Half of U.S. is unhappy with result
WASHINGTON – The presidential race of 2004 lumbered into history as the longest and the costliest, a wartime election promising a nail-biter of a finish and a bitter residue of political division and polarization.
The country was split down the middle between President Bush and Democratic challenger John Kerry, and the nation’s politics were so polarized that it seemed unlikely the winner would find common ground with opponents anytime soon.
Regardless of the outcome, half of the country was sure to be unhappy.
Troublesome for Bush, a majority of Americans were unhappy about the war in Iraq and the shape of the economy, according to Associated Press exit polls. Nine out of 10 were worried about the availability and cost of health care. Three-fourths said they worried about another major terrorist attack, and they split their votes between Bush and Kerry.
A surge in voter registration and the biggest voter mobilization campaign ever added uncertainty.
There were many ways to describe the presidential contest. It was a competition of two men of wealth and privilege, both graduates of Yale University and members of the same secret society, Skull and Bones.
It was the first White House election since the nation was shaken by its worst-ever terrorist attack, the first since the American-led invasion of Iraq, and the first in wartime since Vietnam.
Osama bin Laden edged into the race with a videotaped appearance that reminded Americans of the 9/11 attacks. More than half of voters said the bin Laden tape was important in their vote, and they tended to support Kerry.
Iraq towered over the election with grisly scenes of beheadings, bombings and massacres, reminding Americans of the steep price of war. The nation has lost more than 1,100 troops in Iraq, and voters were split on whether the United States should have invaded in the first place and wondered how to get out.
While incumbents often delegate negative campaigning to their vice presidents, Bush did not shrink from the task, branding Kerry weak and indecisive and the kind of leader who would put the nation at risk.
“This president has been the bad cop in chief,” said Norman Ornstein, a well-known political analyst. He described the race as “the nastiest in our lifetimes. It doesn’t maybe equal the 19th century but it’s hard to watch this without getting an upset stomach if you care about politics.”
In terms of policy, the two candidates offered some of the sharpest differences in many years on issues such as taxes, health care, Social Security, abortion, gay marriage, gun control, embryonic stem cell research, energy, the environment, America’s place in the world and its need for allies in Iraq.
In Congress, Democrats and Republicans regarded each other with suspicion and hostility. Bush fueled the partisanship by refusing to compromise with Democrats on issues from taxes to judicial appointments.
Rather than accommodate his opponents after emerging the winner of the disputed election of 2000, Bush behaved like he had a mandate and relied on his Republican base rather than try to attract supporters on the other side.
Bad feelings were exacerbated by a campaign in which both candidates tried to rouse their core supporters with negative attacks on the other side. “Under these circumstances it’s likely that the honeymoon for the next president, even one who manages to win clearly, is at best a long weekend,” analyst Ornstein said.
In addition, 34 Senate races and 435 House contests were on the ballot. Republicans were heavily favored to retain their majority in the House for the fifth election in a row, and Democrats had an uphill battle to gain control of the Senate, too.
One thing that made this year distinctive was the incredible flood of money that poured in despite the McCain-Feingold law that was supposed to control campaign cash. Total spending in the presidential and congressional races approached a breathtaking $4 billion.
It also was the longest race. With more than 40 trips to Pennsylvania and 30 to Florida underlining his most frequent destinations over four years, Bush arguably had been running for re-election since he took office.
The Democrats had their candidate ready on March 2 – the earliest in modern times – when Kerry clinched the nomination with a string of Super Tuesday primary victories.
WASHINGTON – In a race that early returns showed too close to call, the clearest signal from voters was that win or lose, this was an election about President George W. Bush.
This is the president who led the nation through its worst-ever terrorist attack, who took us to war twice, enacted record tax cuts and presided over the biggest runup ever in federal debt.
It’s no wonder then that his race for re-election against Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry turned out to be the most expensive by far, with costs on television ads alone doubling to $600 million from 2000; that turnout in places like St. Louis County would reach 88 percent of registered voters; or that the contest would be yet another squeaker.
Exit surveys of voters in Missouri, Illinois and across the nation showed an extraordinarily divided electorate, with deep splits on Iraq, terrorism, economic policy and, most especially, Bush.
Even in Missouri, which Bush won, it was easy to spot local echoes of a national trend that was less about Kerry than it was about the president.
Stephanie Gallagher, 38, of Richmond Heights, Mo., is a stay-at-home mom. Gallagher said she voted for the president. “He is a Christian, he is pro-life and he has done a good job in the war,” she said.
Gwendolyn Hood, 22, a secretary, voted in Clayton, Mo. She calls herself an independent voter who weighs candidates’ individual merits.
“This time I voted for Kerry because he’s not Bush,” Hood said. “I knew I had to vote for Kerry to make a difference on the not-Bush side.”
Among Missouri supporters of Bush, 82 percent said the vote was “mainly” for him. Among Kerry supporters, 41 percent said they were voting mainly against Bush.
Among the 17 percent of Missouri voters who said Iraq was the issue that mattered to them most, three-quarters voted for Kerry; in Illinois, 21 percent named Iraq and of that number, 77 percent went with Kerry. But among the 17 percent of Missourians who named terrorism as the top issue the numbers were reversed, with 85 percent of that group choosing Bush; in Illinois 17 percent named terrorism and of that group, 82 percent went with Bush.
The disparities were equally great on moral values (an 8-1 advantage for Bush in Missouri, 4-1 in Illinois) and on economy/jobs and health care, where Kerry enjoyed at least a 4-1 advantage.
On personal qualities the exit polls showed the same chasm. For the 10 percent of Missourians who named strong religious values as the quality that mattered to them most, Bush beat Kerry by a whopping margin of 96-3. For the six percent who named intelligence it was advantage Kerry, by an equally startling margin of 97-3.
Feelings about Bush pro and con overwhelmed the gender gap that had been a staple of the past several elections. In Missouri there was no gap at all: Bush polled 52 percent among both women and men. The Illinois gap was greater, 41 percent of women for Bush and 44 percent of men – but nothing like the 10-point gender gap for Al Gore in 2000.
Curtis Gans, director of the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate, a nonpartisan research organization, said Bush was also the explanation for the near-record number of registered voters, 71 percent, and the high turnout Tuesday.
“It’s George Bush and Iraq, it’s George Bush and his view of taxes, George Bush and the debt, George Bush as a leader in the war on terrorism,” he said. “There’s something there that appeals to each side but it’s all about Bush.”
The registration increase was dominated by three groups, Gans said – evangelical Christians, minorities and young people. Exit polls suggest that all three turned out in large numbers, with an advantage to Kerry among the latter two.
Late deciders also appeared to turn toward Kerry, according to exit polls conducted by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International for the National Election Pool Survey, a consortium serving the Associated Press and the five major television networks.
Presidential biographer Robert Dallek said Bush was headed for trouble, in part because of a dwindling advantage on the question of who would do a stronger job in fighting terrorism. He cited exit polls from New Jersey, a state Bush partisans had hoped to snare but which went to Kerry instead, with most giving him an edge on the terrorism issue.
But New Jersey was a state that Gore had won in 2000, where Kerry this time was playing defense. As vote-counting continued early Wednesday, he was still looking for a breakthrough in one of the states Bush won in 2000 — most notably Ohio.
It was a state where both men had campaigned furiously, with extraordinary get-out-the-vote efforts on both sides. The state had lost 150,000 manufacturing jobs over the past four years, more than any other state, but it was also a place that on Tuesday handily passed an anti-gay marriage referendum — a ballot measure that attracted additional Bush supporters to the polls.
On that issue, as on so many others, Bush projected a sense of moral clarity, the certitude of a strong leader in uncertain times. That was clearly a key to his success in Ohio, and perhaps in the country, even as voters voiced grave doubts about both the war in Iraq and the economy.
Guim Kwon, 42, a Washington University researcher, cast her ballot for Bush.
“I thought his ethical and moral issues are more important to me at this point than economic issues,” she said.