Bush barely won his relection in 2004 by winning Ohio, and even then he barely won the state of Ohio. If Kerry won Ohio, he would have won the general election. But why was the 2004 election so close? Bush was very popular after 9/11 plus the Iraq war was going on, the economy was good in 2004.
Why was the 2004 election so close?
- Thread starter Admiral Bloonbeard
- Start date
While the majority of people still believed that the decision to start the Iraq War wasn't wrong in 2004, even then the majority felt the Iraq War was going badly. Also, the majority of people in 2004 didn't believe the economy was doing good either.
https://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
Polarizing Presidents tend to result in close elections. There was a high voter turnout for both Bush and Kerry.
Looking at it in historical context, Bush did better in 2004 than any Republican presidential candidate since 1988- and by a huge margin. Indeed, 04 Bush was, by sheer percentage alone, tied for fourth most popular Republican candidate since Eisenhower. Increasing polarization, especially since the 80s and 90s culture wars, meant there were fewer swing voters to court than in most previous elections, and new methods of reaching out to voters (the Internet was just beginning to reach the levels of participation that eventually let it become the backbone of society these scant few years later, and analytical data allowing for microtargeting of potential voters) was something the 04 Bush campaign pioneered.
The fact that Bush made such a strong showing in spite of his flaws- his 'compassionate conservatism' rubbing culture-warrior voters the wrong way, the attempts to privatize social security backfiring, his complete spurning of the isolationist wing of his party, and the sheer and simple fact that he was president in an era where there just simply were more Democrats than Republicans (as evidenced by the fact that Democrats won the popular vote in- again- literally every election since 1988 besides this one)- says that to some degree Bush was quite possibly more or less running about as close to as high as he could possibly reach short of the election being held in, say, early 2002.
The fact that Bush made such a strong showing in spite of his flaws- his 'compassionate conservatism' rubbing culture-warrior voters the wrong way, the attempts to privatize social security backfiring, his complete spurning of the isolationist wing of his party, and the sheer and simple fact that he was president in an era where there just simply were more Democrats than Republicans (as evidenced by the fact that Democrats won the popular vote in- again- literally every election since 1988 besides this one)- says that to some degree Bush was quite possibly more or less running about as close to as high as he could possibly reach short of the election being held in, say, early 2002.
Last edited:
Bush Jr was a disaster and he got lucky rivals were weak, if not he would have been one termed like his dad very easily, there a reason why the bush family is finished and that is GWB
It took the worst attack in USA soil since Pearl Harbor for it... think about it....
A combination of the increased polarization lowering his ceiling (in national popularity at least; the 2000 and 2004 elections more or less calcified a lot of the state level southern and plains Republican-leaning trends that had begun decades earlier) and a series of missteps that caused backlash lowering his floor, plus time passing since the events in question, meant his popularity had more or less returned to his initial baseline by the time of the election. Recall- he was elected without the popular vote, the lack of WMDs in Iraq was already becoming memetic, the insurgency was in full gear and the US was struggling to properly equip itself to fight it, and the war itself was increasingly unpopular among a large portion of the population.
On the other side, Kerry, while on paper a perfectly fine candidate and arguably one of the better ones that could have shaken out of the process, was, to be frank, very unexciting for a lot of people; he wasn't really someone people wanted to vote for as much as someone they resigned themselves to vote for. Bush ran an excellent campaign, Kerry ran a poor one; Bush had personal charisma in spades, Kerry didn't; Bush won by a fairly good margin in an era where a 'baseline' election might well have swung the other way. While it was 'close,' it's probably the best reasonable result Republicans could have asked for in context.
On the other side, Kerry, while on paper a perfectly fine candidate and arguably one of the better ones that could have shaken out of the process, was, to be frank, very unexciting for a lot of people; he wasn't really someone people wanted to vote for as much as someone they resigned themselves to vote for. Bush ran an excellent campaign, Kerry ran a poor one; Bush had personal charisma in spades, Kerry didn't; Bush won by a fairly good margin in an era where a 'baseline' election might well have swung the other way. While it was 'close,' it's probably the best reasonable result Republicans could have asked for in context.
In addition, the early 2000s recession caused a rise in unemployment with the unemployment rate peaking at over 6% in mid-2003. The unemployment rate did drop in 2004, but it did so slowly, and in some manufacturing-heavy states like Ohio, the unemployment rate stayed roughly the same - Ohio's unemployment rate in November 2004 was 6.4%, the same rate that it was from May-June 2003. George W. Bush even faced the prospect of being the first president since Herbert Hoover to preside over a net-loss of jobs in a four-year term, though he barely managed to avoid that scenario.
Just how could you know that? If the economy is good any incumbent president is the odds-on favorite. W got 44% of the Hispanic vote, the highest total for any Republican presidential candidate in modern times. He had wide appeal with social conservatives. He was a deal maker, who got major popular legislation passed through Congress, including middle class tax cuts. W had an affable personality that infuriated liberals who thought it showed he was stupid, but most moderates could relate to. Without 9/11 Bush planned to have a more "Humble" foreign policy. Not many people thought Kerry was affable, likable, or relatable.
the opposite, bush jr showed he only goes as far thanks to daddy help, he was called manchild even before his gaffes, people rewrote history because modern GOP but Bush was divisive, that's why 04 was so close
A couple of big WIs about 2004 -
If Kerry had won in 2004 just by carrying Ohio, might that have made it easier to reform the Electoral College? After all, then you could plausibly say "look, it's thoroughly broken, and in a way that doesn't benefit either party" OTOH, presumably Romney or Huckabee or whoever will win an Electoral and popular landslide in 2008, and the movement will lose some energy.
If Bush had done just a little bit better, he might have carried Wisconsin, New Hampshire, and Michigan in that election without any major following shifts. I wonder if that means, absent butterflies, that Dems will pay more attention to the 'blue wall' in 2016 if they know for sure that their hold in the region isn't _that_ strong...
If Kerry had won in 2004 just by carrying Ohio, might that have made it easier to reform the Electoral College? After all, then you could plausibly say "look, it's thoroughly broken, and in a way that doesn't benefit either party" OTOH, presumably Romney or Huckabee or whoever will win an Electoral and popular landslide in 2008, and the movement will lose some energy.
If Bush had done just a little bit better, he might have carried Wisconsin, New Hampshire, and Michigan in that election without any major following shifts. I wonder if that means, absent butterflies, that Dems will pay more attention to the 'blue wall' in 2016 if they know for sure that their hold in the region isn't _that_ strong...
Had the Dems nominated Howard Dean, this likely would have happened which means Dems are likely more reticent to nominate a perceived liberal in 2008 which means Clinton is probably the nominee. It also means Dean doesn’t mastermind the 50 state strategy so Dems probably don’t go into 2008 with the possibility for a super majority.
Deleted member 145219
There was a lot of anger over the Iraq War. The economy was pretty rough in the Rust Belt, the 2000's saw the loss of about 5 - 6 million manufacturing jobs, half of which occurred before the Great Recession.
Also, their were still a lot of long time ancestral Democrats who were still alive and voting, and there immediate descendants were still voting Democratic. Of course, 2004 was probably the peak of the ancestral Democrats dying off en masse. This process started in the 1990's, peaked in the 2000's and largely finished in the 2010's. Their descendants swung towards the Republicans after 2008/2012, depending on the part of the country.
Also, their were still a lot of long time ancestral Democrats who were still alive and voting, and there immediate descendants were still voting Democratic. Of course, 2004 was probably the peak of the ancestral Democrats dying off en masse. This process started in the 1990's, peaked in the 2000's and largely finished in the 2010's. Their descendants swung towards the Republicans after 2008/2012, depending on the part of the country.
Based on what I remember from that time, the three biggest issues expected to steer the 2004 election were terrorism (expected to break for W and did,) the economy (expected to break for Kerry and did,) and Iraq (expected to be divisive but tended to break for Kerry.) The combination of a struggling economy (the bottom had yet to fall out but there were issues) and a war that people were thinking twice about was great news for Kerry, and had it actually shaken down like that, George W. Bush becomes a one-term President and the name George Bush - EITHER of them - becomes synonymous with “big foreign victory but flamed out quickly due to domestic issues.”
What saved W was the real number one issue of 2004 - moral values. The whole panic about gay marriage was what saved W’s second term (and does anyone look back at that time and ask, wow, people were worried about THAT? It’s insane.)
What saved W was the real number one issue of 2004 - moral values. The whole panic about gay marriage was what saved W’s second term (and does anyone look back at that time and ask, wow, people were worried about THAT? It’s insane.)
That was a good partisan rant, but W was very different then his father. His personal problems with drinking ended years before his father's presidency. W was an effective player in his father's administration, and was a popular, and effective governor of a major State that had a history of being a Democratic State. W had a good reputation as a bipartisan player, but the Washington he arrived in 2001 was a hyper partisan place that would have been hard for anyone to reach across the aisle in. The stories about rewriting his military record proved to be a fraud, but your free to believe what you want.
So how would you characterize Kerry? An entitled playboy, who married one rich woman after another, and lived well off her money? She did pay for his campaign after all. W's daddy didn't pay for his. Sorry but the country preferred a guy with a common touch, who rode horses in Texas over an aloof Boston Brahmin who liked to windsurf off Martha's Vineyard.
Deleted member 145219
Dare I say, polarization may have actually helped the Democrats in this election on the Presidential level. The senate results in 2004 were pretty bad, though.
I forgot about the Senate - I think the GOP was up to 55, and in my home state of Ohio, the GOP incumbent was running against some nobody Dem who could pretty much only have won if his opponent dropped dead and was replaced with a scarecrow. Even Tom Daschle - top dog for Dems in the Senate at the time - got booted out of office in favor of some GOP dude I can’t even remember.