Analysis of 2004
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 18, 2024, 09:50:39 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2004 U.S. Presidential Election
  Analysis of 2004
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Analysis of 2004  (Read 6335 times)
zorkpolitics
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,188
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 21, 2005, 10:32:28 AM »

The just released 2006 edition of the Almanac of American Politics has a pretty good analysis of the 2004 election. 

    • The Bush campaign created an organization unlike any seen before, a networking organization that far surpassed what the Democrats were doing.  Compared to the 233,000 volunteers assembled by the Democratic National Committee, the Bush campaign recruited six times as many.
    • Contrary to conventional wisdom, President Bush won an election that included a historic increase in turnout. Not only did total turnout increase by 16 percent in 2004, but turnout as a percentage of eligible voters soared from 51 percent to 61 percent.. Bush's all-time record of 62 million votes, represented a stunning 23 percent increase over 2000. Turnout during the 110 years preceding 2004 increased by more than 14 percent only four times: 1896, 1936, 1952 and 1992.
   • In the safe Bush states (213 electoral votes) and the safe Kerry states (179 electoral votes), a similar pattern prevailed.: the 2004 results showed the red states getting redder and the blue states getting less blue.
    • Religion proved to be one of the demographic variables correlating most directly with voter behavior. Mr. Bush received 78 percent of the vote of white and the president managed to capture 52 percent of the Catholic vote against the first Catholic nominee since 1960.
    • Mr. Bush also benefited from a huge marriage gap married people, who comprised 63 percent of the electorate, voted 57-42 for Mr. Bush.
    • Conventional wisdom held that Republicans would raise much more money than Democrats, but that, too, was disproved. The Kerry campaign, the DNC and the Democratic 527 organizations spent $344 million on ads during the campaign. That was more than $55 million above what the pro-Bush forces spent.
    • Mr. Kerry won a 6.5-million majority in the 100 largest counties, since 2000 , a majority of which  lost population or grew by less than 3 percent.  Mr. Bush won majorities in 97 of the nation's 100 fastest-growing counties,.
    • In a Senate controlled by a 55-seat GOP majority, there are nine Republicans from among the 19 states won by Mr. Kerry and 16 Democrats among the 31 states won by Mr. Bush.
   • In the House, where Republicans control 232 (53 percent) of the chamber's 435 seats, Mr. Bush carried 255 districts (59 percent) compared to Mr. Kerry's 180.

For more info see also:
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20050820-102457-3911r.htm

Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 21, 2005, 12:52:13 PM »

The most surprising statistic is the increase in the percentage of eligible voters who voted to 61%.  It has not been that high since before the voting age was lowered to 18 in 1971.

The idea that high turnout automatically helps Democrats also didn't turn out to be true.  Apparently, there were a lot of latent Republican voters who were not getting to the polls, contrary to conventional wisdom.

Still, the fact remains that the 2004 election was largely a re-run of the 2000 election, with slightly better results for the Republicans.  Bush gained as a percentage of the vote in nearly every state, and won a clear majority for the first time since 1988, but few states changed hands in 2004 versus 2000.  And not that many states were truly competitive.

Bush's performance in the popular vote and electoral college was certainly below average for an incumbent president running for re-election.  I long for the days when Republicans won huge electoral college victories, but back then the Democrats retained control of congress.  The voting today seems to be more unified, with the ratio of Democrats to Republicans in the House and Senate roughly mirroring the popular vote in presidential elections.  In that sense, there is a coherence and consistency to our politics that didn't exist before.

Will 2008 essentially be a rerun of 2000 and 2004 with different candidates?  If the Democrats run a liberal northeasterner and the Republicans run a conservative southerner, probably, but it also depends on external conditions at that time.  I think we have to find a way to break out of this political rut that we are in.
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 21, 2005, 03:49:22 PM »

The just released 2006 edition of the Almanac of American Politics has a pretty good analysis of the 2004 election. 

    • The Bush campaign created an organization unlike any seen before, a networking organization that far surpassed what the Democrats were doing.  Compared to the 233,000 volunteers assembled by the Democratic National Committee, the Bush campaign recruited six times as many.
    • Contrary to conventional wisdom, President Bush won an election that included a historic increase in turnout. Not only did total turnout increase by 16 percent in 2004, but turnout as a percentage of eligible voters soared from 51 percent to 61 percent.. Bush's all-time record of 62 million votes, represented a stunning 23 percent increase over 2000. Turnout during the 110 years preceding 2004 increased by more than 14 percent only four times: 1896, 1936, 1952 and 1992.
   • In the safe Bush states (213 electoral votes) and the safe Kerry states (179 electoral votes), a similar pattern prevailed.: the 2004 results showed the red states getting redder and the blue states getting less blue.
    • Religion proved to be one of the demographic variables correlating most directly with voter behavior. Mr. Bush received 78 percent of the vote of white and the president managed to capture 52 percent of the Catholic vote against the first Catholic nominee since 1960.
    • Mr. Bush also benefited from a huge marriage gap married people, who comprised 63 percent of the electorate, voted 57-42 for Mr. Bush.
    • Conventional wisdom held that Republicans would raise much more money than Democrats, but that, too, was disproved. The Kerry campaign, the DNC and the Democratic 527 organizations spent $344 million on ads during the campaign. That was more than $55 million above what the pro-Bush forces spent.
    • Mr. Kerry won a 6.5-million majority in the 100 largest counties, since 2000 , a majority of which  lost population or grew by less than 3 percent.  Mr. Bush won majorities in 97 of the nation's 100 fastest-growing counties,.
    • In a Senate controlled by a 55-seat GOP majority, there are nine Republicans from among the 19 states won by Mr. Kerry and 16 Democrats among the 31 states won by Mr. Bush.
   • In the House, where Republicans control 232 (53 percent) of the chamber's 435 seats, Mr. Bush carried 255 districts (59 percent) compared to Mr. Kerry's 180.

For more info see also:
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20050820-102457-3911r.htm



I agree, it was a very accurate analysis.

However, elaboration on a few points is in order.

First, there is a myth that money buys elections.  The truth is that beyond a certain point, money ceases to be significant (if the candidates are adequately funded).

Second, when pitting a paid for organization of ex-convicts against a volunteer organization of boy scout leaders (manpower), guess which one wins.

Third, the Bush campaign had a message.  You knew where he stood.  The Kerry campaign kept dodging and weaving.  If you don't have a clear message, generally you lose to the candidate who does have a clear message (provided the message isn't crazy).  GW, unlike his father, didn't suffer from "the vision thing."

Fourth, as was noted, the Republican party, for the first time since the Great Depression has caught up with the Democrat party in the preferences of the electorate.

Fifth, the Kerry campaign was counting on the liberal media to savage Bush late in the campaign.  They tried, but the smear campaign blew up on them (TANG anyone).  The liberal media doesn't have the influence it once did.

Issues like 'gay marriage' were critical in assisting Bush in a number of states (Ohio and Missouri, among others). 

The big question that will come up in 2008 is whether the left wing has gained a strangelhold on the Democrat party. 

How are the Democrats going to deal with issues like illegal immigration?
Will they follow the Richardson path, or go down the road of 'political correctness' (i.e. defeat)?

 

Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 21, 2005, 04:25:23 PM »

One thing that I would not (and did not) predict was the turnout.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 21, 2005, 06:06:31 PM »

The analysis does not mention national security.

I think that a lot of people simply don't trust the Democrats on national security.  They do not believe that a party beholden to Michael Moore, George Soros and Ted Kennedy can take any measures necessary to keep us safe.

This is an area where you can't beat something with nothing.  Even if people weren't necessarily crazy about everything Bush has done, many believe that the Democrats would be worse on national security.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 24, 2005, 07:00:50 AM »

    • The Bush campaign created an organization unlike any seen before, a networking organization that far surpassed what the Democrats were doing.  Compared to the 233,000 volunteers assembled by the Democratic National Committee, the Bush campaign recruited six times as many.
Six times as many? That doesn't sound like the kind of figure I'd trust blindly. I wonder who defined "volunteers".
Obviously, I'm not denying the fact the Reps built a great organization.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
"Contrary to conventional wisdom"? Wtf? That is the one big memorizable fact about 2004, after all.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Well the Rep percentage of the vote did increase overall, so what's the point? And btw, in this sweeping formulation it is not of course true.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
True.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
True. Although whether it bodes well for Republicans...that's something I wouldn't be so sure of. All it means Dems is won Blacks and young people.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Very interesting. Who counted though?
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Yeah...so what?
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
ie, a roughly equal percentage.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
That figure is quite low actually, and is caused by very strong regional polarization and very strong bipartisan gerrymandering.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 24, 2005, 07:05:43 AM »

The idea that high turnout automatically helps Democrats also didn't turn out to be true.  Apparently, there were a lot of latent Republican voters who were not getting to the polls, contrary to conventional wisdom.
While regional results vary (higher turnout helped Reps in many parts of the rural South for instance, although to say that even higher turnout would have the same result is not a safe conclusion), the story told by the exit polls is pretty clear actually. Without the increase in turnout, Bush would have won by a larger margin.
But yes, there were millions of latent Republican voters, or at least Bush-over-Kerry voters, out there too. Smiley

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Yep. It's called polarization, btw. Smiley

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
ie, the answer is possibly yes and possibly no. Yes, that's what I'd say too. Smiley
Logged
ATFFL
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,754
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 24, 2005, 09:30:33 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
"Contrary to conventional wisdom"? Wtf? That is the one big memorizable fact about 2004, after all.

I think that he is referring to the conventional wisdom before the 2004 election.  Namely, that Republicans suffered if turnout increased.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: August 24, 2005, 09:49:41 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
"Contrary to conventional wisdom"? Wtf? That is the one big memorizable fact about 2004, after all.

I think that he is referring to the conventional wisdom before the 2004 election.  Namely, that Republicans suffered if turnout increased.
Oh, okay.
Logged
Beefalow and the Consumer
Beef
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,123
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.77, S: -8.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: August 29, 2005, 02:18:21 PM »

The analysis does not mention national security.

I think that a lot of people simply don't trust the Democrats on national security.  They do not believe that a party beholden to Michael Moore, George Soros and Ted Kennedy can take any measures necessary to keep us safe.

This is an area where you can't beat something with nothing.  Even if people weren't necessarily crazy about everything Bush has done, many believe that the Democrats would be worse on national security.

This probably represents 20 million votes for Bush.
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: August 29, 2005, 09:16:30 PM »

A key question is who will turn out and vote in the 2006 elections.

Soros is spending his ill gotten gains funding left wing campus groups these days.

Doubt if he and his cohorts will fund a turnout effort for the Democrats in 2006.

Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,778


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: August 31, 2005, 04:29:59 PM »

    • Contrary to conventional wisdom, President Bush won an election that included a historic increase in turnout. Not only did total turnout increase by 16 percent in 2004, but turnout as a percentage of eligible voters soared from 51 percent to 61 percent..

I'm not sure what data  they are using here. In 2000 51.2% of the voting age population and 55.6% of the eligible population voted. In 2004 it was 55.8% of the voting age population and 61.0% of the eligible population. It looks like 2 different measures were mixed.
Logged
bgwah
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,833
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.03, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: August 31, 2005, 05:42:14 PM »

Too bad weren't not having the election now. Hehehe Smiley
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: August 31, 2005, 08:26:13 PM »

Too bad weren't not having the election now. Hehehe Smiley

timing is everything
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 01, 2005, 03:28:39 AM »

    • Contrary to conventional wisdom, President Bush won an election that included a historic increase in turnout. Not only did total turnout increase by 16 percent in 2004, but turnout as a percentage of eligible voters soared from 51 percent to 61 percent..

I'm not sure what data  they are using here. In 2000 51.2% of the voting age population and 55.6% of the eligible population voted. In 2004 it was 55.8% of the voting age population and 61.0% of the eligible population. It looks like 2 different measures were mixed.
The whole thing is maybe 33% analysis, 33% spin, and 33% gloat, so I'm not really surprised.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,767


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 01, 2005, 11:13:38 AM »

While we're on this subject, I got a question about turn-out, or rather a logical model.

Premise 1: The higher the turn-out, the better the Democrats do.

Premise 2: Midterms have much lower turn-out than presidential elections (35% to 50%, roughly)

Inference: Democrats do a lot better in presidential congressional elections than in midterm elections...

This doesn't seem to be the case. So, where is the above logic flawed? (and don't give me this election as the only argument... Wink)
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: September 01, 2005, 11:18:15 AM »

While we're on this subject, I got a question about turn-out, or rather a logical model.

Premise 1: The higher the turn-out, the better the Democrats do.
Anything as simplistic as this is bound to be flawed.
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: September 01, 2005, 08:08:56 PM »

While we're on this subject, I got a question about turn-out, or rather a logical model.

Premise 1: The higher the turn-out, the better the Democrats do.

Premise 2: Midterms have much lower turn-out than presidential elections (35% to 50%, roughly)

Inference: Democrats do a lot better in presidential congressional elections than in midterm elections...

This doesn't seem to be the case. So, where is the above logic flawed? (and don't give me this election as the only argument... Wink)

There have been three off Presidential year elections where there has been major changes in the composition of Congress two (1966 and 1994) have benefited the Republicans and one (1974) benefited the Democrats.

Essentially what happened was the Democrats overreached and lost in 1966 and 1994 because they ticked off a lot of people.

In 1974 Nixon dragged the Republicans down as a lot of Republican voters stayed home that year and did not vote.

It will be interesting to see who turns out in 2006.

Logged
The Vorlon
Vorlon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,653


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: -4.21

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: September 28, 2005, 10:01:33 PM »

The expenditure ratio is highly misleading actually.

There is a vast unregulated pool of money refered to as "party building activities" which the GOP massively outspent the Dems. - simply things like, free beer and pizza in all the GOP volunteer centers, tons and tons of "freebies" like Jackets, Hats, pens, T-shirts, etc.

Both parties spent, if you ad up the entire political effort at all levels, right around the $1 billiion mark in 2004.

The GOP spent more on "inhouse" activities - essentially "paying" the Volunteers in the form of pizza, caps, jackets, etc...  The dems spent a lot more (indirectly) directly payiny workers in groups like MoveOn and the like.

Carl also makes an excellent point about media over kill.

If you run 100 ads and I run 3, you have a big advantage.

If you run 34234 ads and I run "only" 26743, it really doesn't matter.

The GOP diverted the cash that would have bought 12 more "hits" during the 3.30 am re-run of Gilligans Island towards keeping the volnteeer base happy. is all.

Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: September 30, 2005, 01:10:49 PM »

While we're on this subject, I got a question about turn-out, or rather a logical model.

Premise 1: The higher the turn-out, the better the Democrats do.

Premise 2: Midterms have much lower turn-out than presidential elections (35% to 50%, roughly)

Inference: Democrats do a lot better in presidential congressional elections than in midterm elections...

This doesn't seem to be the case. So, where is the above logic flawed? (and don't give me this election as the only argument... Wink)
The relative difference in turnout is not very much.

The 2000 turnout (in House races) relative to 1998 was up 48% for Democrats and up 46% for Republicans.   The Republican share of the two-party vote dropped from 50.47% to 50.18%.  Democrats picked up 2 seats.

The 2002 turnout was down 28% for Democrats and 21% for Republicans, who increased their share of the vote to 52.43% and picked up 8 seats.   The 1998 to 2002 increase in the vote was 16% for Republicans and 7% for Democrats.  Some of the increase may be due to redistricting.  The created new seats, removed old seats, and shifted other seats, such that the effect of incumbency was slightly less, and could attract more viable challengers.

The 2004 turnout was up 50% for Republicans and up 56% for Democrats, and the Republican share of the vote declined to 51.36%.  Democrats picked up 2 seats outside Texas.

The increase in voting may be greatest in congressional districts where there is no consequential effect.  Many races are non-competitive, and sometime non-contested.  But a presidential race may draw voters to the polls, who go ahead and vote in the congressional race (for example, in NY 7th district, the Democrat majority went from 48 to 16 thousand in 2002, to 100 to 21 thousand in 2004).  Overall total votes in congressional races was about 90% of the presidential vote in 2004.

Note that the Republican share of the vote increased from 1998 to 2002, and 2000 to 2004.  It is a reasonable possiblity that Republican support increased across the 6 years, but the higher turnout in 2000 and 2004 masked the effect.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: September 30, 2005, 01:23:16 PM »

ie, Al's theory (which I also subscribe to, more or less), that without the turnout increase from 2000 to 2004, Bush would have won by a larger margin.
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: October 02, 2005, 12:12:37 AM »

While we're on this subject, I got a question about turn-out, or rather a logical model.

Premise 1: The higher the turn-out, the better the Democrats do.

Premise 2: Midterms have much lower turn-out than presidential elections (35% to 50%, roughly)

Inference: Democrats do a lot better in presidential congressional elections than in midterm elections...

This doesn't seem to be the case. So, where is the above logic flawed? (and don't give me this election as the only argument... Wink)
The relative difference in turnout is not very much.

The 2000 turnout (in House races) relative to 1998 was up 48% for Democrats and up 46% for Republicans.   The Republican share of the two-party vote dropped from 50.47% to 50.18%.  Democrats picked up 2 seats.

The 2002 turnout was down 28% for Democrats and 21% for Republicans, who increased their share of the vote to 52.43% and picked up 8 seats.   The 1998 to 2002 increase in the vote was 16% for Republicans and 7% for Democrats.  Some of the increase may be due to redistricting.  The created new seats, removed old seats, and shifted other seats, such that the effect of incumbency was slightly less, and could attract more viable challengers.

The 2004 turnout was up 50% for Republicans and up 56% for Democrats, and the Republican share of the vote declined to 51.36%.  Democrats picked up 2 seats outside Texas.

The increase in voting may be greatest in congressional districts where there is no consequential effect.  Many races are non-competitive, and sometime non-contested.  But a presidential race may draw voters to the polls, who go ahead and vote in the congressional race (for example, in NY 7th district, the Democrat majority went from 48 to 16 thousand in 2002, to 100 to 21 thousand in 2004).  Overall total votes in congressional races was about 90% of the presidential vote in 2004.

Note that the Republican share of the vote increased from 1998 to 2002, and 2000 to 2004.  It is a reasonable possiblity that Republican support increased across the 6 years, but the higher turnout in 2000 and 2004 masked the effect.


The big question is who will turn out in 2006?

Absent either a disaster like 1974 or a well organized turnout operation by the Democrats like 1998, the ordinary off year turnout model favors the Republicans.

The really big question is whether the Republicans will use the highly efficent tunrout organization they had in 2004?

Logged
Jake
dubya2004
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,621
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: October 02, 2005, 10:29:39 PM »

They did in 2002, they did with better effect in 2004, and unless Karl Rove's lessons are forgotten, it will be used to even greater effect in 2006. The question is whether the Democrats can build one of their own, independent of MoveOn and the other liberal activist groups.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: October 02, 2005, 11:33:14 PM »

Two points.

1.  The data I've indicates that the GOP outspent the Democrats in the 2004 presidential election by about 5 to 4.  It not a lot, and I agree with the Vorlon that it wasn't a huge difference.

http://www.opensecrets.org/bush/index.asp

2.  High turnout has traditionally favored the Democrats, but not in 2004.  If the electorate behaves the same way in 2006, an energized GOP based and a "mid-term type" turnout Democrats, this will be exceptionally good for the GOP.  There could be a very big Republican year.



Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.069 seconds with 12 queries.