. OBL blames the Patriot Act for undermining freedom, and mocks Bush for reading "My Pet Goat" will the Towers were being hit. (Gee, do you think OBL has been listening to Michael Moore?)

(5) It is freshly anti-Israel, which could help the U.S. Jewish vote.

We shall see....