2004 United States presidential election
GUESS WAT????????? YOU WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/84/US_presidential_election_2004_map.svg/320px-US_presidential_election_2004_map.svg.png)
The United States presidential election of 2004 was held on Election Day, Tuesday, November 2, 2004. Republican candidate George Walker Bush, the incumbent President of the United States, was reelected over Democratic candidate John Kerry, the junior United States 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 presidential election of 2000, 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 narrow win in the state of Ohio. The state held enough electoral votes to determine the winner of the presidency.
Bush received about 51 percent of the votes cast (62 million votes), making him the first presidential candidate to win a majority of the popular vote since his father George H. W. Bush in the presidential election of 1988.
Background
George W. Bush won the presidency in 2000 after the Supreme Court settled issues over ballot re-counts and standards in a contest where the Democratic candidate alleged voting irregularities in Florida. The votes were recounted in certain counties, first by machine and then manually, with George W. Bush leading narrowly after each recount. Ultimately, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned the Florida Supreme Court's 4-3 reversal of a lower court ruling in favor of the Republican candidate's arguments, ordering the state to stop further selective recounts.
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. The stated premise 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 possess, 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, and the statements of the 9/11 Commission Report denying the idea of an Al-Qaeda/Saddam Hussein connection. This situation escalated to the point that the United States assembled a group of about forty nations, including the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, and Poland, which President Bush called the “coalition of the willing”, to invade Iraq.
The coalition invaded Iraq on March 20, 2003. The invasion succeeded swiftly, with the collapse of the Iraq government and the military of Iraq in about three weeks. The oil infrastructure of Iraq was rapidly 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 rode at 66%, according to a CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll.[1]
However, Bush's high approval ratings did not last. First, while the war itself was popular, the post-war occupation lost support as months passed and casualty figures increased, with no decrease in violence nor progress toward stability in Iraq. Second, as investigators combed through the country, they failed to find the predicted amount of WMD stockpiles, which led to debate over the rationale for the war. Third, with the war over and 9-11 attacks two years past, domestic concerns began to rise to the forefront, an issue that usually favored the Democrats, as fading national security matters were considered to benefit the Republicans. [1] [2]
Nominations
Republican nomination
Bush's popularity as a wartime president helped consolidate his base, and ward off any serious challenge to the nomination. 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.)
Democratic nomination
By the end of February 2003, the following field of candidates had formed exploratory committees and were actively campaigning to be the Democratic nominee:
- Former Ambassador and former U.S. Senator Carol Moseley Braun of Illinois
- Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean
- U.S. Senator John Edwards of North Carolina
- Former U.S. House Majority and Minority Leader Dick Gephardt of Missouri
- U.S. Senator Bob Graham of Florida
- U.S. Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts
- U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio
- U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut
- Rev. Al Sharpton of New York
Notable in his absence was former Vice President and 2000 Presidential candidate Al Gore, who announced he would not run in December 2002. Other politicians mentioned as possible candidates, but declined to run were i.e. Senator Joe Biden of Delaware and Former Senator Gary Hart of Colorado
By summer of 2003, Dean had become the apparent frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, performing strongly in most polls and leading the pack in fundraising. Dean's strength as a fundraiser was attributed mainly to his innovative embrace of the Internet for campaigning. The majority of his donations came from individual Dean 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 something of 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.
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/Kerry02.jpg/220px-Kerry02.jpg)
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%). What hurt Dean even more than his poor performance was a speech he gave at a post-caucus rally; at the end of the speech—which has become known as the "I have a scream" speech or the "Dean scream"—Dean frantically yelled out the names of states and culminated with a yelp. On January 27 Kerry triumphed again, earning first place in the New Hampshire primary. Clark took third place in New Hampshire, behind New Englanders Kerry and Dean.
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, taking in a string of wins in Michigan, Washington, Maine, Tennessee, Washington, D.C., Nevada, Wisconsin, Utah, Hawaii, and Idaho. Many other candidates dropped out during this time, leaving only Sharpton, Kucinich, and Edwards in the running.
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.
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. Kerry made his Vietnam War experience a prominent theme of the convention. In accepting the nomination, he began his speech with, "I'm John Kerry and I'm reporting for duty."
Other nominations
There were five 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)
- Michael Badnarik/Richard Campagna, Libertarian Party
- Michael Peroutka/Chuck Baldwin, Constitution Party
- David Cobb/Pat LaMarche, Green Party
- Walt Brown/Mary Alice Herbert, Socialist Party USA
General election: campaign
Campaign issues
President 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.
Exit polls revealed Americans who voted for President Bush cited the issues of terrorism and moral values as the most important factors in their decision. Kerry supporters cited the war in Iraq, economic issues like jobs and health care. [citation needed]
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6a/Bush_cropped.jpg/220px-Bush_cropped.jpg)
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.[2] Kerry supporters attempted to capitalize on the dwindling popularity to rally anti-war sentiment, symbolized by the box-office success of Fahrenheit 9/11 in the summer of 2004.
However, there was also a surprising focus on events that occurred in the late 1960s and early 1970s. This scrutiny was most intense in August and September of 2004. Bush was accused in the Killian documents of failing to fulfill his required service in the Texas Air National Guard, but the focus rapidly became the conduct of CBS News when the documents were revealed to be forgeries.
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 President 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.[3][4]
Debates
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. Though originally intended to focus on domestic policy, questions were asked on the "War on Terror", the War in Iraq and America's international relations.[5] During the debate 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.[6] After the debate, pictures of what appeared to be a small square-shaped bump on George Bush's back lead to speculation that he was wearing a radio receiver and being fed answers.[7] President Bush's tailor later said that the bulge was nothing more than a pucker along the jacket's back seam, according to the Seattle Times newspaper. Kerry was also accused of allegedly violating debate rules by removing a pen from his jacket.
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. It again focused on Iraq and the "War on Terror". An initial poll by ABC indicated a victory for Cheney, while polls by CNN and MSNBC gave it to Edwards.[8][9][10][11]
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 President Bush and Senator Kerry taking questions on a variety of subjects from a local audience.[12] 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."[13]
Bush and Kerry met for the third and final debate at Arizona State University on October 13.[14] 51 million viewers watched the debate, while only 15.2 million viewers tuned in to watch the Major League Baseball championship games broadcast simultaneously.
Election results
In the US Electoral College, Bush received 286 electoral votes, and Kerry received 251. One vote went to Kerry's running mate, John Edwards, when one of the electors pledged to Kerry voted for John Ewards (sic) instead. It was the first time in U.S. history that an elector had voted the same person for president and vice president. For Vice President, 286 votes went to Bush's running mate, Dick Cheney, and 252 to Edwards.
The members of the college formally voted on December 13, 2004. On January 6, 2005, when Congress met for the official counting of the electoral votes, Democratic Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones and Senator Barbara Boxer made an official objection to the counting of Ohio's electoral votes. As a result, the House and Senate separately debated the inclusion of Ohio's votes. Within four hours of the objection, however, the last effective challenge to the election results ended, when the Senate voted 74–1[15] and the House voted 267–31[16] to reject the challenge to Ohio's votes. The counting process is detailed in the United States Code.[17]
Even if Congress had voted to reject Ohio's 20 electoral votes, the outcome would have been the same. With 518 valid votes cast (instead of 538), the majority necessary for election by the Electoral College under the Twelfth Amendment would have been 260 votes, which Bush and Cheney, each with 266, would have reached. If Ohio's votes had been deemed to have been cast, but not counted, so that no candidate had a majority, Bush and Cheney would have almost certainly been chosen by the House and Senate, respectively, under the Twelfth Amendment's procedures. Only a complete reversal of Ohio's vote count and a new certification for Kerry could have changed the result.
Both Kerry and soon-to-be Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean have alleged that had Ohio's voting proceeded fairly, the Democratic ticket might have won Ohio. The latter told Rolling Stone Magazine "I'm not confident that the election in Ohio was fairly decided [...] We know that there was substantial voter suppression, and the machines were not reliable. It should not be a surprise that the Republicans are willing to do things that are unethical to manipulate elections. That's what we suspect has happened." [18]
Compared to the 2000 election result, Bush gained the electoral votes of two states (Iowa, New Mexico) and lost those of one state (New Hampshire). The change of outcome in only three states between two consecutive elections is the smallest change since the 1888 election.
Presidential candidate | Party | Home state | Popular vote | Electoral vote |
Running mate | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Count | Percentage | Vice-presidential candidate | Home state | Electoral vote | ||||
George W. Bush | Republican(a) | Texas | 62,040,610 | 50.7% | 286 | Richard B. Cheney | Wyoming | 286 |
John F. Kerry | Democratic(b) | Massachusetts | 59,028,111 | 48.3% | 251 | John R. Edwards | North Carolina | 252 |
John R. Edwards | Democratic | North Carolina | —(c) | —(c) | 1 | |||
Ralph Nader | Independent, Reform | Connecticut | 463,653 | 0.4% | 0 | Peter Miguel Camejo(d) | California | 0 |
Michael Badnarik | Libertarian | Texas | 397,265 | 0.3% | 0 | Richard Campagna | Iowa | 0 |
Michael Peroutka | Constitution | Maryland | 144,498 | 0.1% | 0 | Chuck Baldwin | Florida | 0 |
David Cobb | Green | Texas | 119,859 | 0.1% | 0 | Patricia LaMarche | Maine | 0 |
Other(e) | 99,336 | 0.1% | — | Other(e) | — | |||
Total | 122,293,332 | 100% | 538 | 538 | ||||
Needed to win | 270 | 270 |
Source (Popular Vote): Leip, David. "2004 Presidential Election Results". Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. Retrieved May 28, 2005. {{cite web}}
: Check date values in: |access-date=
(help)
Source (Electoral Vote): 2004 Presidential Election Results. Official website of the National Archives. (August 7, 2005).
(a) In New York, Bush vote was the fusion of Republican and Conservative parties. There, Bush obtained 2,806,993 votes on the Republican ticket and 155,574 on the Conservative ticket.
(b) In New York, Kerry vote was the fusion of Democratic and Working Families parties. There, Kerry obtained 4,180,755 votes on the Democratic ticket and 133,525 votes on the Working Families ticket.
(c) See “‘Faithless elector’ in Minnesota”.
(d) In Montana, Karen Sanchirico was listed on the ballot as Nader's running mate, not Camejo. In Alabama, Jan D. Pierce was Nader's running mate. In New York, Nader appeared on two distinct tickets, one with Camejo and one with Pierce.
(e) Candidates receiving less than 0.05% of the total popular vote.
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 very big 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 less votes than Nader had in 2000.
Battleground states
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/be/2004_US_elections_purple_counties.png/320px-2004_US_elections_purple_counties.png)
During the campaign and as the results came in on the night of the election there was much focus on Ohio (ordinarily GOP-leaning, but suffering at the time from manufacturing job losses), 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, Kenneth 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.
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/47/Cartlinearlarge.png/320px-Cartlinearlarge.png)
The upper Midwest bloc of Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin is also notable, casting a sum of 27 electoral votes. However, all the swing states are important. 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:
Bush:
Kerry:
Election controversy
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/69/2004ElectionControversyMap.jpg/300px-2004ElectionControversyMap.jpg)
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 rigging that recount. [3]
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. [4] 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, not one Senator, either Democrat or Republican, 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.”
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.[19] In September 2004 the OSCE issued a report (PDF 168K) on U.S. electoral processes and the election final report (PDF 256K).
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.[20] The OSCE is not affiliated with the United Nations.
Electronic voting
For 2004, some states expedited the implementation of electronic voting systems for the election. Regarding these new systems, some security analysts warned that computer voting terminals had a significant possibility of voter fraud or data corruption by a software attack[citation needed]. Others said that recounts would be nearly impossible with the machines and criticized the lack of a “paper trail”, which is included in many other trivial events such as grocery shopping or using an ATM. Machines which do not use a paper trail are called Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) systems. Author Bev Harris, in her book Black Box Voting, describes in detail the potential problems created by DRE systems.
One of the largest manufacturers of DRE voting systems is Diebold Election Systems, whose parent company also manufactures ATMs. Diebold's then-CEO, Walden O'Dell, had a distinct conflict of interest since he was a vocal George W. Bush supporter; he made a serious public relations blunder when he pledged in a Republican fundraising letter in 2003 that he was “committed” to delivering the electoral votes of his home state of Ohio to President Bush.[21]
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
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 3rd, 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.
Opposition to Bush and Kerry
“Anybody but Bush” was an informal political movement during the 2004 U.S. Presidential election. It was a group of voters who would vote for “anybody” before they voted for President George W. Bush. The driving force behind the movement was anger at the policies of the Bush Administration. These voters believe that anyone put into the Oval Office would do a better job as President than George W. Bush without regard to the person's record or political views. Another permutation of this was “Anybody but Bush, Except for Kerry”, which gained popularity among disenchanted or conservative Republicans, who were unwilling to vote for John Kerry. On the flip side, some Bush supporters sported T-shirts proclaiming "No flip-flops in the White House," complete with a drawing of the beach footwear, a jab at Kerry's perceived indecisiveness. Perhaps the most prominent anti-Kerry movement came from the controversial Swiftboat Veterans For Truth, featuring Vietnam veterans disputing the Democrat's war heroics and angry about his Senate hearing testimony accusing fellow Viet-Nam war veterans of war crimes and atrocities against the Vietnamese people. Kerry's Testimony Before the Senate Foreign Relations Committe, April 22, 1971
There were other high-profile attempts to prevent Bush's re-election, such as Rock Against Bush. This featured an album from many punk artists - performers include The Offspring, Rise Against, Pennywise, Anti-Flag, Against Me!, Green Day, Sum 41, The World/Inferno Friendship Society, Bad Religion and others. The album was intended to encourage punk fans to vote against Bush through the album and Punkvoter site. In places it could be seen as actively promoting the election of John Kerry. Another attempt was made by filmmaker and political activist Michael Moore, who produced the award-winning and controversial film Fahrenheit 9/11 targeting Bush and his policies.
See also
- 2004 U.S. presidential election timeline
- Results of the U.S. presidential election, 2004
- 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities
- Ralph Nader's presidential campaigns
- Canada and the 2004 U.S. presidential election
- Newspaper endorsements in the United States presidential election, 2004
- History of the United States (1988-present)
Other elections
- United States gubernatorial elections, 2004
- United States House election, 2004
- United States Senate election, 2004
References
- ^ http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/24/politics/main555427.shtml
- ^ http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm
- ^ http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/chart3way.html
- ^ http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry.html
- ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3703756.stm
- ^ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6159637/site/newsweek/
- ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3730364.stm
- ^ http://www.s5000.com/what_the_huck/589/cheney_edwards.php
- ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3716852.stm
- ^ San Francisco Chronicle October 5, 2004
- ^ http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/Vote2004/vp_debate_poll_041006.html
- ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3729206.stm
- ^ http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-deb09.html
- ^ http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135380,00.html
- ^ http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00001
- ^ http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll007.xml
- ^ See 3 USC §§ 15, 16, 17, and 18)
- ^ http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen/4
- ^ http://www.whitehouse.gov/interactive/wilkinson_osce.html
- ^ Washington Times August 6, 2004
- ^ Keating, Dan (July 13, 2004). "Groups Rally for Voting Receipts". Washington Post. The Washington Post Company. p. A10. Retrieved 2006-03-18.
{{cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help)
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 July 29.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|accessdate=
(help); Unknown parameter|accessyear=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (help) - 3000 Links on the U.S. Presidential Election 2004
- Barone, Michael J. The Almanac of American Politics: 2006 (2005)
- 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