The polls have closed in Iraq

We'll start with the good news, from CNN:
Polls have closed in Iraq's first free election in a half century, with the independent election commission reporting a 72 percent turnout of registered voters nationwide by mid-afternoon amid attacks and threats of attacks to disrupt the vote.

The commission's Adil Al-Lami and Safwat Rashid did not release figures for Iraq's largest province, al-Anbar -- west of Baghdad, including Falluja and Ramadi -- or the northwestern Nineveh province, which includes Mosul.

"There has been a vast turnout in Iraq," Rashid said.

"The news is freedom has won," Al-Lami said. "We have conquered terrorism."
72% of people voted? Remember that the highest voter turnout of the last 36 years in the United States brought out 60% of the eligible voting population. Andrew Sullivan would call that a success:
Here are my criteria: over 50 percent turnout among the Shia and Kurds, and over 30 percent turnout for the Sunnis. No massive disruption of voting places; no theft of ballots. Fewer than 500 murdered.
Or would he?
My revised criteria: 45 percent turnout for Kurds and Shia, 25 percent turnout for the Sunnis, under 200 murdered. No immediate call for U.S. withdrawal.
No, I don't think he would, although he's not overly clear:
Success is 80 percent turnout in--in most of the regions, extremely enthusiastic voting among the Kurds and the Shias, and better than expected among the Sunnis.
That Sullivan guy sure makes a lot of sense. Anywhere, where was I heading with this? Ah yes - a poll taken recently by the Iraqi Ministry of Planning gave some interesting results:
72.4 % of all of those polled said they would participate in the elections.

97% of Iraqis in Kurdistan said they would participate in the elections.

96% of Iraqis in the southern provinces (mainly Sheeit [Shia] areas) said they would participate in the elections.

33% of Iraqis in the central provinces (Sunni Area) said they would participate in the elections.
Now, 72% of people did end up voting, and Zogby claims that only 9% of Sunnis were going to vote. So we can say pretty safely that since the number of Kurds and Shi'ite Muslims voting can't go up too much higher, and they make up the majority of voting areas, so therefore if the polling numbers are even vaguely accurate (and they appear to be the most accurate polls since the American exit polls of, erm, umm, nevermind), the Iraqi election is a resounding success under Sullivan's first two sets of criteria, and is a comfortable success by the other.

When Andrew Sullivan gets out of bed, we'll see how he judges the election - and since even Reuters and AP can't bury the success that is the 2005 Iraq election, Sullivan doesn't look like he's got any choice but to realise he underestimated the will for democracy among most of Iraq.

But while the election created one big winner (the vast majority of the Iraqi people), it created a few losers in the media and the anti-Bush left. They claimed the Afghanistan elections would be delayed, and they were wrong. They claimed the Iraq elections either should or would be delayed, and they were wrong on both counts. They thought people wouldn't embrace democracy, and they were wrong. It doesn't leave many more places for the left to be wrong.

(Cross-posted to The House Of Wheels.)