Ad Random, Post-Election

Most people have seen maps of the USA with the electors' choice by state, as seen at the USA Today website's "Election 2004" page. They also supply a more detailed analysis with a county-by-county comparison. The latter includes a contrast of this year's election, with that of 2000, which is facilitated by an animation at Bettnet.com. (You can barely see it, but most of Alaska's votes went Republican, and are confined to its southern coast, the rest of the state being largely uninhabited.)

This model casts into serious doubt any notion that the Democrats are the "party of the people." The bulk of their support is confined to the West and upper East coasts, and in the more cosmopolitan, more expensive, urban regions.

One of them, Hollywood, is the scene of great despair, as the great thespians, having long taken for granted their role at center stage of the public square, wonder out loud what that world is coming to:

"For a rich and powerful demographic used to getting its way, Hollywood was downbeat yesterday as President Bush — more heinous than a mid-February release date to so many celebrities and other bold-faced names — made his gracious victory speech... Not only entertainers were said to be dispirited. The literary crowd in New York was crying into its Evian... 'Sure, I feel terrible,' said New Yorker editor David Remnick, whose published endorsement of Mr. Kerry was a first for the magazine. 'There are a lot of long faces today.'... And 'Fahrenheit 9/11' propagandist Michael Moore's Web site actually went silent... That's the same Mr. Moore who only a couple of weeks ago had paused in his anti-Bush road trip to opine: 'I have a feeling that slackers are going to rise up in this election. The slacker motto is: Sleep till noon, drink beer, vote Kerry.'..."

They can make jokes about why the land between the coasts is known as "flyover" states if they will. But it will only encourage the alienation, and the observation made today by Robert Novak:

"Democrats confront a grim future. Bush's 3.5-million-vote edge in the popular vote reflects a party out of touch with the country on social issues, the role of government and the war against terrorism. Democrats face the bitter reality of minority party status and what to do about it."

From where sitteth yours truly, they may already have. Senator Hilary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), wife of a former president who needs no introduction, is already getting a good look-over. A defeat of Kerry may have made such a possibility all the more likely.

(We've mentioned that before, haven't we?)

Such a choice only reinforces the current malaise descending on the Democrats. Will choosing a former first lady, with a history of questionable legal, political, and professional conduct (to say nothing of enabling her husband in the same), who appeared to have relocated to a new state mainly to run for public office there and come off looking like a native, only encourage the delusion of elitists in Hollywood and elsewhere?

Be that as it may, the Republicans have no reason to rest on their laurels. There is some question as to whether Bush was able enough to court young voters among his slim majority (and yes, 51 percent against 48 percent can safely be called "slim"), and the pressure on him to resolve the situation in Iraq will not go away.

The Republicans didn't win big time, so much as they bought time. Somewhere in the distance, a big can of 2008 model year Whoop-@$$ is waiting for them.

They'd better start lining up the heir apparents now; their adversaries aren't wasting any time. Stay tuned...