Why was 2004 so close?

[Nightcore Nationalist]

Bush only won by 286-252, picking up IA and NM by less than 1% but losing NH.  Considering that incumbency mattered much more back then, 911 and his 70 plus percent approval in late 2003, why was it so close? especially with his overperformance in FL (+5) and NJ being rather close (D+6)  Kerry would have won if he had 50K more votes in Ohio, making it closer than 2016.

Kerry also wasn't a great candidate.  He was viewed as uncharismatic and elitist, played fast and loose with the truth w/re his military experience, and Rather-gate just happened.


It's also funny that Fox correctly predicted the result, but with a red MN/WI and a blue OH, talk about a weird looking map.

[Podgy the Bear]

I often wonder about the Republican rhetoric on the electoral college had Kerry switched those 59K voters to pick up Ohio.

[Annatar]

Because George Bush was a really weak candidate, in 2000 he basically won by the skin of his teeth despite the fact that the fundamentals were similar to 2016, popular incumbent president and an okay economy with a party going for a 3rd term. If Kerry had been a slightly stronger candidate Bush would have lost, he basically lost anyway in 2000 some would argue and was only rescued by the courts.

[buritobr]

Still the only >50% for a republican after the end of the Cold War

[mgop]

in his first term bush did nothing to prevent 9/11, and then started two wars. maybe that's why...

[Mr. Morden]

The Iraq War

[SingingAnalyst]

Perhaps because Kerry's campaign mantra "help is on the way" resonated with precisely the type of working-class voters that were cool to Clinton in 2016: the 9/11 attacks did cause considerable economic hardship. Perhaps, too, voters respected Kerry's military service more than Bush's lack thereof.

The Teamsters were very vocal about their support of Kerry.

As 2003 ended, Bush seemed inevitable. At the time it seemed inconceivable that Bush would lose the first post-9/11 Presidential election, but Kerry almost pulled it off. I too was surprised at how close it was. Of course, the "Jesusland" map was legendary, even if it has changed somewhat since then.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

People talk about how easily Kerry could've won, but Bush also easily could've won by more than he did at least in the EC...

The Iraq War

Pretty much this. Had there been no insurgency, Bush could've gotten a bigger win. Also,while the economy was clearly recovering from the early 2000s recession, it wasn't booming like the 90s (which were still pretty recent in 2004).

[Gracile]

A 2.5% PV victory is not particularly close, and it is remarkable that the nation swung about 3% to Bush.

[Pericles]

His approval rating was in the high 40s at the actual election, so pointing out his 70% approval a year earlier isn't really relevant.

[brucejoel99]

Considering that incumbency mattered much more back then, 911 and his 70 plus percent approval in late 2003, why was it so close?

Because campaigning.

[HisGrace]

The country was bitterly divided over Iraq even in 04. I remember people who were old enough to know at the time compared the atmosphere to the 68 election during Vietnam.

Without Iraq Bush probably coasts to a landslide win similar to his dad's in 88.

[nclib]

It wasn't just Iraq. Bush's far-right policies and personality were anathema to leftists in 2004. Even in 2000, Bush wasn't as controversial and was less right-wing.

[HisGrace]

It wasn't just Iraq. Bush's far-right policies and personality were anathema to leftists in 2004. Even in 2000, Bush wasn't as controversial and was less right-wing.

Leftists weren't going to vote Bush anyway. In 04 the "values" voter issues probably got Bush a lot more voters than it cost. It didn't backfire until the Obama elections when the country started getting more socially liberal in the late 2000's/early 10's.

[538Electoral]

Kerry came back on his own after the first debate. Bush would've won in a landslide if he did better in the first debate. Kerry might've won the election if the election were held a week later.

[Arbitrage1980]

2004 is the opposite of 2016 with respect to the PV/EC allocation. Bush 04 was strong with Latinos and culturally conservative whites, allowing him to boost his national PV margin by doing extremely well in AZ, UT, TX, GA, FL, NC. But Bush was weaker with working class whites, preventing him from doing better in the Rust Belt. He barely won IA and did worse in OH than he did in 2000. WI was super close in both 2000 and 2004 (Bush lost by less than half a percentage point) due to his strength in Milwaukee suburbs, but his weakness with working class whites in the rural areas held him back. Basically, the opposite of 2016 when Trump lost the national PV by getting crushed in big blue states and underperforming in large red states.

[Morgan Kingsley]

IIRC there was a thread talking about the fifty state strategy Bush had in which he campaigned in all states, even if he had no chance of winning, to win a majority of the popular vote, giving him a mandate. I wonder what it would have been like if Bush did no such thing

[Hydera]

The economy especially in the rust belt wasnt doing well. While the correlation between how the economy is doing and election results have been declining(Obama won in 2012 despite the country still in economic difficulties because Obama campaigned heavily on Romney saying the auto sector shouldn't of had a bailout). Meant Bush's not winning the popular vote by much.

post-2000 the economy especially in the rust belt were in decline due to jobs moving to asia. and kerry ran on ending outsourcing.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Bush's approval rating was underwater in the spring of that year after Abu Ghraib and Fallujah made it clear that Iraq was beginning to turn into a fiasco. He was very a polarising and vulnerable incumbent.

[Orser67]

Iraq and a middling economy were important, as were Bush's polarizing conservative policies: Kerry won a more decisive victory among liberals/Democrats more than Gore and won moderates by pretty much the same margin, but Bush improved with conservatives/Republicans compared to 2000. Bush saw improvement with older voters, but declined significantly with young voters and, relatedly, lost first-time voters by a decent margin.

Also, it's worth noting that Bush remains the only Republican since 1988 to win the popular vote. And imo, Kerry was a better candidate than people think, and (like in 2012) negative opinions of him were strongly influenced by effective attack ads.

[Smash255]

Bush only won by 286-252, picking up IA and NM by less than 1% but losing NH.  Considering that incumbency mattered much more back then, 911 and his 70 plus percent approval in late 2003, why was it so close? especially with his overperformance in FL (+5) and NJ being rather close (D+6)  Kerry would have won if he had 50K more votes in Ohio, making it closer than 2016.

Kerry also wasn't a great candidate.  He was viewed as uncharismatic and elitist, played fast and loose with the truth w/re his military experience, and Rather-gate just happened.


It's also funny that Fox correctly predicted the result, but with a red MN/WI and a blue OH, talk about a weird looking map.

The economy had improved, but was still sluggish in the Rust Belt.   This was before the Democrats total collapse with WWC and the GOP losing more ground with the educated suburban vote (those factors canceled out for the most part).   Iraq was turning unpopular which helped Kerry keep the margins closed, but wasn't unpopular enough yet to cost Bush the Presidency (certainly would have 12-18 months later)

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The country was bitterly divided over Iraq even in 04. I remember people who were old enough to know at the time compared the atmosphere to the 68 election during Vietnam.

Without Iraq Bush probably coasts to a landslide win similar to his dad's in 88.

I think that's basically right, though the level of support for the war in Iraq at the time of the election was still high enough that it was closer to late '67 than late '68 levels on Vietnam. 

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1633/iraq.aspx
https://news.gallup.com/vault/191828/gallup-vault-hawks-doves-vietnam.aspx

[Tartarus Sauce]

It wasn't just Iraq. Bush's far-right policies and personality were anathema to leftists in 2004. Even in 2000, Bush wasn't as controversial and was less right-wing.

Leftists weren't going to vote Bush anyway. In 04 the "values" voter issues probably got Bush a lot more voters than it cost. It didn't backfire until the Obama elections when the country started getting more socially liberal in the late 2000's/early 10's.

One of the remarkable things about the '04 election is the types of performances Bush got out of a lot of formerly educated, northern Republican suburban, and even some urban, counties that had been slipping away from the GOP since the late 80s and early 90s. The GOP can only dream of these kinds of numbers nowadays in these places.

Washington County, OR: 46.4% Rep (30.9% Rep 2016)

Snohomish County, WA: 45.5% Rep (36.2% Rep 2016)

Lake County, IL: 50.5% Rep (36.2% Rep in 2016)

DuPage County, IL: 54.5% Rep (38.6% Rep in 2016)

Marion County, IN: 48.7% Rep (35.3% Rep in 2016)

Hamilton County, OH: 52.5% Rep (42.5% Rep in 2016)

Franklin County, OH: 45.1% Rep (33.9% Rep in 2016)

Montgomery County, PA: 44% Rep (37.1% Rep in 2016)

Chester County, PA: 52% Rep (42.5% Rep in 2016)

Bergen County, NJ: 47.4% Rep (41.6% Rep in 2016)

Westchester County, NY: 40.3% Rep (31.2% Rep in 2016)

Fairfield County, CT: 47.3% Rep (38% Rep in 2016)

Imagine a Republican presidential candidate running a Bush-style values voter campaign and getting those types of numbers in those counties in the contemporary political era. Social conservatism went from something these college-educated urban/suburban voters either actively endorsed or at least were willing to tolerate, to utter political anathema between then and today. As you already indicated, the bottom didn't really start falling out for Republicans in these places until 2008 and the Obama years, and their local political machinery didn't start getting really decimated until the Trump era.

It very clearly didn't end up costing him too many votes in 2004, the country was simply more socially conservative back then relatively speaking and conservatives had more influence over the terms of the debate regarding social issues back then than they do now.

Now Republicans have lost touch with these places in terms of both their social and economic preferences.

[Arbitrage1980]

It wasn't just Iraq. Bush's far-right policies and personality were anathema to leftists in 2004. Even in 2000, Bush wasn't as controversial and was less right-wing.

Leftists weren't going to vote Bush anyway. In 04 the "values" voter issues probably got Bush a lot more voters than it cost. It didn't backfire until the Obama elections when the country started getting more socially liberal in the late 2000's/early 10's.

One of the remarkable things about the '04 election is the types of performances Bush got out of a lot of formerly educated, northern Republican suburban, and even some urban, counties that had been slipping away from the GOP since the late 80s and early 90s. The GOP can only dream of these kinds of numbers nowadays in these places.

Washington County, OR: 46.4% Rep (30.9% Rep 2016)

Snohomish County, WA: 45.5% Rep (36.2% Rep 2016)

Lake County, IL: 50.5% Rep (36.2% Rep in 2016)

DuPage County, IL: 54.5% Rep (38.6% Rep in 2016)

Marion County, IN: 48.7% Rep (35.3% Rep in 2016)

Hamilton County, OH: 52.5% Rep (42.5% Rep in 2016)

Franklin County, OH: 45.1% Rep (33.9% Rep in 2016)

Montgomery County, PA: 44% Rep (37.1% Rep in 2016)

Chester County, PA: 52% Rep (42.5% Rep in 2016)

Bergen County, NJ: 47.4% Rep (41.6% Rep in 2016)

Westchester County, NY: 40.3% Rep (31.2% Rep in 2016)

Fairfield County, CT: 47.3% Rep (38% Rep in 2016)

Imagine a Republican presidential candidate running a Bush-style values voter campaign and getting those types of numbers in those counties in the contemporary political era. Social conservatism went from something these college-educated urban/suburban voters either actively endorsed or at least were willing to tolerate, to utter political anathema between then and today. As you already indicated, the bottom didn't really start falling out for Republicans in these places until 2008 and the Obama years, and their local political machinery didn't start getting really decimated until the Trump era.

It very clearly didn't end up costing him too many votes in 2004, the country was simply more socially conservative back then relatively speaking and conservatives had more influence over the terms of the debate regarding social issues back then than they do now.

Now Republicans have lost touch with these places in terms of both their social and economic preferences.

It makes sense that W Bush did well in the NJ/NY/CT suburbus because they were directlly affected by 9/11. 2004 was a security election; the cultural and social issues were not the key drivers in the Northeast. They did help drive up turnout for Bus in the South. In 2000, several million evangelicals stayed home when the Maine DUI story broke the week before the election. Bush's national lead went from 3 points to his eventual 0.5% loss to Gore and barely winning the election.

Affluent white suburban voters have drifted to the left on culture since their economic needs are satisfied and not as dependent on specific policies. As such, they are highly influenced by the liberal messaging on issues such as immigration, guns, abortion, race, police brutality, etc. They engage in virtue signaling to convey how "progressive" they are to their friends and neighbors. It's no surprise that Trump did so much worse with these voters than compared to even Romney.

Finally, one cannot overstate the improtance of demographics. The infusion of immigrants has permanetly altered the political landscape of counties where the GOP used to do well in.

[buritobr]

On the other hand

Clay County AR (53.54% Kerry 2004, 23.06% Hillary 2016)
McDowell County WV (61.67% Kerry 2004, 23.02% Hillary 2016)
Elliott County KY (69.80% Kerry 2004, 25.92% Hillary 2016)
Pike County KY (52.30% Kerry 2004, 17.35% Hillary 2016)
Floyd County KY (62.24% Kerry 2004, 24.27% Hillary 2016)
Fayette County PA (53.23% Kerry 2004, 33.17% Hillary 2016)
Washington County PA (50.14% Kerry 2004, 35.52% Hillary 2016)
Iron County WI (50.43% Kerry 2004, 36.29% Hillary 2016)
Adams County WI (52.09% Kerry 2004, 36.97% Hillary 2016)