|
We may see deadlock when it comes to domestic 'wedge' issues: that is, primarily social issues behind which the religious right is mobilized. I'm not sure the democrats will really try to touch those anyway.
On the economy, we're likely to see a messy eventual compromise that rolls back some of the tax cuts, but perhaps not all.
On Iraq, the administration has already signalled a willingness to move. I took today's announcement about Rumsfeld as a truly good sign as far as the potential for things to be accomplished over the next two years.
As for your question about the media: well technically, of course, it's not really Television that determines the winner of an election, even if all the stations feel the need to 'project' a winner long before the local authorities actually make an announcement. The problem, of course, is that the process of resolving a close election (say, through recounts or a legal battle) is in itself political and thus can be heavily influenced by media coverage.
A radical solution would be to prevent news organizations from conducting exit polling. This cure might be worse than the disease, though, because sans paper receipts with some of these newfangled electronic machines, exit polls might be our only way to independently verify that a result is plausible. Then again, 2004 proved that these polls had no legal weight against the official vote counts, so it may be moot altogether.
I can understand your annoyance, and I share your concern with turning election into a sport without regard for the impact this might have on the process. I don't know of a really practical solution, though.
|