How did Bush get 11.5 million more votes from 2000?

[Nyvin]

Turnout in 2004 was 5% higher than in 2000, but that alone wouldn't account for Bush getting almost 12 million more votes in 2004.   What groups of people that didn't vote for Bush in 2000 suddenly started to in 2004?

[Sumner 1868]

Southern suburbanites and Rust Belt voters for the most part. Also, many evangelicals who hadn't bothered voting in a while went out in droves to oppose gay marriage in state referendums, which naturally helped Republicans up-ticket.

[Replicator]

Turnout in 2004 was 5% higher than in 2000, but that alone wouldn't account for Bush getting almost 12 million more votes in 2004.   What groups of people that didn't vote for Bush in 2000 suddenly started to in 2004?

Voter turnout helped him a lot. Many conservatives who didn't turn out in 2000, voted in 2004 likely to do being impressed by his strong stance for traditional values and being strong on defense.

[Young Conservative]

Sec. Kerry absolutely TANKED among southerners. Sen. Gore did far better and Sec. Kerry was the election that Democrats lost all reasonable southern hope for national and most statewide election (I KNOW LOUISIANA IS AN OUTLIER BUT THATS JUST BECAUSE VITTER SUCKS)

[Boston Bread]

The 9-11 effect boosted Bush in the New York metropolitan area, including NJ and CT (although Lieberman was also part of the reason).

[Asian Nazi]

On the surface, the difference between 2000 and 2004 can almost entirely be explained with Bush's strong performance among women voters.  In 2000, Gore beat Bush 54-44 among women but lost men 43-54.  In 2004, Kerry largely matched Gore's number among men, losing them 44-55, but only managed to win women 51-48.

Bush also did remarkably well with the growing Hispanic vote in 2004, only losing them 44-53.

[SingingAnalyst]

On the surface, the difference between 2000 and 2004 can almost entirely be explained with Bush's strong performance among women voters.  In 2000, Gore beat Bush 54-44 among women but lost men 43-54.  In 2004, Kerry largely matched Gore's number among men, losing them 44-55, but only managed to win women 51-48.

Bush also did remarkably well with the growing Hispanic vote in 2004, only losing them 44-53.

This, the "security moms". Kerry did about as well as he could have. Voters were not going to vote out Bush in the first post-9/11 election.

[Redban]

9/11.

In 2000, he lost NY suburbs (i.e. Long Island, Westchester) by nearly 20%; but in 2004, he lost by just 6%. He also came within 7% of New Jersey, which is amazing for a Republican President.

[HisGrace]

In addition to all the demographic stuff people have talked about, think of it this way- In 2000 you had an incumbent Democratic president with 60 percent approval, in 2004 you had a Republican president with over 50 percent approval. If you think of those numbers on a spectrum, that's at least a ten point swing.

[TonyP63]

9/11 made him popular and the war wasnt as hated as in 2008

[Averroës Nix]

Strongly disagree that higher turnout in 2004 was just about 9/11. This election needs perspective from someone who was politically aware during the 2000 presidential campaign. (I just barely qualify.)

The 2000 election was famous for being an election about nothing. There were contrasts between the candidates and the parties, of course, but they weren't apparent to most swing voters and the campaign did little to clarify them. The economy was doing well, there were no major crises in foreign policy, and the federal budget was running a surplus, so many voters didn't have a clear reason to care about politics.

Moreover, Internet media barely existed. If you wanted a different perspective on politics - for example, one that wasn't obsessed with Monica Lewinsky or Elián González - it was much more difficult to find one.

All of that changed during Bush's first term. 9/11 was a part of that, but the role of the Florida recount can't be understated. A lot of Democratic-aligned voters regretted not caring enough to follow politics in 2000. People talked very literally about how "every vote counts."

We also had a recession and the fall of Enron - literally the largest accounting scandal in the country's history and one that rather memorably involved artificial power outages for large parts of SoCal.

Bush increased his vote total, but Kerry also improved over Gore by eight million votes. That's well over twice what Nader had won in total four years before. In short, 2004 brought with it a powerful sense that politics mattered again.

[NCJeff]

Strongly disagree that higher turnout in 2004 was just about 9/11. This election needs perspective from someone who was politically aware during the 2000 presidential campaign. (I just barely qualify.)

The 2000 election was famous for being an election about nothing. There were contrasts between the candidates and the parties, of course, but they weren't apparent to most swing voters and the campaign did little to clarify them. The economy was doing well, there were no major crises in foreign policy, and the federal budget was running a surplus, so many voters didn't have a clear reason to care about politics.

Moreover, Internet media barely existed. If you wanted a different perspective on politics - for example, one that wasn't obsessed with Monica Lewinsky or Elián González - it was much more difficult to find one.

All of that changed during Bush's first term. 9/11 was a part of that, but the role of the Florida recount can't be understated. A lot of Democratic-aligned voters regretted not caring enough to follow politics in 2000. People talked very literally about how "every vote counts."

We also had a recession and the fall of Enron - literally the largest accounting scandal in the country's history and one that rather memorably involved artificial power outages for large parts of SoCal.

Bush increased his vote total, but Kerry also improved over Gore by eight million votes. That's well over twice what Nader had won in total four years before. In short, 2004 brought with it a powerful sense that politics mattered again.

Like you, I also became politically aware right around the 2000 election, eagerly followed the mainstream news *and* sought another perspective on the internet (for me it was the Democratic Underground, heh) and I think your post could not capture the zeitgeist better. 

To the Enron scandal, I would add the scandals in the Catholic church and the continued wave of offshoring/outsourcing that started in 1990s.  The sense of disenfranchisement we associate with populist movements today was already palpable at the time.