Comparing the 2004 and 2000 U.S. Presidential Election Results: 

How George Bush Won and Lessons for 2008

December 2004

As the dust settles from the 2004 presidential race, George Bush's victory comes down to one basic fact: a small majority of regular voters believed he had earned the right to another four years. His share of the vote rose consistently across the nation in the states where neither major party candidate campaigned. He did relatively less well in most of the battleground states, indicating that new voters in those states broke more toward Democrat John Kerry. Our state-by-state analysis reveals several important facts, including these highlights:

��      If the election had been tied in the national popular vote, Kerry almost certainly would have won a comfortable win in the Electoral College, picking up Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico and Ohio. This was tied to his relatively strong performance in key battleground states.

��       As the partisan alignment between the major parties grows increasingly firm, the number of battleground states is shrinking: Heading toward 2008, only 11 states appear certain to be truly contested (within a 3% advantage for one major party), down from 15 states after 2000. 

��      Most of the states dropping out of battleground status were won by Kerry and Gore and the two new battleground states were carried by Bush, suggesting that the political landscape has improved for Democrats heading into 2008 -- that is, if they can win at least 50% of the national vote.

��      Without winning a greater share of the national popular vote, a Kerry win in Ohio would have required a bigger shift toward Democrats in Ohio than in all but three states.

Methodology:

��        Our analysis of the 2004 presidential election and trends since 2000 is based on the analytical model of the Monopoly Politics report on U.S. House races that FairVote-The Center for Voting and Democracy has released bi-annually since 1997.  Monopoly Politics projects winners and victory margins in the great majority of U.S. House races without using any information relating to campaign finance, quality of challenger and incumbent voting behavior.  Applying its "one size fits all" model to House races from 1996 to 2002, our model projected wins in more than 1,250 races, and was wrong only once.  More than 97% of victory margin projection margins have been accurate as well, including being right in 209 of 211 projections of landslide margin wins in U.S. House races in 2004 in projections -- projections made two days after the November 2002 elections and only modified due to changes in district lines in Texas and Maine and retirements.

��        Our analysis is based on assigning a "partisanship" measure to each state -- a percentage that suggests what the major party candidates would have won in that state if the national vote for each of them had been exactly 50%.  We measured partisanship within individual states by comparing what percentage of the national popular vote the candidates won to what percentage they won within that particular state. For instance, John Kerry won 47.5% of the two-party vote in Florida in 2004, meaning that he ran 1% behind his national total percentage of 48.5%. This downward deviation of 1% from the Democratic candidate's national performance gives the state a partisanship of 49.0% for Democrats and 51.0% for Republicans using our baseline model of adding or deducting these deviations from a baseline 50% for each party's candidate. Having a Democratic partisanship of 49% means that if the vote had been tied nationally, Kerry would likely have won 49% in Florida. This indicates a shift of 0.8% toward Republicans in Florida since 2000.

��        For key groups of states, we have collected data on Democratic partisanship, and tracked shifts between the two elections. This allows us to identify which states appeared to go most strongly against national trends, and what impact, if any, this could have had on the election. In particular, the mapping below allows us to see in which states Kerry outperformed or under-performed Gore, and in which states Bush���s performance improved or worsened from 2000.

   ��        Our complete spreadsheet can be downloaded as a Microsoft excel file here (right click, and "save as").

Conclusions from the 2004 Presidential Race:

��        Between 2000 and 2004, Republican George W. Bush's share of the national popular vote cast for the two major party candidates shifted in his favor by 1.8%: from 49.7% to 51.5%.  Note that this measure is of relative shifts in percentages of the major party vote, rather than absolute numbers of votes. In almost every state, both candidates increased the absolute number of votes in 2004 compared to the presidential race in 2000. Bush's popular vote total declined only in California and Alaska, while Democrat John Kerry's popular vote total was less than that of Al Gore in only California, New York, Rhode Island and Alabama.

��        Compared to his percentage of the major party vote in 2000, Bush improved his vote share in 33 states in 2004, while his percentage declined in 17 states and the District of Columbia. His state-by-state average gain between the two elections was 1.1%. Bush received a smaller percentage of the vote than he did in 2000 in: AK, CO, DC, ID, ME, MN, MT, NC, ND, NH, NV, OH, OR, SD, VT, WA, WI and WY. Note that a number of these states were key battlegrounds this year, indicating that in spite of Kerry's loss, he improved over Gore's performance in these critical states. Bush's ten biggest improvements from his percentage of the major party vote in 2000 came from AL, CT, HI, LA, NJ, NY, OK, RI, TN, and WV -- most of these states were non-battleground states completely ignored by both campaigns, and none were considered top tier battlegrounds.

��        Had 2004 been a 50%-50% year, the partisan leanings of the different states would have given the presidency to Kerry. 24 States, including Nevada, Ohio, New Mexico and Iowa tilted more towards the Democrats than the national average. Winning these states would have led to Kerry winning the electoral college. 

��       The number of real battleground states -- where the percentage split was less than three points off the national average (i.e. where partisanship measures were between 47% and 53%) -- fell from 15 in 2000 to 11 in 2004. In 2000, FL, IA, ME, MI, MN, MO, NH, NM, NV, OH, OR, PA, TN, WA and WI were all less than three points of the national average. In 2004, the equivalent list was  CO, FL, IA, MO, NH, NM, NV, OH, PA, VA and WI. The nine states on both year's lists are FL, IA, MO, NH, NM, NV, OH, PA and WI. The two new additions are Republican-leaning CO and VA. Dropping off the list are Democratic-leaning ME, MI, MN, OR and WA and Republican-leaning TN.

      Summary of the National Trend:

Most states moved in unison with the national popular vote trend, with partisanship shifting 1% or less in 17 states, 1-3% in 21, 3-4% in 10 states, and more than 4% in only three states. For Kerry to have won Ohio, he would have needed a partisanship shift of at least 3.6% in the state -- something he achieved in only four states: Vermont, Alaska, Montana, and Colorado. Instead he had a shift of 2.5% -- primarily due to winning support from the majority of new voters, because exit polls suggest that Bush won by an increased margin among voters who had also voted in 2000.

Ten States Trending Most Strongly for Kerry (against Bush):  

Note that:

��        Four of these states where Kerry made the largest improvements over Gore (Alaska, Montana, Idaho and North Dakota) were Republican strongholds from 2000 when Bush carried them by more than 5 points.

��        Alaska was one of only two states where the absolute number of votes for Bush fell.

��        One state (Vermont) was already a Democratic stronghold.

��        Four states -- Oregon, Maine, Colorado and Washington -- were "second tier" battleground states

��        In only one state (New Hampshire) did the gains that Kerry made against national trends translate into electoral votes.

Ten States Trending Most Strongly against Kerry (toward Bush):  

 Note that:

��        None of these states changed hands between 2000 and 2004

��        Five (Hawaii, Rhode Island, New Jersey, New York and Connecticut) were Democratic strongholds from 2000.

��        Two (Alabama and Alaska) were already Republican strongholds.

��        Only one state (West Virginia) was seen as a swing state before the election, although Louisiana and Tennessee theoretically could have been Democratic targets based on their partisanship during Bill Clinton's victories in 1992 and 1996 .

��        Bush���s most disproportionate gains came in states where they were of little use to him.

15 States where Partisanship was within 47%-53% Range in 2000:  

Note that:

��        Against the national average, Kerry gained in all of these states except Tennessee, Missouri and Florida.

��        Although Kerry did 1.8% worse than Gore did over the country as a whole, he out-performed what Gore���s 2000 totals would lead us to expect in key states such as Ohio.

11 States where Partisanship was within 47%-53% Range in 2004:

Note That:

• Most of the states dropping out of battleground status were won by Kerry and Gore and the two new battleground states were carried by Bush, suggesting that the political landscape has improved for Democrats heading into 2008.
 
• The nine states on both year's lists are FL, IA, MO, NH, NM, NV, OH, PA and WI
 
• The two new additions are Republican-leaning CO and VA. 
 
• Dropping off the list are Democratic-leaning ME, MI, MN, OR and WA and Republican-leaning TN.

2004 Partisanship in the 16 Leading Battleground States:

 Note that:

Read FairVote's 2002 and 2004 Monopoly Politics reports to learn more about our methodology, and our models for congressional races.

______________________________________________________________________
Copyright �� 2003     The Center for Voting and Democracy
6930 Carroll Ave, Suite 610, Takoma Park MD 20912
(301) 270-4616      [email protected]