I watched last night as every major network projected Ohio for Bush, un-projected it later, and then acted like they'd never projected it at all. Okay, I was pretty tired by this point and I won't swear that they all had it projected, but it was certainly the clear consensus for a while if you scanned through all the channels. CNN was the quickest to either restore or re-affirm its "too close to call" status.

Frankly, based on the figures that had been released last I watched, I really don't give Kerry much of a chance. I wonder if his better bet would be to try to overturn the result in some other state instead...

If, by some miracle, Kerry manages to grab Ohio, I look forward to the Republicans complaining about the way the electoral college can let a candidate win the popular vote but still lose the election. As they say, turnabout is fair play, or in other words, payback's a bitch :)

If, on the other hand, the current situation persists and Bush ends up with the presidency, it appears that the vote was swung by what the pundits are calling "Moral Values" voters - those who claimed that moral values were the most important factor for them in deciding which way to vote. What blows my mind is that these people apparently have a definition of moral values which doesn't include tolerance but does include bigotry, doesn't include truthfulness but does include greed, doesn't include respect for the concerns of others but does include shooting the crap out of anyone we don't like, doesn't include respect for freedom but does include a reckless disregard for civil rights, doesn't include a respect for science or logic but does include dogma, and doesn't include self-criticism but does include overwhelming stubbornness. How anyone can claim that set of values is "moral" is beyond me.