Michael Newdow is at it again. The California atheist, best known for trying to get the words “under God” removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, is now trying to make certain that no one prays at the inauguration of President George W. Bush later this month–at least no one on the program.

Pundits, political scientists, and observers of various stripes have been working hard to explain just what happened on November 2. The results of the election are clear enough by now, but the meaning of the election is still hotly debated. Various demographic trends, moral issues, and social trends have been offered as explanations for America’s voting patterns. Missing from most of these discussions is something very obvious, very important, and very controversial–the “baby gap.” Writing in The American Conservative, Steve Sailer identifies the baby gap as the factor almost no one mentions, even though the baby gap is “correlated uncannily with states’ partisan splits in both 2000 and 2004.”

Peter Beinart argues that the Democratic Party will reemerge from its political exile only if it recovers a clear vision for protecting democracy and freedom from their enemies. In “A Fighting Faith,” published in the December 2, 2004 edition of The New Republic, Beinart asserts that the Democrats have been taken over by Michael Moore and MoveOn.org and is now in the hands of leaders who refuse to support the war on terror and have instead associated the party with far left positions on social and domestic issues. As a result, the Democrats have lost both elections and political capital.

For too long, it looked like the 2004 presidential election was headed for a repeat of the 2000 race, with an army of lawyers descending–this time on Ohio–in an effort to litigate the electoral decision. Yet as the electoral map grew clearer and results poured in, what had been forecast as a tight election turned out not to be a cliffhanger after all. President George W. Bush won a clear majority of votes and sufficient support in the Electoral College to guarantee his reelection to a second four-year term.

OK–so we didn’t have a concession or a victory speech last night. Nevertheless, it certainly looks like President George W. Bush has won a second term in the White House. We’ll track the developments closely on Wednesday, and hope to have a clearer picture.

The arrival of Election Day will be greeted by most Americans with a combination of anticipation and relief. Given the historic importance of this election, most Americans look to it with a considerable degree of concern, knowing that the decisions made today are certain to have a long-lasting impact on America’s political culture and the society at large. At the same time, the arrival of this day of decision also comes as a relief to an electorate strained, stressed, and nearly exhausted by months of political debate and conflict.

The 2004 presidential campaign has been described as one of the most polarizing contests in the nation’s history. With the electoral map divided between “red” and “blue” states reflecting partisan, cultural, and ideological divisions, Americans are coming to terms with the fact that this nation is deeply divided over serious issues of meaning, morality, and basic vision.

Professor David Domke is a very worried man who has written a very worried book. In God Willing?: Political Fundamentalism in the White House, the ‘War on Terror’ and the Echoing Press, Domke, associate professor of Communications at University of Washington, is sounding an alarm–America has a dangerous theocrat in the White House.

Presenting himself to the American people, Senator John Kerry has promised that he would be ready to defend America against the threat of terror and to use military force when necessary. But his convoluted and often confusing explanations of just how, when, and where he would be willing to use military force have left many voters confused. When accused of “flip-flops” and recklessness in opinion, Kerry consistently argues that his positions are merely “nuance,” implying that voters should trust his intelligence and intuition to guide him in serving as Commander-in-Chief.

Teresa Heinz Kerry, wife of Senator John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, sparked a genuine controversy this week, describing First Lady Laura Bush as less qualified to be a president’s wife because she had never held a “real job” as an adult. The ensuing controversy raised a host of issues, ranging from Teresa Heinz Kerry’s worldview to the role of mothers and the value of motherhood.