Could Bush have won New York in 2004?

[Suburbia]

Prior to September 11, 2001, President Bush hated New York because of it's liberalism and policies.....

In his first six months in office, President Bush has visited 32 states, including four trips to Florida and one to South Dakota, which has fewer people than Staten Island. New York has been nowhere on the presidential map. Today, however, Mr. Bush will at last pay a visit. It will be a quick, low-risk exercise -- he will speak about immigration on Ellis Island and honor the late Cardinal John O'Connor at St. Patrick's Cathedral in a bid to woo particular voting blocs. Nobody expects him to dally.

Mr. Bush has been heard to say privately that he cannot stand New York, and if one goes strictly by the numbers, that should come as no surprise. New York preferred Al Gore by a 59-to-35-percent margin. It has five registered Democrats to every three Republicans, and its two Democratic senators are almost certain ''no'' votes on most Bush programs. New York City, which Mr. Bush visited only once during the campaign and whose mayor clearly preferred Senator John McCain's candidacy, is statistically even more hostile. Mr. Bush got 15 percent of the city vote, against Mr. Gore's 77 percent.

https://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/10/opinion/welcome-to-new-york-mr-president.html

After 9/11, could have Bush won NY?

[E-Dawg]

He lost the state by 18 points. What could Bush have possibly done to make up that gap?

[Suburbia]

He lost the state by 18 points. What could Bush have possibly done to make up that gap?

Aggressively remind NY of 9/11/01 and scoop up support in the suburbs and Upstate? Campaign aggressively with Giuliani, Pataki, Bloomberg and the Yankees and Mets players, who supported Bush at the time?

[Calthrina950]

No. New York was already Safe Democratic at the federal level by 2004. Nevertheless, the "9/11" effect did enable Bush to clear the 40% mark in New York, and he improved in New York City and the NYC suburbs. To date, Bush is the last Republican to hit 40% there.

[Chips]

No...

[un]

No, NYC is way too blue and big, not to mention Bush wasn't exactly super strong in the upstate or Long Island.

New Jersey could have possibly gone to Bush in a bad year, but New York? No.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

No, NYC is way too blue and big, not to mention Bush wasn't exactly super strong in the upstate or Long Island.

New Jersey could have possibly gone to Bush in a bad year, but New York? No.

John Kerry winning NJ by 7% was embarrassing. On election night the anchor said NJ being called early for Kerry was good news. NJ was not yet seen as a safe Democratic state then.

[un]

No, NYC is way too blue and big, not to mention Bush wasn't exactly super strong in the upstate or Long Island.

New Jersey could have possibly gone to Bush in a bad year, but New York? No.

John Kerry winning NJ by 7% was embarrassing. On election night the anchor said NJ being called early for Kerry was good news. NJ was not yet seen as a safe Democratic state then.

True, this goes along with Kerry only winning California and Hawaii by 9.

[Calthrina950]

No, NYC is way too blue and big, not to mention Bush wasn't exactly super strong in the upstate or Long Island.

New Jersey could have possibly gone to Bush in a bad year, but New York? No.

John Kerry winning NJ by 7% was embarrassing. On election night the anchor said NJ being called early for Kerry was good news. NJ was not yet seen as a safe Democratic state then.

True, this goes along with Kerry only winning California and Hawaii by 9.

Kerry's relatively poor performance in Democratic states that year-California, Hawaii, and New Jersey, but also Washington, Oregon, and Delaware-is a major reason why Bush won the popular vote, despite the Electoral College being in Kerry's favor that year thanks to Ohio.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

In 2004, no. Now, if the election was held in November 2001, yes.

[un]

No, NYC is way too blue and big, not to mention Bush wasn't exactly super strong in the upstate or Long Island.

New Jersey could have possibly gone to Bush in a bad year, but New York? No.

John Kerry winning NJ by 7% was embarrassing. On election night the anchor said NJ being called early for Kerry was good news. NJ was not yet seen as a safe Democratic state then.

True, this goes along with Kerry only winning California and Hawaii by 9.

Kerry's relatively poor performance in Democratic states that year-California, Hawaii, and New Jersey, but also Washington, Oregon, and Delaware-is a major reason why Bush won the popular vote, despite the Electoral College being in Kerry's favor that year thanks to Ohio.

100%, it also helped that Bush broke 60% in a bunch of red states, especially Texas. Even in the ones where he didn't, he did really well in big states like Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, Arizona, etc.

Even with all of that, Bush didn't get a landslide win in the popular vote, which suggests that the popular vote leans decently towards the Democrats.

[Redban]

No. He had a better chance at New Jersey

[Calthrina950]

No, NYC is way too blue and big, not to mention Bush wasn't exactly super strong in the upstate or Long Island.

New Jersey could have possibly gone to Bush in a bad year, but New York? No.

John Kerry winning NJ by 7% was embarrassing. On election night the anchor said NJ being called early for Kerry was good news. NJ was not yet seen as a safe Democratic state then.

True, this goes along with Kerry only winning California and Hawaii by 9.

Kerry's relatively poor performance in Democratic states that year-California, Hawaii, and New Jersey, but also Washington, Oregon, and Delaware-is a major reason why Bush won the popular vote, despite the Electoral College being in Kerry's favor that year thanks to Ohio.

100%, it also helped that Bush broke 60% in a bunch of red states, especially Texas. Even in the ones where he didn't, he did really well in big states like Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, Arizona, etc.

Even with all of that, Bush didn't get a landslide win in the popular vote, which suggests that the popular vote leans decently towards the Democrats.

This is also true. 2004 was of course the last time that Virginia voted Republican, and Bush won it by about 8%. He won Arizona by 10%, North Carolina by nearly 13%, and Georgia by 16%. Bush carried Florida by a solid 5% margin-a great turnaround from the extremely close and disputed result there of 2000-and the best any presidential candidate from either party has done there since the turn of the millennium. And he won Texas by 23%.

Kerry still won Illinois by about 12% and New York by 18%, and he carried a number of Midwestern states such as Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin narrowly against Bush, in addition to his narrow loss in Ohio. Hence, why the popular vote was close. Kerry was also within single digits in Arkansas and Missouri, results which would be unthinkable now.

[UWS]

Fun fact : With the 2004 Republican National Convention held in New York City, Kerry was up in NY by just 7. Bush had a better chance in New Jersey where he was ahead of Kerry by 4 percentage points.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_2004_United_States_presidential_election#New_York

[UWS]

And if we look at a Rasmussen Reports poll reported from Sept 12 to Sept 18 2004, Bush was trailing Kerry in New York by just 5 percentage points in a three way race with Ralph Nader due to Bush’s convention bounce after the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York City

https://web.archive.org/web/20040922015744/http://www.rasmussenreports.com/New%20York_Fall%202004.htm

[Jim Crow]

Bush's popularity in his first term easily peaked and quickly fell.  After 9/11 it took a while for his numbers to slide.  He had a very short spike at the beginning of the war in Iraq that didn't last.  Also, following the 2004 convention his numbers rose to late 2002 levels for a couple of weeks.  People changed their minds very quickly back then.