United States presidential election, 2004

‹ 2000  2008 ›
United States presidential election, 2004
November 2, 2004
Nominee		George W. Bush	John Kerry
Party		Republican	Democratic
Home state		Texas	Massachusetts
Running mate		Dick Cheney	John Edwards
Electoral vote		286	251
States carried		31	19+DC
Popular vote		62,040,610	59,028,444
Percentage		50.7%	48.3%
Presidential election results map. Red denotes states won by Bush/Cheney (31), Blue denotes those won by Kerry/Edwards (19+DC). The split vote in Minnesota denotes a faithless elector's vote counted for John Edwards. Each number represents the electoral votes a state gave to one candidate.
Incumbent President George W. Bush Republican President-Elect George W. Bush Republican

The United States presidential election of 2004 was held on Tuesday, November 2, 2004, to elect the President of the United States. It was the 55th consecutive quadrennial election for President and Vice President. Republican Party candidate and incumbent President George W. Bush defeated Democratic Party candidate John Kerry, the junior U.S. Senator from Massachusetts. Foreign policy was the dominant theme throughout the election campaign, particularly Bush's conduct of the War on Terrorism and the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

As in the 2000 presidential election, voting controversies and concerns of irregularities emerged during and after the vote. The winner was not determined until the following day, when Kerry decided not to dispute Bush's win in the state of Ohio. The state held enough electoral votes to determine the winner of the presidency. Both Kerry and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean have stated their opinion that voting in Ohio did not proceed fairly and that, had it done so, the Democratic ticket might have won that state and therefore the election. ^[1]

Only three states changed allegiance. New Mexico and Iowa voted Democratic in 2000, but voted Republican in 2004. New Hampshire voted Republican in 2000 but voted Democratic in 2004. In the Electoral College, Bush received 286 votes, and Kerry 251.

Background

George W. Bush won the presidency in 2000 after the Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore remanded the case back to the Florida Supreme Court, which declared there was not sufficient time to hold a recount without violating the Constitution. The Florida courts had acted on the petition filed on behalf of Al Gore, the Democratic candidate, alleging voting irregularities in Florida. An automatic machine recount was initiated per Florida law, which narrowed Bush's lead to 537 votes.^[2] Based upon the results of the machine recount, Gore requested on November 9 that a manual recount be conducted in the three largest counties in Florida. Subsequent press recounts declared that Bush was the recipient of the most votes.

Just eight months into his presidency, the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 suddenly transformed Bush into a "wartime president". Bush's approval ratings surged to near 90%. Within a month, the forces of a coalition led by the United States invaded Afghanistan, which had been sheltering Osama bin Laden, suspected mastermind of the September 11 attacks. By December, the Taliban had been removed as rulers of Kabul, although a long and ongoing occupation would follow.

The Bush administration then turned its attention to Iraq. The administration argued that the need to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq had become urgent. One of the stated reasons was that Saddam's regime had tried to acquire nuclear material and had not properly accounted for biological and chemical material it was known to have previously possessed, potential weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in violation of U.N. sanctions. This interpretation has been hotly debated since its proposal, and its basis in U.S. military intelligence has since been compromised with the failure of the U.S. to find the aforementioned WMDs in Iraq. This situation escalated to the point that a coalition of about forty nations, including the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Spain, Italy, and Poland, which Bush called the “coalition of the willing”, invaded Iraq without obtaining a second UN resolution.

The coalition invaded Iraq on March 20, 2003. The invasion succeeded, with the collapse of the Iraq government and the military of Iraq in about three weeks. The oil infrastructure of Iraq was secured with limited damage in that time. On May 1, George W. Bush landed on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, in a Lockheed S-3 Viking, where he gave a speech announcing the end of major combat operations in the Iraq war. Bush's approval rating in the month of May was at 66%, according to a CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll.^[3]

However, Bush's high approval ratings did not last. First, while the war itself was popular in the U.S., the occupation lost support as months passed and casualty figures increased, with no decrease in violence nor progress toward stability or reconstruction in Iraq. Second, as investigators combed through the country, they failed to find the predicted WMD stockpiles, which led to debate over the rationale for the war.

Nominations

Republican nomination

Main articles: George W. Bush presidential campaign, 2004, U.S. Republican Party presidential nomination, 2004, and 2004 Republican National Convention

Bush's popularity as a wartime president helped consolidate his base, and ward off any serious challenge to the nomination. Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island considered challenging Bush on an anti-war platform in New Hampshire, but decided not to run after the capture of Saddam Hussein in December 2003. ^[4]

On March 10, 2004, Bush officially clinched the number of delegates needed to be nominated at the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York City. Bush accepted the nomination on September 2, 2004, and selected Vice President Dick Cheney as his running mate. (In New York, the ticket was also on the ballot as candidates of the Conservative Party of New York State). During the convention and throughout the campaign, Bush focused on two themes: defending America against terrorism and building an "ownership society." The "ownership society" included allowing people to invest some of their Social Security in the stock market, increasing home and stock ownership, and encouraging more people to buy their own health insurance.

Democratic nomination

Main articles: John Kerry presidential campaign, 2004, Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2004, and 2004 Democratic National Convention

Democratic candidates gallery

Before the primaries

By summer of 2003, Howard Dean had become the apparent front runner for the Democratic nomination, performing strongly in most polls and leading the pack with the largest campaign war chest. Dean's strength as a fund raiser was attributed mainly to his embrace of the Internet for campaigning. The majority of his donations came from individual supporters, who came to be known as Deanites, or, more commonly, Deaniacs. Generally regarded as a pragmatic centrist during his time as governor, Dean emerged during his presidential campaign as a left-wing populist, denouncing the policies of the Bush administration (especially the 2003 invasion of Iraq) as well as fellow Democrats, who, in his view, failed to strongly oppose them. Senator Lieberman, a liberal on domestic issues but a hawk on the War on Terror, failed to gain traction with liberal Democratic primary voters.

In September 2003, retired four-star general Wesley Clark announced his intention to run in the presidential primary election for the Democratic Party nomination. His campaign focused on themes of leadership and patriotism; early campaign ads relied heavily on biography. His late start left him with relatively few detailed policy proposals. This weakness was apparent in his first few debates, although he soon presented a range of position papers, including a major tax-relief plan. Nevertheless, many Democrats did not flock to his campaign.

In sheer numbers, Kerry had fewer endorsements than Howard Dean, who was far ahead in the superdelegate race going into the Iowa caucuses in January 2004, although Kerry led the endorsement race in Iowa, New Hampshire, Arizona, South Carolina, New Mexico and Nevada. Kerry's main perceived weakness was in his neighboring state of New Hampshire and nearly all national polls. Most other states did not have updated polling numbers to give an accurate placing for the Kerry campaign before Iowa. Heading into the primaries, Kerry's campaign was largely seen as in trouble, particularly after he fired campaign manager Jim Jordan. The key factors enabling it to survive was when fellow Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy assigned Mary Beth Cahill to be the campaign manager, as well as Kerry's mortgaging his own home to lend the money to his campaign (while his wife was a billionaire, campaign finance rules prohibited using one's personal fortune). He also brought on the "magical" Michael Whouley who would be credited with helping bring home the Iowa victory the same as he did in New Hampshire for Al Gore in 2000 against Bill Bradley.

Iowa caucus

By the January 2004 Iowa caucuses, the field had dwindled down to nine candidates, as Bob Graham dropped out of the race and Howard Dean was a strong front-runner. However, the Iowa caucuses yielded unexpectedly strong results for Democratic candidates John Kerry, who earned 38% of the state's delegates and John Edwards, who took 32%. Former front-runner Howard Dean slipped to 18% and third place, and Richard Gephardt finished fourth (11%). In the days leading up to the Iowa vote, there was much negative campaigning between the Dean and Gephardt camps.

The dismal results caused Gephardt to drop out and later endorse Kerry. What further hurt Dean was a speech he gave at a post-caucus rally. Dean was shouting over the cheers of his enthusiastic audience, but the crowd noise was being filtered out by his unidirectional microphone, leaving only his full-throated exhortations audible to the television viewers. To those at home, he seemed to raise his voice out of sheer emotion. The incessant replaying of the "Dean Scream" by the press became a debate on the topic of whether Dean was the victim of media bias. The scream scene was shown an estimated 633 times by cable and broadcast news networks in just four days following the incident, a number that does not include talk shows and local news broadcasts.^[5] However, those who were in the actual audience that day insist that they were not aware of the infamous "scream" until they returned to their hotel rooms and saw it on TV.^[6]

Kerry, on the other hand, had revived his campaign and began using the slogan "Comeback Kerry."

New Hampshire primary

On January 27, Kerry triumphed again, winning the New Hampshire primary. Dean finished second, Clark was third and Edwards placed fourth.

South Carolina primary

Senator Kerry at a primary rally in St. Louis, MO at the St. Louis Community College - Forest Park

The following week, John Edwards won the South Carolina primary and finished a strong second in Oklahoma. After Howard Dean's withdrawal from the contest, Edwards became the only major challenger to Kerry for the Democratic nomination. However, Kerry continued to dominate and his support quickly snowballed as he won caucuses and primaries, taking in a string of wins in Michigan, Washington, Maine, Tennessee, Washington, D.C., Nevada, Wisconsin, Utah, Hawaii, and Idaho. Clark and Lieberman dropped out during this time, leaving only Sharpton, Kucinich, and Edwards in the running against Kerry.

Super Tuesday

In March's Super Tuesday, Kerry won decisive victories in the California, Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, and Rhode Island primaries and the Minnesota caucuses. Dean, despite having withdrawn from the race two weeks earlier, won his home state of Vermont. Edwards finished only slightly behind Kerry in Georgia, but, failing to win a single state other than South Carolina, chose to withdraw from the presidential race.

Democratic National Convention

On July 6, John Kerry selected John Edwards as his running mate, shortly before the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston, Massachusetts, held later that month. Days before Kerry announced Edwards as his running mate, Kerry gave a short list of three candidates: Sen John Edwards, Rep Dick Gephardt, and Gov Tom Vilsack. Heading into the convention, the Kerry/Edwards ticket unveiled their new slogan—a promise to make America "stronger at home and more respected in the world." Kerry made his Vietnam War experience the prominent theme of the convention. In accepting the nomination, he began his speech with, "I'm John Kerry and I'm reporting for duty." He later delivered what may have been the speech's most memorable line when he said, "the future doesn't belong to fear, it belongs to freedom," a quote that later appeared in a Kerry/Edwards television advertisement.

Other nominations

See also: List of candidates in the United States presidential election, 2004

There were four other pairs of candidates who were on the ballot in states with enough electoral votes to have a theoretical chance of winning a majority in the Electoral College.

• Ralph Nader/Peter Camejo, independent (also Reform Party, Independent Party of Delaware, Populist Party, Better Life Party, Cross-endorsements N.Y. , Peace and Justice Party Independence Party of New York, Independence Party S.C.. Nader was also endorsed by the Vermont Green Party who chose not to ratify the national party’s presidential nominee. Nader details by state
• Michael Badnarik/Richard Campagna, Libertarian Party
• Michael Peroutka/Chuck Baldwin, Constitution Party (also Alaskan Independence Party)
• David Cobb/Pat LaMarche, Green Party

General election campaign

Campaign issues

Bush focused his campaign on national security, presenting himself as a decisive leader and contrasted Kerry as a "flip-flopper." Bush's point was that Americans could trust him to be tough on terrorism while Kerry would be "uncertain in the face of danger." Bush also sought to portray Kerry as a "Massachusetts liberal" who was out of touch with mainstream Americans. One of Kerry's slogans was "Stronger at home, respected in the world." This advanced the suggestion that Kerry would pay more attention to domestic concerns; it also encapsulated Kerry's contention that Bush had alienated American allies by his foreign policy.

According to one exit poll, people who voted for Bush cited the issues of terrorism and moral values as the most important factors in their decision.^[7] Kerry supporters cited the war in Iraq, the economy and jobs, and health care.^[7]

Bush speaking at campaign rally in St. Petersburg, Florida, October 19, 2004

Over the course of Bush's first term in office, his extremely high approval ratings immediately following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks steadily dwindled, peaking only during combat operations in Iraq in the Spring of 2003, and again following the capture of Saddam Hussein in December the same year.^[8] Kerry supporters attempted to capitalize on the dwindling popularity to rally anti-war sentiment.

In March 2004, the Bush/Cheney campaign was criticized by 2004 Racism Watch. The organization took offense to a campaign ad, which showed a man who was possibly Middle Eastern in a negative light. 2004 Racism Watch issued a press release calling on the campaign to pull the ad, calling it disturbing and offensive.^[9]

During August and September 2004, there was an intense focus on events that occurred in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Bush was accused of failing to fulfill his required service in the Texas Air National Guard.^[10] However, the focus quickly shifted to the conduct of CBS News after they aired a segment on 60 Minutes Wednesday introducing what became known as the Killian documents.^[11] Serious doubts about the documents' authenticity quickly emerged,^[12] leading CBS to appoint a review panel that eventually resulted in the firing of the news producer and other significant staffing changes.^[13][14]

Meanwhile, Kerry was accused by the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth, who averred that "phony war crimes charges, his exaggerated claims about his own service in Vietnam, and his deliberate misrepresentation of the nature and effectiveness of Swift boat operations compels us to step forward." The group challenged the legitimacy of each of the combat medals awarded to Kerry by the U.S. Navy, and the disposition of his discharge.

In the beginning of September, the successful Republican National Convention along with the allegations by Kerry's former mates gave Bush his first comfortable margin since Kerry had won the nomination. A post-convention Gallup poll showed the President leading the Senator by 14 points.^[15][16]

Debates

Main article: United States presidential election debates, 2004

Three presidential debates and one vice presidential debate were organized by the Commission on Presidential Debates, and held in the autumn of 2004. As expected, these debates set the agenda for the final leg of the political contest. Libertarian Party candidate Michael Badnarik and Green Party candidate David Cobb were arrested while trying to access the debates. Badnarik was attempting to serve papers to the Commission on Presidential Debates.

The first debate was held on September 30 at the University of Miami, moderated by Jim Lehrer of PBS. During the debate, slated to focus on foreign policy, John Kerry accused Bush of having failed to gain international support for the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, saying the only countries assisting the USA during the invasion were the United Kingdom and Australia. Bush replied to this by saying, "Well, actually, he forgot Poland." (In an ironic turn of events, Poland announced plans to withdraw its troops from Iraq shortly after the debate.) Later, a consensus formed among mainstream pollsters and pundits that Kerry won the debate decisively, strengthening what had come to be seen as a weak and troubled campaign.^[17] In the days after, coverage focused on Bush's apparent annoyance with Kerry and numerous scowls and negative facial expressions. On October 5, the Vice Presidential debate was held between Dick Cheney and John Edwards at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, and was moderated by Gwen Ifill of PBS. An initial poll by ABC indicated a victory for Cheney, while polls by CNN and MSNBC gave it to Edwards.^{[18][19][20][21]}

The second presidential debate was held at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri on October 8, moderated by Charles Gibson of ABC. Conducted in a "town meeting" format, less formal than the first Presidential debate, this debate saw Bush and Kerry taking questions on a variety of subjects from a local audience.^[22] Bush attempted to deflect criticism of what was described as his scowling demeanor during the first debate, joking at one point about one of Kerry's remarks, "That answer made me want to scowl."^[23]

Bush and Kerry met for the third and final debate at Arizona State University on October 13.^[24] 51 million viewers watched the debate which was moderated by Bob Schieffer of CBS News. However, at the time of the ASU debate, there were 15.2 million viewers tuned in to watch the Major League Baseball championship games broadcast simultaneously.

Election results

Grand total

Source (Electoral and Popular Vote): Federal Elections Commission Electoral and Popular Vote Summary

^(a) One faithless elector from Minnesota cast an electoral vote for John Edwards for president.
^(b) Because Arrin Hawkins, then aged 28, was constitutionally ineligible to serve as vice president, Margaret Trowe replaced her on the ballot in some states. James Harris replaced Calero on certain other states' ballots.

Results by state

Although Guam has no votes in the Electoral College, they have held a straw poll for their presidential preferences since 1980. In 2004, the results were Bush 21,490 (64.1%), Kerry 11,781 (35.1%), Nader 196 (0.58%) and Badnarik 67 (0.2%).^[25]

Notes on results

Because of a request by Ralph Nader, New Hampshire held a recount. In New York, Bush obtained 2,806,993 votes on the Republican ticket and 155,574 on the Conservative ticket. Kerry obtained 4,180,755 votes on the Democratic ticket and 133,525 votes on the Working Families ticket. Nader obtained 84,247 votes on the Independence ticket, and 15,626 votes on the Peace and Justice ticket.

Note also: Official Federal Election Commission Report, with the latest, most final, and complete vote totals available.

Finance

• George W. Bush (R) $367,227,801 / 62,040,610 = $5.92 per vote
• John Kerry (D) $326,236,288 / 59,028,111 = $5.52
• Ralph Nader (i) $4,566,037 / 463,653 = $9.85
• Michael Badnarik (L) $1,093,013 / 397,265 = $2.75
• Michael Peroutka (C) $729,087 / 144,498 = $5.05
• David Cobb (G) $493,723 / 119,859 = $4.12
• Walt Brown (SPUSA) $2,060 / 10,837 = $0.19

• (money spent/total votes=average spent per vote)

Source: FEC^[26]

Close states

Blue font color denotes states won by Democrat John Kerry; red denotes those won by Republican President George Bush.

These maps show the amount of attention given by the campaigns to the close states. At left, each waving hand represents a visit from a presidential or vice-presidential candidate during the final five weeks. At right, each dollar sign represents one million dollars spent on TV advertising by the campaigns during the same time period.

States where margin of victory was under 5%

1. Wisconsin 0.38%
2. Iowa 0.67%
3. New Mexico 0.79%
4. New Hampshire 1.37%
5. Ohio 2.11%
6. Pennsylvania 2.50%
7. Nevada 2.59%
8. Michigan 3.42%
9. Minnesota 3.48%
10. Oregon 4.16%
11. Colorado 4.67%

States where margin of victory was between 5% and 10%

1. Florida 5.01%
2. New Jersey 6.68%
3. Washington 7.18%
4. Missouri 7.20%
5. Delaware 7.60%
6. Virginia 8.20%
7. Hawaii 8.75%
8. Maine 8.99%
9. Arkansas 9.76%

2004 United States Electoral College

Main article: United States presidential electors, 2004

Ballot access

“Faithless elector” in Minnesota

One elector in Minnesota cast a ballot for president with the name of “John Ewards”^[27] [sic] written on it. The Electoral College officials certified this ballot as a vote for John Edwards for president. The remaining nine electors cast ballots for John Kerry. All ten electors in the state cast ballots for John Edwards for Vice President (John Edwards' name was spelled correctly on all ballots for Vice President). This was the first time in U.S. history that an elector had cast both of his or her votes for the same person.

Electoral balloting in Minnesota was performed by secret ballot, and none of the electors admitted to casting the Edwards vote for President, so it may never be known who the “faithless elector” was. It is not even known whether the vote for Edwards was deliberate or unintentional; the Republican Secretary of State and several of the Democratic electors have expressed the opinion that this was an accident.^[28]

Electoral vote error in New York

New York's initial electoral vote certificate indicated that all of its 31 electoral votes for president were cast for “John L. Kerry of Massachusetts” instead of John F. Kerry, who won the popular vote in the state.^[29] This was apparently the result of a typographical error, and an amended electoral vote certificate with the correct middle initial was transmitted to the President of the Senate prior to the official electoral vote count.^[30]

Presidential results by congressional district

In his successful bid for reelection in 2004, Republican George W. Bush won the popular vote in 255 of the nation's 435 congressional districts, a 75-seat edge over Democrat John Kerry’s 180. At 255, the President won 27 more districts than the 228 he carried in the 2000 election. There were 59 “turnover” or “split” districts, i.e., those represented in the U.S. House by a member of a party other than the winner of the presidential vote in the district. Following the 2004 election, 41 districts of the 109th Congress were carried by Bush yet represented by a Democrat; 18 districts were carried by John Kerry yet represented by a Republican. This represents a continued decrease over recent presidential elections. In 2000 there were 86 turnover districts. In 1996, there were 110 turnover districts. The 2004 presidential election was the first following the 2001–2002 redistricting phase of congressional apportionment.

Caveats: only a handful of states report the results by district. These numbers are estimates based upon results collected from the 400 counties that contain a portion of more than one district. They may include an allocation of absentee/early votes which were not tabulated by district.^[31]

Voter demographics

The following data is based on exit polls.

An asterisk (*) indicates a statistically insignificant number of responses.

Source: 2004 CNN Election Exit Poll^[32]

Analysis

Map comparing voter turnout to result

The results produced many interesting features. A partial list is given below, but it is by no means complete.

• Compared to 2000 vs. Al Gore, Bush picked up a net gain of 8 electoral votes due to narrow victories in Iowa and New Mexico while conceding a close loss in New Hampshire, and a net gain of 7 votes due to the reapportionment of electors in 2003 as a result of the 2000 census, for a total net gain of 15 electoral votes.
• This was the first election since George H. W. Bush in 1988 in which the winning presidential candidate of either party won an absolute majority (more than 50% of the popular vote).
• This was also the first election since 1988 in which a Republican won the popular vote (Bush failed to win the popular vote in 2000).
• Bush won the popular vote with 50.73% to Kerry's 48.27%. Although in percentage terms it was the closest popular margin ever for a victorious sitting president, he ended up getting higher percentage of the popular vote than 6 out of 8 Democratic Presidents who preceded him.^[33] Bush received 2.5% more than Kerry; the closest previous margin won by a sitting president was 3.2% for Woodrow Wilson in 1916. Bush's victory margin (approximately 3 million votes) was the smallest of any sitting president since Harry S. Truman in 1948.
• At least 12 million more votes were cast than in the 2000 election.
• Voter turnout was unusually high. American University's Center for the Study of the American Electorate reported a record turnout of 60.7% of eligible voting-age citizens—the highest since 1968^[34]. Note, however, that the "eligible" voting-age electorate is by definition smaller than the total voting-age population. In a formal report, the Federal Election Commission released a lower figure of 56.70% for the percentage of the electorate that voted for a presidential candidate,^[35] based on the latter, larger pool (as calculated by the Census Bureau). Still, turnout was undeniably impressive; this was widely attributed to intense partisan division around the country, and to higher-than-usual levels of voter registration attributable in part to "get-out-the-vote" efforts by both major parties and their allies. [2]
• Owing to the nation's growing population and large turnout, both Bush and Kerry received more votes than any previous presidential candidate in American history. The previous record was held by Republican Ronald Reagan, who in 1984 received more votes than any other presidential candidate in American history (54.4 million).
• The counties where Bush led in the popular vote amounted to 83% of the geographic area of the U.S. (excluding Alaska, which did not report results by borough/census area, but where all electoral districts except one of the two in Juneau voted for Bush).
• Only five states saw every county vote for one candidate: Bush won every county in Utah and Oklahoma while Kerry won every county in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Hawaii.
• As in 2000, electoral votes split along sharp geographical lines: The west coast, northeast, and most of the Great Lakes region for Kerry, and the South, Great Plains, and Mountain states for Bush. The widespread support for Bush in the southern states continued the transformation of the formerly Democratic Solid South to the Republican South.
• Minor party candidates received many fewer votes, dropping from a total of 3.5% in 2000 to approximately one percent. As in 2000, Ralph Nader finished in third place, but his total declined from 2.9 million to 400,000, leaving him with fewer votes than Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan had received in finishing fourth in 2000. The combined minor party total was the lowest since 1988.
• The election marked the first time an incumbent president was returned to office while his political party increased its numbers in both houses of Congress since Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1964 election. It was the first time for a Republican since William McKinley in the 1900 election.
• Presidential candidates Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party and David Cobb of the Green Party were arrested in St. Louis, Missouri on October 8, 2004 for an act of civil disobedience. Badnarik and Cobb were protesting their exclusion from the presidential debates between Bush and Kerry. Badnarik had tried to cross a police line to serve the Commission on Presidential Debates with a court order requiring a representative to appear in a legal case brought by the Libertarian Party. [3]
• One issue from the 2000 election had been Bush's electoral victory despite losing the popular vote. If Kerry had won Ohio, he would have won the election but still could have lost the popular vote.
• Although the election was close, nearly half of U.S. voters lived in a county where Bush or Kerry won by 20 percentage points or more. By comparison, only a quarter lived in such counties in 1976. [4]

Electoral College changes from 2000

The U.S. population is continuously shifting, and some states grow in population faster than others. With the completion of the 2000 census, Congressional reapportionment took place, moving some representative districts from the slowest growing states to the fastest growing. As a result, several states had a different number of electors in the U.S. Electoral College in 2004 than in 2000, since the number of electors allotted to each state is equal to the sum of the number of Senators and Representatives from that state.

The following table shows the change in electors from the 2000 election. Red states represent those won by Bush; and Blue states, those won by both Gore and Kerry. All states except Nebraska and Maine use a winner-take-all allocation of electors. Each of these states was won by the same party in 2004 that had won it in 2000; thus, George W. Bush received a net gain of seven electoral votes due to reapportionment while the Democrats lost the same amount.

(This table uses the currently common Red→Republican, Blue→Democratic color association, as do the maps on this page. Some older party-affiliation maps use the opposite color coding for historical reasons.)

Vote splitting concerns

Some supporters of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry were concerned that the independent candidacy of Ralph Nader would split the vote against the incumbent, thus allowing the Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush to win the 2004 election. Many Democrats blame Ralph Nader for splitting the vote in the 2000 presidential election when he ran as the candidate of the Green Party.

Such splits are of particular concern because most states assign the presidential electors they send to the Electoral College, to the candidate with the most votes (a plurality), even if those votes are less than 50% of the total votes cast—in such a situation, a relatively small number of votes can make a large difference. For instance, a candidate who won narrow pluralities in a significant number of states could win a majority in the Electoral College even though they did not win a majority or even a plurality of the national popular vote. While Ralph Nader and the Green Party ultimately support replacing the Electoral College with direct popular elections, both have also suggested that states instead use instant-runoff voting to select their presidential electors, which would partially address the issue of vote splitting.

Opponents of Ralph Nader's candidacy often referred to vote splitting as the spoiler effect. Some voters who preferred Ralph Nader's positions over John Kerry's voted for John Kerry to avoid splitting the vote against the incumbent, claiming to be choosing the “lesser of two evils”. These voters used slogans such as, “Anybody but Bush,” and, “A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.” A group of people who supported Nader in 2000 released a statement entitled "Vote to Stop Bush," urging support for Kerry/Edwards in swing states. Whether due to this campaign or other factors, the impact of Nader on the election's outcome ultimately proved inconsequential, as he received less than 1% of the national vote. In fact, all of the independent candidates together polled fewer votes than Nader had in 2000.

Battleground states

Cheney visited Washington & Jefferson College in Pennsylvania on October 27, 2004^[36]

During the campaign and as the results came in on the night of the election there was much focus on Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. These three swing states were seen as evenly divided, and with each casting 20 electoral votes or more, they had the power to decide the election. As the final results came in, Kerry took Pennsylvania and then Bush took Florida, focusing all attention on Ohio.

The morning after the election, the major candidates were neck and neck. It was clear that the result in Ohio, along with two other states who had still not declared (New Mexico and Iowa), would decide the winner. Bush had established a lead of around 130,000 votes but the Democrats pointed to provisional ballots that had yet to be counted, initially reported to number as high as 200,000. Bush had preliminary leads of less than 5% of the vote in only four states, but if Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico had all eventually gone to Kerry, a win for Bush in Ohio would have created a 269–269 tie in the Electoral College. The result of an electoral tie would cause the election to be decided in the House of Representatives with each state casting one vote, regardless of population. Such a scenario would almost certainly have resulted in a victory for Bush, as Republicans controlled more House delegations. Therefore, the outcome of the election hinged solely on the result in Ohio, regardless of the final totals elsewhere. In the afternoon Ohio's Secretary of State, Ken Blackwell, announced that it was statistically impossible for the Democrats to make up enough valid votes in the provisional ballots to win. At the time provisional ballots were reported as numbering 140,000 (and later estimated to be only 135,000). Faced with this announcement, John Kerry conceded defeat. Had Kerry won Ohio, he would have won the election despite losing the national popular vote by over 3 million votes, a complete reversal of the 2000 election when Bush won the presidency despite losing the popular vote to Al Gore by some 500,000 votes.

The upper Midwest bloc of Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin is also notable, casting a sum of 27 electoral votes. The following is list of the states considered swing states in the 2004 election by most news organizations and which candidate they eventually went for. The two major parties chose to focus their advertising on these states:

Election controversy

Main article: 2004 United States election voting controversies

Map of election day problems

After the election, some sources reported indications of possible data irregularities and systematic flaws during the voting process, which are covered in detail by the election controversy articles.

Although the overall result of the election was not challenged by the Kerry campaign, Green Party presidential candidate David Cobb and Libertarian Party presidential candidate Michael Badnarik obtained a recount in Ohio. This recount was completed December 28, 2004, although on January 24, 2007, a jury convicted two Ohio elections officials of selecting precincts to recount where they already knew the hand total would match the machine total, thereby avoiding having to perform a full recount.^[37]

At the official counting of the electoral votes on January 6, a motion was made contesting Ohio's electoral votes. Because the motion was supported by at least one member of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, election law mandated that each house retire to debate and vote on the motion. In the House of Representatives, the motion was supported by 31 Democrats. It was opposed by 178 Republicans, 88 Democrats and one independent. Not voting were 52 Republicans and 80 Democrats.^[38] Four people elected to the House had not yet taken office, and one seat was vacant. In the Senate, it was supported only by its maker, Senator Boxer, with 74 Senators opposed and 25 not voting. During the debate, no Senator argued that the outcome of the election should be changed by either court challenge or revote. Senator Boxer claimed that she had made the motion not to challenge the outcome, but to “shed the light of truth on these irregularities.”

Points of controversy

• There is no individual federal agency with direct regulatory authority of the U.S. voting machine industry.^[39] However the Election Assistance Commission has full regulatory authority over federal testing and certification processes, as well as an influential advisory role in certain voting industry matters.^[40] Further oversight authority belongs to the Government Accountability Office, regularly investigating voting system related issues.^[41]

• The former president of Diebold Election Systems (Bob Urosevich) and the vice president of customer support at ES&S (Todd Urosevich)^[42] are brothers.^[43]

• Walden O'Dell the former CEO of Diebold (the parent company of voting machine manufacturer Diebold Election Systems) was an active fundraiser for George W. Bush's re-election campaign and wrote in a fund-raising letter dated August 13, 2003, that he was committed "to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President."^[44]

• Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, who was on a short list of George W. Bush's vice-presidential candidates,^[45][46] served as the chairman of ES&S in the early 1990s when it operated under the name American Information Systems Inc. (AIS).^[47] ES&S voting machines tabulated 85 percent of the votes cast in Hagel’s 2002 and 1996 election races. In 2003 Hagel disclosed a financial stake in McCarthy Group Inc., the holding company of ES&S.^[47]

• Global Election Systems, which was purchased by Diebold Election Systems and developed the core technology behind the company's voting machines and voter registration system, employed five convicted felons as consultants and developers.^[48]

• Jeff Dean, a former Senior Vice-President of Global Election Systems when it was bought by Diebold, had previously been convicted of 23 counts of felony theft in the first degree. Bev Harris reports Dean was retained as a consultant by Diebold Election Systems,^[49] though Diebold has disputed the consulting relationship.^[48] Dean was convicted of theft via "alteration of records in the computerized accounting system" using a "high degree of sophistication" to evade detection over a period of 2 years.^[49]

• International election observers were barred from the polls in Ohio^[50][51] by then Republican Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell. Blackwell's office argues this was the correct interpretation of Ohio law.^[51]

• California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley decertified all Diebold Election Systems touch-screen voting machines due to computer-science reports released detailing design and security concerns.^[52][53]

• 30% of all U.S. votes cast in the 2004 election were cast on direct-recording electronic (DRE) voting machine, which do not print individual paper records of each vote.^[54]

• Numerous statistical analysis showed "discrepancy in the number of votes Bush received in counties that used the touch-screen machines and counties that used other types of voting equipment" as well as discrepancies with exit polls, favoring President George W. Bush.^{[55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62]}

New during this campaign

International observers

At the invitation of the United States government, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) sent a team of observers to monitor the presidential elections in 2004. It was the first time the OSCE had sent observers to a U.S. presidential election, although they had been invited in the past.^[63] In September 2004 the OSCE issued a report (PDF 168K) on U.S. electoral processes^[64] and the election final report (PDF 256K). The report reads: "The November 2, 2004 elections in the United States mostly met the OSCE commitments included in the 1990 Copenhagen Document. They were conducted in an environment that reflects a long-standing democratic tradition, including institutions governed by the rule of law, free and generally professional media, and a civil society intensively engaged in the election process. There was exceptional public interest in the two leading presidential candidates and the issues raised by their respective campaigns, as well as in the election process itself."

Earlier, some 13 U.S. Representatives from the Democratic Party had sent a letter to United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan asking for the UN to monitor the elections. The UN responded that such a request could only come from the official national executive. The move was met by considerable opposition from Republican lawmakers.^[65] The OSCE is not affiliated with the United Nations.

Electronic voting

Further information: Analysis of electronic voting

For 2004, some states expedited the implementation of electronic voting systems for the election, raising several issues:

• Software. Without proper testing and certification, critics believe electronic voting machines could produce an incorrect report due to malfunction or deliberate manipulation.^[66]
• Recounts. A recount of an electronic voting machine is not a recount in the traditional sense. The machine can be audited for irregularities and voting totals stored on multiple backup devices can be compared, but vote counts will not change.
• Partisan ties. Democrats noted the Republican or conservative ties of several leading executives in the companies providing the machines.^[67]

Campaign law changes

The 2004 election was the first to be affected by the campaign finance reforms mandated by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as the McCain-Feingold Bill for its sponsors in the United States Senate). Because of the Act's restrictions on candidates' and parties' fundraising, a large number of so-called 527 groups emerged. Named for a section of the Internal Revenue Code, these groups were able to raise large amounts of money for various political causes as long as they do not coordinate their activities with political campaigns. Examples of 527s include Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, MoveOn.org, the Media Fund, and America Coming Together. Many such groups were active throughout the campaign season. (There was some similar activity, although on a much lesser scale, during the 2000 campaign.)

To distinguish official campaigning from independent campaigning, political advertisements on television were required to include a verbal disclaimer identifying the organization responsible for the advertisement. Advertisements produced by political campaigns usually included the statement, “I'm [candidate's name], and I approve this message.” Advertisements produced by independent organizations usually included the statement, “[Organization name] is responsible for the content of this advertisement,” and from September 3 (60 days before the general election), such organizations' ads were prohibited from mentioning any candidate by name. Previously, television advertisements only required a written “paid for by” disclaimer on the screen.

This law was not well known or widely publicized at the beginning of the Democratic primary season, which led to some early misperception of Howard Dean, who was the first candidate to buy television advertising in this election cycle. Not realizing that the law required the phrasing, some people viewing the ads reportedly questioned why Dean might say such a thing—such questions were easier to ask because of the maverick nature of Dean's campaign in general.

Colorado's Amendment 36

Main article: Colorado Amendment 36

A ballot initiative in Colorado, known as Amendment 36, would have changed the way in which the state apportions its electoral votes. Rather than assigning all 9 of the state's electors to the candidate with a plurality of popular votes, under the amendment Colorado would have assigned presidential electors proportionally to the statewide vote count, which would be a unique system (Nebraska and Maine assign electoral votes based on vote totals within each congressional district). Detractors claimed that this splitting would diminish Colorado's influence in the Electoral College, and the amendment ultimately failed, receiving only 34% of the vote.

Legal challenges

Election watchers and political analysts forecast a number of contested election results in a manner similar to the Florida voting recount of 2000. Various states grappled with their own legal issues that could have affected the outcome of the vote, while both of the major political parties and a number of independent groups like the ACLU marshaled numbers of lawyers.

In several states including Ohio, Colorado, Florida, and Nevada, there were lawsuits or other disputes about such issues as “voter challenging”, voter registration, and absentee ballots. These were considered unlikely to change the Electoral College result. In Florida, for example, multiple lawsuits were filed even before the election, but few observers expected any of them to change the official result that Bush had outpolled Kerry by roughly 400,000 votes. As of the morning of November 3 the deciding state in the electoral vote count was Ohio, where Bush held a 136,000 vote lead. Democrats' hopes rested on the approximately 135,000 provisional ballots that had yet to be counted. Nevertheless, after concluding that a recount would not change the election results, Kerry conceded defeat at about 11:00 EST that morning, and George W. Bush declared victory the afternoon of the same day.

The Green Party and Libertarian Party presidential candidates, David Cobb and Michael Badnarik, filed for a recount of the Ohio vote. After announcing their intention and soliciting donations, they quickly raised $150,000 to cover the state's required fee and other costs. A statewide recount of the presidential vote was completed under the watch of thousands of elections observers organized by the Cobb campaign. Based on reports filed by these observers, some voting rights advocates claim that the recount was conducted improperly, and illegally, and have filed a new lawsuit, which is currently pending. The Congressional Democrats who objected to the counting of Ohio's electoral votes relied on part on information about voting irregularities provided by observers working for the Cobb campaign.

See also

• 2004 U.S. presidential election timeline
• Ralph Nader's presidential campaigns
• Jesusland map
• Canada and the 2004 U.S. presidential election
• Newspaper endorsements in the United States presidential election, 2004
• History of the United States (1991–present)
• Kerry Fonda 2004 election photo controversy
• Killian documents authenticity issues

Other elections

• United States gubernatorial elections, 2004
• United States House elections, 2004
• United States Senate elections, 2004

References

Sources

• Official Federal Election Commission Report, a PDF file, with the latest, most final, and complete vote totals available.
• "Presidential Results by Congressional District". Polidata. Washington, D.C.: Polidata. Retrieved on 2005-07-29.
• Barone, Michael J. The Almanac of American Politics: 2006 (2005)
• Daclon, Corrado Maria, US elections and war on terrorism (2004), Analisi Difesa, no. 50
• Evan Thomas, Eleanor Clift, and Staff of Newsweek. Election 2004 (2005)

Books

• Fooled Again: How the Right Stole the 2004 Election (2005) - Mark Crispin Miller, Basic Books
• Steven F. Freeman and Joel Bleifuss, Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen? Exit Polls, Election Fraud, and the Official Count, (New York: Seven Stories Press, 2006)

External links

Official candidate websites

• Michael Badnarik (Libertarian)
• David Cobb (Green)
• John Kerry (Democrat)
• Ralph Nader (Independent)
• Michael Peroutka (Constitution)

A website originally existed for George W. Bush's campaign, but after the election it was removed and the URL now redirects to the Republican Party website. The Internet Archive has a copy of it as of just before the election. The other five candidates continued to run their campaign websites as personal sites.

Election maps & analysis

• NYTimes.com 2004 Election Results Interactive Graphic
• How close was the 2004 election? - Michael Sheppard, Michigan State University
• PBS.org Interactive Electoral College Map
• Maps and cartograms of the 2004 U.S. presidential election results - Michael Gastner, Cosma Shalizi, and Mark Newman, University of Michigan
• Electoral College Meta-Analysis - Professor Sam Wang, Princeton University (election.princeton.edu)
• Election 2004 Results - Robert J. Vanderbei, Princeton University
• Interactive Atlas of the 2004 Presidential Election Results - Dave Liep
• Alternate views of the electoral results map
• Assessing the Vote and the Roots of American Political Divide
• How the 2004 Presidential Election Impacted the Way Americans Speak
• U.S. Election 2004 Web Monitor
• November 2: Election Day 2004 A chronicle of campaign news & commentary...]
• The Honky Tonk Gap: Country Music, Red State Identity, and the Election of 2004

State-by-state forecasts of electoral vote outcome

• Political Oddsmaker - 98.2% accurate calls in 2,700 races since 1995 (Page not up as of 2007)
• TrendLines Electoral Vote Projection Chart
• Probability analysis of Electoral College based on latest poll results by state
• Electoral Vote Predictor 2004
• Election Projection: Detailed electoral analysis, updated frequently
• Federal Review Composite Poll
• Larry J. Sabato's Crystal Ball
• Professor Pollkatz's Pool of Polls
• Running the Numbers: Election 2004
• Swing State Project
• President Elect projection
• Race 2004
• USA Today polls
• Electoral college simulations

Controversies

• About.com, Democracy & Voting Rights - Ohio 2004 Election as Lesson in What Can Go Wrong
• Analysis of misleading advertising from both Bush and Kerry
• "Was the 2004 Election Stolen?" Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Rolling Stone.
• Researcher Alleges Potential Plagiarism in 11 Passages of Kerry's Writings
• VIDEO presentation: Professor Steve Freeman on stolen 2004 election October 5, 2007
• VIDEO interview: Professor Steve Freeman on stolen 2004 election October 5, 2007

Election campaign funding

• 2004 Center for Responsive Politics compiles data about who gives and who receives
• Money Maps

Election 2004 global debate and voting

• Talk to US
• The world speaks
• The world votes
• Globalvote 2004

Minnesota electoral voting

• Duluth News Tribune
• Minnesota Public Radio

2004 United States presidential election Candidates George W. Bush · John Kerry · Ralph Nader · Full list General articles Election timeline · Democratic primaries · Republican primaries  · Republican Convention · Democratic Convention · Effects in Canada · Debates Controversies Moss v. Bush · Kerry military service · Bush military service Local results Alabama · Alaska · Arizona · Arkansas · California · Colorado · Connecticut · Delaware · District of Columbia · Florida · Georgia · Hawaii · Idaho · Illinois · Indiana · Iowa · Kansas · Kentucky · Louisiana · Maine · Maryland · Massachusetts · Michigan · Minnesota · Mississippi · Missouri · Montana · Nebraska · Nevada · New Hampshire · New Jersey · New Mexico · New York · North Carolina · North Dakota · Ohio · Oklahoma · Oregon · Pennsylvania · Rhode Island · South Carolina · South Dakota · Tennessee · Texas · Utah · Vermont · Virginia · Washington · West Virginia · Wisconsin · Wyoming Other 2004 elections House of Representatives · Senate · Gubernatorial

United States presidential elections 1789 · 1792 · 1796 · 1800 · 1804 · 1808 · 1812 · 1816 · 1820 · 1824 · 1828 · 1832 · 1836 · 1840 · 1844 · 1848 · 1852 · 1856 · 1860 · 1864 · 1868 · 1872 · 1876 · 1880 · 1884 · 1888 · 1892 · 1896 · 1900 · 1904 · 1908 · 1912 · 1916 · 1920 · 1924 · 1928 · 1932 · 1936 · 1940 · 1944 · 1948 · 1952 · 1956 · 1960 · 1964 · 1968 · 1972 · 1976 · 1980 · 1984 · 1988 · 1992 · 1996 · 2000 · 2004 · 2008 · 2012 Electoral College · Electoral vote changes · Results by Electoral College margin · Results by popular vote margin · Results by state · Voter turnout · Presidential primaries House elections · Senate elections ·