2004 United States presidential election

‹  2000  •   •  2008 ›
55th presidential election
November 2, 2004
			Republican Party
			George W. Bush / Dick Cheney
			electors					286
			be right				62.040.610
									50.7%
			Democratic Party
			John Kerry / John Edwards
			electors					251
			be right				59,028,444
									48.3%
Election results by state
31 states   Bush / Cheney						19 states + DC   Kerry / Edwards
President of the United States
Pre-election George W. Bush Republican Party						Elected George W. Bush Republican Party

The 55th election of the President of the United States of America took place on November 2, 2004 . The previous incumbent George W. Bush was re-elected for a second term. At the same time, there were elections to Congress and parliaments on state and local elections, as well as some gubernatorial elections.

See also : 2004 elections in the United States

Candidates and electoral process

George W. Bush

John Kerry

Candidates were George W. Bush ( Republican ), John Kerry ( Democrat ), Ralph Nader (independent) and 44 other independent candidates. Only Kerry and Bush had serious chances of victory. However, as in the 2000 presidential election , Nader likely cost the Democrats important votes. For many left-wing Americans, Kerry, the US Senator from Massachusetts , probably seemed too far to the right compared to Nader. For the incumbent Bush, on the other hand, the candidates of the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party were seen as competitors for the possibly decisive votes in the conservative camp.

The largely unknown presidential candidates with extremely low election chances included: Michael Badnarik ( Libertarian Party ), David Cobb ( Green Party ), Michael Peroutka (Constitution Party, formerly US Taxpayer Party ) and Walter F. Brown ( Socialist Party USA ).

The President of the United States is not elected directly but through the Electoral College , a body of 538 electors . The electors are sent by the states and are in principle bound by the decision of the voters of the sending state for one of the candidates. This indirect majority voting system explains why the candidate with the highest number of votes nationwide will not necessarily be elected president. This situation had arisen in the 2000 presidential election in favor of the Republican candidate Bush. Before that, this phenomenon had happened twice: in 1876 when Rutherford B. Hayes (Republican) prevailed against Samuel J. Tilden at Electoral College, and in 1888 when Benjamin Harrison (Republican) won against incumbent President Grover Cleveland . Cleveland then beat Harrison in 1892, making it the only US president with two separate terms. In 1824, John Quincy Adams , the first son to succeed his father, John Adams (2nd US President, 1797–1801), won neither the popular vote nor the electoral vote; he only won in the House of Representatives .

Had Kerry triumphed in Ohio , the phenomenon would have repeated itself to the Democrats' advantage. To be elected president, a candidate needs an absolute majority of the electoral college, i.e. at least 270 votes. The election was decided, as usual, in the so-called swing states - especially Florida , Ohio and New Mexico , all of which Bush won.

Primaries

In the Democratic primaries , John Kerry was compared to the originally favored Howard Dean , who withdrew his candidacy on February 18, 2004 due to lack of support, as a moderate candidate. Both his international experience and his personal reputation as an active participant in the war spoke for him. His democratic opponents in the primary campaign accused him of having received large donations from large companies. Republicans accuse him above all of his changing opinions and his voting behavior in the US Senate as well as his generally too "liberal" attitude. Wesley Clark was another promising candidate .

Since the so-called Super Tuesday on March 2, 2004, his presidential candidacy was considered certain. The Democratic candidate was officially chosen at a national party congress at the end of July 2004, but on March 3, 2004, John Edwards , the last serious competitor, dropped out of the race for the presidency. On March 16, 2004, Kerry reached another milestone. After a victory in the primary elections in the state of Illinois, he had more than the arithmetically required 2162 delegate votes for the appointment at the convention of his party in July.

The Republican Party did not hold a primary that year as only incumbent Bush ran as a candidate.

Nomination party conventions

The nomination conventions were among the highlights of the election year in the USA. At these national party conferences, which traditionally take place in the summer, the state delegates voted on the party's presidential candidate.

• Democratic Party Convention from July 26 to July 29, 2004 in Boston
• Republican Congress from August 30 to September 2, 2004 in New York

On the morning of July 6, 2004, Kerry nominated his rival from the preliminary rounds, Edwards, as Vice President of the United States (" Running Mate "). Edwards has "the courage, determination and aptitude for the office," said Kerry. This strategic move was intended to secure votes for the Bush challenger in the southern states , which were of great importance for the outcome of the election.

Election campaign and election implementation

The election campaign, which began early in March 2004, initially led to protests by relatives of the victims of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 . They accused George W. Bush of using photos from that time, which show the president together with the fire brigade against the background of the rubble, for his election campaign.

Both camps fought a fierce election campaign , especially in the swing states . Here in September 2004 in New Mexico.

The first mutual accusations were not long in coming. On March 8, 2004, Bush accused Kerry of irresponsible behavior while on a campaign tour in Texas . Ten years ago, the senator campaigned for massive cuts in the secret service budget. Kerry, also in Texas looking for voters, attacked Bush in return for what he believed to be a ruthless foreign policy.

Up until June 2004, the election campaign was shaped by the ongoing conflict in Iraq and, above all, by the images of prisoners in Iraqi prisons who had been abused by US Army personnel. Before the election campaign, foreign policy was the strength and economic policy the weakness of the George W. Bush administration, but in mid-2004 it was exactly the other way around.

In addition to Bush and Kerry, the independent candidate Ralph Nader and candidates from splinter parties also took part. In the last election, the candidacy of the “green” Nader had - one could argue - contributed significantly to the defeat of Al Gore . Gore received the greater popularity in the Popular Vote (total number of votes cast nationwide), but could not win the electors in the states of New Hampshire and Florida with extremely narrow results . The four electors of the small state of New Hampshire could have helped Gore to win the election - here the votes that Nader drew would have brought Kerry the victory. A poll of March 7, 2004 in Florida accordingly saw Kerry with 49 percent well ahead of Bush, who would receive 43 percent. Nader was way behind with three percent. In the key state of Ohio, Nader did not compete - presumably due to the forecast close result.

In principle, however, the candidacy of so-called “third candidates” has no influence on the race between the two promising candidates. In contrast to a proportional electoral system, it does not matter how many “other” votes are cast - as long as they do not win electors. Nader's voters cannot simply be seen as people who “actually” should have voted for the left-wing Kerry versus the right-wing Bush. You rejected both Kerry and Bush and instead wanted to morally support another.

financing

According to estimates, the election campaign cost up to 3.9 billion US dollars, making it the most expensive US election campaign of all time. In the run had been tried, spending by a reorganization of the party financing ( " McCain - Feingold -law to limit"). However, this led to numerous circumvention strategies, including via so-called “ 527 groups ”, who continued to receive uncontrolled funds and gained a significant share in the public debate through their own television and radio advertising.

Debates

Three presidential debates were scheduled by the "Presidential Debate Commission":

1. Debate: September 30, 2004 at the University of Miami with questions from moderator Jim Lehrer on PBS public television . Topics: foreign policy and internal security.
2. Debate: October 8, 2004 at Washington University in St. Louis , in townhall format moderated by Charles Gibson of ABC broadcaster .
3. Debate: October 13, 2004 at Arizona State University , with questions from moderator Bob Schieffer of CBS . Topics: domestic and economic policy.

On March 13, 2004, John Kerry challenged incumbent George W. Bush to monthly television duels. Bush refused, referring to the sharp rhetoric of the challenger. The traditional three television rounds before the election took place. The first and third of the debates in particular were clearly won by John Kerry, according to surveys. Especially in the first debate, the incumbent seemed overwhelmed by the tough accusations made by his challenger. After that, Kerry was again able to gain significantly in the polls, but was unable to build a secure lead with which he could have won the election.

Vice-presidential debates

A debate between Vice Presidential Candidates Dick Cheney and John Edwards was also scheduled for October 5, 2004 at Case Western Reserve University . It was moderated by Gwen Ifill from PBS .

Fahrenheit 9/11

This article or the following section is not adequately provided with supporting documents ( e.g. individual evidence ). Information without sufficient evidence could be removed soon. Please help Wikipedia by researching the information and including good evidence.

A documentary by Bush critic Michael Moore called Fahrenheit 9/11 gained surprising influence . Republican supporters sharply criticized the film for alleged manipulation, so this work received even more attention. Ultimately, however, the influence on the election was negligible: It is sometimes even assumed that the republican base was additionally mobilized because of attacks in Fahrenheit 9/11 that were perceived as unfair and polemical.

Suspected irregularities

This article or the following section is not adequately provided with supporting documents ( e.g. individual evidence ). Information without sufficient evidence could be removed soon. Please help Wikipedia by researching the information and including good evidence.

On November 19, 2004, the first scientific analysis regarding electronic voting machines in the state of Florida was published by the University of Berkeley . The changes in the election results from 2000 to 2004 were subjected to a statistical regression analysis , taking socio-economic and demographic factors into account. The analysis comes to the conclusion that the use of electronic voting machines had a statistically significant effect in Bush's favor. In other words, Bush has gained disproportionately in those districts that have been elected electronically. The type of voting medium should normally not have any influence on the election result.

The study leaves the reasons for these irregularities open and is limited to the pure analysis of the results. The results of this study, however, contradict political scientists, such as MIT , whose observations show that Bush's nationwide vote gains were independent of the type of voting medium; there are therefore no noticeable statistical differences between previous votes and the current election. In addition, the study shows methodological deficiencies: From the outset, only factors were included that could establish a connection between Bush's election victory and electronic voting machines (e.g. the fact that more affluent electoral districts can afford expensive electronic voting machines and that their residents are also politically active Republicans), while external parameters were ignored, such as the number of campaign appearances of the candidates in the respective districts or the proportion of Protestant voters.

In addition, even in the run-up to the elections, there were massive speculations about the reliability of the electronic voting machines used, which had been specially acquired after the debacle in connection with the need to manually recount the votes from Florida in the last election. According to press reports, the owner of the contracted company is said to have expressed a strong supporter of the incumbent president and wanted to (quote): ". ... everything in my power to do, to allow the re-election of the President" Besides, appeared on the Internet months before the election, the manufacturer's internal security protocols showed how insecure the internal programming of the voting machines was. As a result, the state of Florida turned to another manufacturer for new voting machines to dispel suspicions of electoral fraud .

Overall, according to the assessment of the Swiss National Councilor Barbara Haering , who headed the OSCE delegation for election observation, “... the voting and the counting of votes seem to have proceeded properly, although our observers did not see them all due to the lack of federal or state regulations States that had access to the polling stations. ” The OSCE delegation ( represented by Rita Süssmuth among others ) considered the elections to be proper. She reported that the election process reflected "a long democratic tradition" and that it was "orderly and peaceful" . Criticism has been expressed of the long queues outside some polling stations.

Michael Moore got involved with several thousand helpers in this regard and was not able to bring any glaring facts to our attention. A week after the election, the Democratic candidate for the US House of Representatives, Jeff Fisher, made massive charges of fraud. According to him, he has evidence that proves that the voting machines in Florida were manipulated and that election results were deliberately changed. He bases his information with large discrepancies when comparing statistics on party registrations and the count of votes in districts in which votes were scanned. Fisher said he wanted to substantiate his allegations to the FBI and force an investigation.

Critics of these theories of fraud point out several aspects:

• Jeff Fisher is personally interested in challenging the election as a losing candidate in Florida's 16 constituency.
• Jano Cabrera, spokeswoman for the Democrats, spoke out against an election challenge because of obvious unfoundedness.
• The differences between party registrations and votes cast stem from the fact that no party preference has to be given when registering ; the registrations with details of the party therefore only represent a fraction of the total registrations and are not statistically meaningful.
• In addition, it has long been known in Florida and other southern states of the USA that democratic voters and even party members vote republican in state and federal votes (so-called " Dixiekrats "); the outcome of the 2004 election does not differ substantially from previous presidential elections.

Official end result

Presidential candidate	electors	Votes	Percentages
George W. Bush	286	62.040.610	50.73
John Kerry	251 *	59,028,444	48.27
Ralph Nader	0	465,650	0.38

* In Minnesota, nine of the ten electors voted for John Kerry and one for John Edwards.

Since Ohio, with its 20 electors, was the last state not yet fully counted, public attention has recently focused on the distribution of votes in this state. Florida, which went to Bush and in which irregularities in the electronic counting of votes are suspected after the election, with its 27 electors also had a decisive effect on both candidates.

Although the exact determination of the final valid votes on the basis of so-called "preliminary" and postal votes in the still important state of Ohio was not yet completed, the Democratic challenger Kerry declared his defeat to incumbent Bush and by telephone on November 3, 2004 at 4:00 pm CET congratulated him on his election victory. Bush recognized Kerry as a tough and honorable opponent. Both are said to have regretted that the US was "too divided".

The results of the individual states were as follows (figures in percent, in the order of election success for the incumbent, rounded, source :):

State	Bush	Kerry	Otherwise
Utah	72	26th	1
Wyoming	69	29	1
Idaho	68	30th	0
Nebraska	66	33	1
Oklahoma	66	34	0
North Dakota	63	36	1
Alabama	62	37	0
Kansas	62	37	1
Alaska	61	36	2
Texas	61	38	0
Indiana	60	39	0
Kentucky	60	40	0
South Dakota	60	38	1
Mississippi	59	40	0
Montana	59	39	1
Georgia	58	41	0
South carolina	58	41	0
Louisiana	57	42	0
Tennessee	57	43	0
North Carolina	56	44	0
West Virginia	56	43	1
Arizona	55	44	0
Arkansas	54	45	1
Virginia	54	45	0
Missouri	53	46	0
Colorado	52	47	1
Florida	52	47	0
Ohio	51	49	0
Nevada	50	48	1
Iowa	50	49	0
New Mexico	50	49	1
Wisconsin	49	50	1
New Hampshire	49	50	1
Michigan	48	51	1
Minnesota	48	51	1
Pennsylvania	48	51	0
Oregon	47	51	0
Delaware	46	53	1
New Jersey	46	53	1
Washington	46	53	1
Maine	45	54	1
Hawaii	45	54	0
Connecticut	44	54	1
Illinois	44	55	0
California	44	54	0
Maryland	43	56	1
new York	40	58	1
Rhode Island	39	59	1
Vermont	39	59	1
Massachusetts	37	62	0
Washington, DC	9	89	1
total	51	48	0

In absolute terms, incumbent George W. Bush received about 3 million more votes than his challenger. For the first time since 1988, the winner of the presidential election also received an absolute majority of both the electorate and the electorate. As in previous presidential elections, the most successful states for the opponents were on the one hand the District of Columbia, in which challenger Kerry was elected by 89% of the population, and Utah (the most successful state with 72% of the votes for Bush), which 60% is dominated by extremely conservative Mormons and a high proportion of the rural population. In the states in which the terrorist attacks of September 11th left their strongest marks (New York, Pennsylvania, Washington DC), no fundamental political shift towards conservative values ​​can be observed; As in previous elections, the Republican-dominated states in the heart of the United States stuck to their stance against the political concept of the challenger despite some job losses and high national debt during George W. Bush's first term in office.

The British tabloid " Daily Mirror " wondered in a polemic on the cover of their November 4. published Issue: "How can 59,054,087 people have been so stupid?" . A reply to this polemic appeared in the competition paper “ The Daily Telegraph ”.

Timetable

• November 2, 2004 - Eligible US citizens cast their votes
• November 3, 2004 - John Kerry admits defeat
• December 13, 2004 - Electoral electors meet in state capitals to formally confirm the election. The results of the individual votes are sent to Congress under lock and key.
• January 3, 2005 - The newly elected Congress meets for its constituent session.
• January 6, 2005 - The votes of the electorate are counted by Congress. This designates the president for the next four years.
• January 20, 2005 - The President is sworn in and taken into office.

literature

• Mario Voigt: The American presidential campaign. George W. Bush against John F. Kerry (= Scientific Writings: Politics . Vol. 9). Polisphere, Berlin a. a. 2010, ISBN 978-3-938456-28-6 .
• Donald Richard Deskins, Hanes Walton, Sherman C. Puckett: Presidential Elections, 1789-2008: County, State, and National Mapping of Election Data. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 2010, ISBN 978-0-472-11697-3 , pp. 528-539 (= Chapter 57: George W. Bush's Relection. ).
• John C. Green, Mark J. Rozell, and Clyde Wilcox (Eds.): Values ​​Campaign ?: The Christian Right and the 2004 Elections . Georgetown University Press, Washington DC 2006, ISBN 1-58901-109-0
• Robert E. Denton, Jr. (Ed.): The 2004 Presidential Campaign: A Communication Perspective . Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham (MD) 2005, ISBN 0-7425-3571-1

Web links

Commons : 2004 US Presidential Election  - Collection of Pictures, Videos and Audio Files

• RealClearPolitics - data and index collection to choose from
• Scientists support thesis of electoral fraud in the US presidential election
• Numerous reports of irregularities during the election

Individual evidence

1. ^ A Brief Electoral College History ( English ) electoralvotemap.com. Retrieved September 23, 2019.
2. ↑ Peter-Michael Ziegler: US politician wants to present evidence of election fraud. In: Heise online . November 4, 2004 . Retrieved September 23, 2019.
3. ^ Federal Elections 2004: Election Results for the US President, the US Senate, and the US House of Representatives
4. ↑ The Daily Telegraph