2004 United States presidential election

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RedShiftPA (talk | contribs) at 17:47, 21 March 2008 (→‎Battleground states: adding photo of battleground rally). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

United States presidential election, 2004
← 2000 2 November 2004 2008 →
 
Nominee George W. Bush John Kerry
Party Republican Democratic
Home state Connecticut Massachusetts
Running mate Richard B. Cheney John Edwards
Electoral vote 286 251
States carried 31 19+DC
Popular vote 62,040,610 59,028,111
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). Light blue denotes the faithless elector's vote counted for John Edwards. Each number represents the electoral votes a state gave to one candidate.

The United States presidential election of 2004 was held on Tuesday, November 2, 2004. It was the 55th consecutive quadrennial election for the president and vice president of the United States. Republican candidate George Walker Bush, the President of the United States, defeated Democratic candidate John Kerry, the junior United States Senator from Massachusetts. This marked the first time in United States election history where the sitting president was re-elected after losing the popular vote (but winning the presidency) in the previous election. Bush not only finished first in the popular vote, but also became the first person since his father in 1988 to win an outright majority of the popular vote, and the first Republican candidate since him to win the popular vote. It was also a very active election. In 2004, Bush received more popular votes than any presidential candidate in history, and Kerry finished with the second most ever for a candidate in history. 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 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]

In the Electoral College, George W. Bush received 286 votes, John Kerry 251 and John Edwards 1 (see “Faithless elector” in Minnesota section).

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 Al Gore, the Democratic candidate, alleged voting irregularities in Florida. The votes were recounted in certain Democratic 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. 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.[2]

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 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

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. 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

Candidates gallery

Before the primaries

By summer of 2003, Dean had become the apparent frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, performing strongly in most polls and leading the pack with the largest campaign warchest. Dean's strength as a fundraiser was attributed mainly to his embrace of the Internet for campaigning. The majority of his donations came from individual DEANO 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 February 2004, although Kerry lead 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; 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. Kerry, on the other hand, had revived his campaign and began using the slogan "Comeback Kerry."

Further primaries

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

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. Many other candidates dropped out during this time, leaving only Sharpton, Kucinich, and Edwards in the running against Kerry.

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 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.

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[3] as the most important factors in their decision. Kerry supporters cited the war in Iraq, economic issues like jobs and health care. [citation needed]

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.[4] Kerry supporters attempted to capitalize on the dwindling popularity to rally anti-war sentiment.

During August and September of 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.[5] 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.[6] Serious doubts about the documents' authenticity quickly emerged,[7] leading CBS to appoint a review panel that eventually resulted in the firing of the news producer and other significant staffing changes.[8][9]

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.[10][11]

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.

I learned these guys are not that smart. I expected them to be a lot smarter, a lot more difficult to debate, and I learned a lot of them only have the value system of win, win, win. They don’t believe in anything.... I thought they had some core beliefs. Most of them didn’t have core beliefs.

— Al Sharpton, reflecting on the campaign, [12]

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.[13] 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.[14] 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. It again focused on Iraq and the War on Terror. Cheney showed his so called "Bulldog" debating mentality and appeared to be much tougher than Edwards on most of the issues.[citation needed] Most liberal voters said that Cheney was aggressive pushing Edwards to appear passive.[citation needed] An initial poll by ABC indicated a victory for Cheney, while polls by CNN and MSNBC gave it to Edwards.[15][16][17][18]

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.[19] 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."[20]

Bush and Kerry met for the third and final debate at Arizona State University on October 13.[21] 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

The certified results in each state are as follows:

State Bush Kerry Nader Badnarik Peroutka Cobb Others
Alabama 1,176,394 693,933 6,701 3,495 1,994 - write-in 898
Alaska 190,889 111,025 5,069 1,675 2,092 1,058 write-in 790
Arkansas 573,182 470,230 6,172 2,352 2,083 1,491
Arizona 1,104,294 893,524 2,773 11,856 - 138
California 5,509,826 6,745,485 20,714 50,165 26,645 40,771 Leonard Peltier 27,607, miscellaneous 140
Colorado 1,101,255 1,001,732 12,718 7,664 2,562 1,591 Stanford Andress 804, Gene Amondson 378, Bill Van Auken 329, James Harris 241, Walt Brown 216, Earl Dodge 140
Connecticut 693,826 857,488 12,969 3,367 1,543 9,564 Roger Calero 12
Delaware 171,660 200,152 2,153 586 289 250 Walt Brown 100
D.C. 21,256 202,970 1,485 502 - 737 write-in 506, James Harris 130
Florida 3,964,522 3,583,544 32,971 11,996 6,626 3,917 Walt Brown 3,502, James Harris 2,732
Georgia 1,914,254 1,366,149 2,231 18,387 580 228
Hawaii 194,191 231,708 - 1,377 - 1,737
Idaho 409,235 181,098 1,115 3,844 3,084 58 -
Illinois 2,346,608 2,891,989 3,571 32,452 440 241 Peter Camejo 115, Lawson Bone 4, Ernest Virag 4, John Joseph Kennedy 3, David Cook 2, Margaret Trowe 1, Joann Breivogel 1, John Kennedy 1, Robert Christensen 1
Indiana 1,479,438 969,011 1,328 18,058 - 102 John Joseph Kennedy 37, Walt Brown 22, Lawson Mitchell Bone 6
Iowa 751,957 741,898 5,973 2,992 1,304 1,141 James Harris 373, Bill Van Auken 176
Kansas 736,456 434,993 9,348 4,013 2,899 33 John Joseph Kennedy 5, Bill Van Auken 5, Walt Brown 4
Kentucky 1,069,439 712,733 8,856 2,619 2,213 -
Louisiana 1,102,169 820,299 7,032 2,781 5,203 1,276 Walt Brown 1,795, James Harris 985
Maine 330,201 396,842 8,069 1,965 735 2,936 write-in 4
Maryland 1,024,703 1,334,493 11,854 6,094 3,421 3,632 Joe Schriner 27, John Joseph Kennedy 7, Ted Brown (Libertarian) senior 4, Lawson Mitchell Bone 2, Robert Abraham Boyle II 1
Massachusetts 1,071,109 1,803,800 4,806 15,022 - 10,623 write-in 7,028
Michigan 2,313,746 2,479,183 24,035 10,552 4,980 5,325 Walt Brown 1,431
Minnesota 1,346,695 1,445,014 18,683 4,639 3,074 4,408 write-in 2,521, Thomas Harens 2,387, Bill Van Auken 539, Roger Calero 416, John Joseph Kennedy 4, Debra Joyce Renderos 2, Martin Wishnatsky 2, Walt Brown 2, Joy Graham-Prendergast 1
Mississippi 672,660 457,766 3,175 1,793 1,758 1,073 James Harris 1,599, write-in 215
Missouri 1,455,713 1,259,171 1,294 9,831 5,355 -
Montana 266,063 173,710 6,168 1,733 1,764 996
Nebraska 512,814 254,328 5,698 2,041 1,314 978 write-in 931, Roger Calero 82
Nevada 418,690 397,190 4,838 3,176 1,152 853 'None of these candidates' 3,688
New Hampshire 331,237 340,511 4,479 372 161 - write-in 1,435
New Jersey 1,670,003 1,911,430 19,418 4,514 2,750 1,807 Walt Brown 664, Bill Van Auken 575, Roger Calero 530
New Mexico 376,930 370,942 4,053 2,382 771 1,226
New York 2,962,567 4,314,280 99,873 11,607 207 87 Roger Calero 2,405, Michael Halpin 4, John Joseph Kennedy 4, Bill Van Auken 2
North Carolina 1,961,166 1,525,849 1,805 11,731 - 108 Walt Brown 348
North Dakota 196,651 111,052 3,756 851 514 - Martin Wishnatsky 9
Ohio 2,858,727 2,739,952 - 14,695 11,907 186 Joe Schriner 114, James Harris 22, Richard Duncan 16, Thomas Zych 10, John Thompson Parker 2
Oklahoma 959,792 503,966 - - - -
Oregon 866,831 943,163 - 7,260 5,257 5,315 miscellaneous 8,956
Pennsylvania 2,793,847 2,938,095 2,656 21,185 6,318 6,319
Rhode Island 169,046 259,760 4,651 907 339 1,333 write-in 845, John Parker 253
South Carolina 937,974 661,699 5,520 3,608 5,317 1,488 Walt Brown 2,124
South Dakota 232,584 149,244 4,320 964 1,103 -
Tennessee 1,384,375 1,036,477 8,992 4,866 2,570 33 Walt Brown 6
Texas 4,526,917 2,832,704 9,159 38,787 1,626 1,014 Andrew Falk 219, John Joseph Kennedy 126, Walt Brown 111, Deborah Allen 92
Utah 663,742 241,199 11,305 3,375 6,841 39 Charles Jay 946, James Harris 393, Larry Topham 2, John Joseph Kennedy 1, Joe Schriner 1.
Vermont 121,180 184,067 4,494 1,102 - - write-in 957, John Thompson Parker 265, Roger Calero 244
Virginia 1,716,959 1,454,742 2,393 11,032 10,161 104 write-in 5,473
Washington 1,304,894 1,510,201 23,283 11,955 3,922 2,974 John Thompson Parker 1,077, James Harris 547, Bill Van Auken 231
West Virginia 423,778 326,541 4,063 1,405 82 5 John Joseph Kennedy 13
Wisconsin 1,478,120 1,489,504 16,390 6,464 - 2,661 write-in 2,986, Walt Brown 471, James Harris 411
Wyoming 167,629 70,776 2,741 1,171 631 - write-in 480

Grand total

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

Source: FEC [3]

Close states

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 < 5%

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

States where margin of victory < 10%

  1. Florida, Bush, 5.01%
  2. New Jersey, Kerry, 6.68%
  3. Washington, Kerry, 7.18%
  4. Missouri, Bush, 7.20%
  5. Delaware, Kerry, 7.60%
  6. Virginia, Bush, 8.20%
  7. Hawaii, Kerry, 8.75%
  8. Maine, Kerry, 8.99%
  9. Arkansas, Bush, 9.76%
  10. California, Kerry, 9.95%

Members of the 2004 United States Electoral College

Main article: United States presidential electors, 2004

Ballot access

Presidential Ticket Party Ballot Access
Bush / Cheney Republican 50+DC
Kerry / Edwards Democrat 50+DC
Badnarik / Campagna Libertarian 48+DC
Peroutka / Baldwin Constitution 36
Nader / Camejo Independent, Reform 34+DC
Cobb / LaMarche Green 27+DC

“Faithless elector” in Minnesota

One elector in Minnesota cast a ballot for president with the name of “John Ewards” [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, although the Republican Secretary of State and several of the Democratic electors have expressed the opinion that this was an accident. It is worth noting that an Independence Party straw poll, which was published in lieu of an endorsement from that party, selected John Edwards for President, though there is no evidence to suggest that this is related to the Edwards electoral vote for President.

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.[22] 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.[23]

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.[24]

Analysis

Cartogram comparing voter turnout to result

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

  • This is the first time since George H.W. Bush in 1988 that the winning candidate has won over 50% of the popular vote.
  • Kerry received a higher percentage of the popular vote in 2004 than George W. Bush did in 2000.
  • Although Bush received a majority of the popular vote: 50.73% to Kerry's 48.27%, it was, in percentages, the closest popular margin ever for a victorious sitting President. 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; 60.7% of the electorate voted—the highest percentage since 1968. The record turnout was attributed partly to the intensity of the division between the candidates and partly to intensive voter registration and to get-out-the-vote efforts by both major parties and their allies. [4]
  • Owing to the nation's growing population and large turnout, both Pres. Bush and Sen. 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 amount to 83% of the geographic area of the U.S. (excluding Alaska, which did not report results by borough/census area, but had all electoral districts but one of the two in Juneau vote for Bush).
  • Between the 2000 and 2004 elections, the House of Representatives (and therefore the Electoral College) had been reapportioned per the results of the 2000 Census. If Bush won exactly the same states as he won in 2000, he would win by a margin of 278-260, a net gain of 7 electoral votes over his performance in 2000.
  • Only four states saw every county vote for one candidate; Bush won every county in Utah and Oklahoma, and Kerry won every county in Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
  • Only three states picked a winner from a different party than they had in 2000. Bush took Iowa and New Mexico (combined 12 electoral votes), both won by Democrat Al Gore in 2000, while Kerry took New Hampshire (4 electoral votes), which Bush had previously won. Bush received a net gain of 8 electoral votes from these switches. All three were very close states in both 2000 and 2004, and none gained or lost electoral votes due to reapportionment.
  • 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 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 George W. Bush and John Kerry.
  • 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.

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.

Gained votesLost votes
  • Arizona (8→10 +2)
  • Florida (25→27 +2)
  • Georgia (13→15 +2)
  • Texas (32→34 +2)
  • California (54→55 +1)
  • Colorado (8→9 +1)
  • North Carolina (14→15 +1)
  • Nevada (4→5 +1)
  • New York (33→31 -2)
  • Pennsylvania (23→21 -2)
  • Connecticut (8→7 -1)
  • Mississippi (7→6 -1)
  • Ohio (21→20 -1)
  • Oklahoma (8→7 -1)
  • Wisconsin (11→10 -1)
  • Illinois (22→21 -1)
  • Indiana (12→11 -1)
  • Michigan (18→17 -1)

(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

File:CheneyatW&J2004.jpg
Cheney visited Washington & Jefferson College in Pennsylvania on October 27, 2004

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.

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:

  • Presidential electoral votes by state. Red is Republican, Blue is Democratic
    Presidential electoral votes by state. Red is Republican, Blue is Democratic
  • Presidential popular votes by county. Note substantially more "mixing" of colors.
    Presidential popular votes by county. Note substantially more "mixing" of colors.
  • Presidential popular votes by county as a scale from Red/Republican to Blue/Democratic
    Presidential popular votes by county as a scale from Red/Republican to Blue/Democratic
  • Presidential popular votes cartogram, in which the sizes of counties have been rescaled according to their population.
    Presidential popular votes cartogram, in which the sizes of counties have been rescaled according to their population.

Election controversy

Main articles: 2004 U.S. election voting controversies and 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities
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.[25]

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. [5] 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.[26] 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.[27] Further oversight authority belongs to the Government Accountability Office, regularly investigating voting system related issues.[28]
  • The former president of Diebold Election Systems (Bob Urosevich) and the vice president of customer support at ES&S (Todd Urosevich)[29] are brothers.[30]
  • 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."[31]
  • Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, who was on a short list of George W. Bush's vice-presidential candidates,[32][33] served as the chairman of ES&S in the early 1990's when it operated under the name American Information Systems Inc. (AIS).[34] 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.[34]
  • Global Election Systems, which purchased by Diebold Election Systems and developed the core technology behind the companies voting machines and voter registration system, employed five convicted felons as consultants and developers.[35]
  • 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,[36] though Diebold has disputed the consulting relationship.[35] 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.[36]
  • International election observers were barred from the polls in Ohio[37][38] by then Republican Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell. Blackwell's office argues this was the correct interpretation of Ohio law.[38]
  • 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.[39][40]
  • 30% of all U.S. votes cast in the 2004 election will be cast on direct-recording electronic (DRE) voting machine, which do not print individual paper records of each vote.[41]
  • 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.[42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49]
  • The governor of the state of Florida, Jeb Bush, is the brother of President George W. Bush.[50]

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.[51] 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.[52] 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.[53]
  • Recounts. A recount of an electronic voting machine is not a recount in the traditional sense. The machine will 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.[54]

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 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.

See also

Other elections

References

  1. ^ Was the 2004 Election Stolen? : Rolling Stone
  2. ^ Bush Jumpstarts '04 Fundraising, Says Collecting Campaign Cash Now Will Keep War On Terror Focused - CBS News
  3. ^ Exit poll - Decision 2004 - MSNBC.com
  4. ^ Historical Bush Approval Ratings
  5. ^ "Bush fell short on duty at Guard". Boston Globe. September 8, 2004. Retrieved 2007-06-16.
  6. ^ "CBS 60 Minutes Wednesday transcript" (PDF). Thornburgh-Boccardi Report, Exhibit 1B. September 8, 2004. Retrieved 2007-06-16.
  7. ^ Michael Dobbs and Mike Allen (September 09, 2004). "Some Question Authenticity of Papers on Bush". Washington Post. Retrieved 2007-06-16. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  8. ^ "Thornburgh-Boccardi report" (PDF). CBS News. Retrieved 2007-06-16.
  9. ^ "Final Figure in '60 Minutes' Scandal Resigns". The Associated Press. March 25, 2005. Retrieved 2007-06-16.
  10. ^ RealClear Politics - Polls
  11. ^ RealClear Politics - Polls
  12. ^ Interview with Al Sharpton, David Shankbone, Wikinews, December 3, 2007.
  13. ^ BBC NEWS | World | Americas | Kerry, Bush clash over Iraq war
  14. ^ Poll: Kerry Wins Debate, Pulls Even - Newsweek Campaign 2004 - MSNBC.com
  15. ^ http://www.s5000.com/what_the_huck/589/cheney_edwards.php
  16. ^ BBC NEWS | World | Americas | US running mates clash over Iraq
  17. ^ San Francisco Chronicle October 5, 2004
  18. ^ ABCNEWS.com : Poll: More Viewers Say Cheney Won Debate
  19. ^ BBC NEWS | World | Americas | US debate: What the commentators said
  20. ^ http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-deb09.html
  21. ^ FOXNews.com - Transcript & Video: Third Debate - You Decide 2004
  22. ^ NARA | Federal Register | U. S. Electoral College 2004 Certificate
  23. ^ NARA | Federal Register | U. S. Electoral College 2004 Certificate
  24. ^ Polidata, 2005
  25. ^ "Election Staff Convicted in Recount Rig". Washington Post. January 24, 2007. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  26. ^ U.S. GAO. (2001, March 13). Elections: The Scope of Congressional Authority in Election Administration (GAO-01-470). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved February 10, 2008.
  27. ^ U.S. Election Assistance Commission. (2007, January 11). EAC Statement Regarding Partisan Political Activities by Voting Machine Manufacturers and Testing Labs and their Employees. U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION: U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION. Retrieved February 10, 2008.
  28. ^ Government Accountability Office election related reports
  29. ^ Todd Urosevich: Vice President, Customer Support
  30. ^ "Private Company Still 'Controls' Election Outcome". americanfreepress.net. Retrieved 12-20-2007. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  31. ^ Paul R. La Monica (August 30, 2004). "The trouble with e-voting". CNN/Money. Retrieved 2006-10-23.
  32. ^ "The Maverick on Bush's Short List - Business loves Hagel--even if the GOP doesn't always". BusinessWeek. Retrieved 12-20-2007. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  33. ^ "Vice president Chuck Hagel?". theindependent.com. Retrieved 12-20-2007. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  34. ^ a b Bolton, Alexander (JANUARY 29, 2003), "Hagel's ethics filings pose disclosure issue", The Hill {{citation}}: Check |author-link= value (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); External link in |author-link= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  35. ^ a b "Con Job at Diebold Subsidiary". Wired.com. Retrieved 12-20-2007. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  36. ^ a b "Bev Harris: Embezzler Programmed Voting System". Scoop Independent News. Retrieved 12-20-2007. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  37. ^ "Election Officials in Ohio and Florida Fail to Give Poll Access to International Election Observers". globalexchange.org. Retrieved 12-20-2007. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  38. ^ a b "Foreign observers banned by Blackwell". The Enquirer. Retrieved 12-20-2007. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  39. ^ "California Bans E-Vote Machines". Wired. Retrieved 12-20-2007. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  40. ^ "California official seeks criminal probe of e-voting". MSNBC. Retrieved 12-20-2007. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  41. ^ "E-Voting: Is The Fix In?". CBS News. Retrieved 12-20-2007. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  42. ^ "Researchers: Florida Vote Fishy". Wired. Retrieved 12-20-2007. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  43. ^ "Votergate 2004? - Research Studies Uncover Potential Massive Election Fraud". Yurica Report: News Intelligence Analysis. Retrieved 12-20-2007. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  44. ^ "Complete US Exit Poll Data Confirms Net Suspicions". Scoop Independent News. Retrieved 12-20-2007. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  45. ^ "University researchers challenge Bush win in Florida: 'Something went awry with electronic voting in Florida,' says the lead researcher". ComputerWorld. Retrieved 12-20-2007. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  46. ^ "Tens of Thousands of Votes Lost, Stolen, Miscounted". American Free Press. Retrieved 12-20-2007. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  47. ^ "Evidence Mounts That The Vote May Have Been Hacked". CommonDreams.org. Retrieved 12-20-2007. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  48. ^ "Bush's 'Incredible' Vote Tallies". consortiumnews.com. Retrieved 12-20-2007. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  49. ^ "National Election Data Archive". ElectionArchive.org. Retrieved 12-20-2007. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  50. ^ "Jeb Bush's Influence in Fla. Inspires Awe, Rage". Washington Post. Retrieved 12-20-2007. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  51. ^ Interactive White House Home Page
  52. ^ Washington Times August 6, 2004
  53. ^ Bruce Schneier: The Problem with Electronic Voting Machines, November 2004
  54. ^ Warner, Melanie. "Machine Politics in the Digital Age." New York Times. November 9, 2003.

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. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |accessmonthday= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
  • 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

External links

Official candidate websites (alphabetical, by last name)

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

State-by-state forecasts of electoral vote outcome

Controversies

Election campaign funding

Election 2004 global debate and voting

Minnesota electoral voting snafu

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2004_United_States_presidential_election&oldid=199868809"