Bush Victory in 2004 Election Much Deeper, More Widespread than Widely Reported

[quesney]

The scope and depth of Bush's victory in the 2004 election has been grossly underreported. As far as I can tell, no major news outlet reported the following in the aftermath of the 2004 election

From the 2000 to the 2004 election, the percentages of the electorate voting for Bush went up in all but 6 states and the District of Columbia. And the 3 biggest increases were in BLUE STATES: Hawaii, New York and Rhode Island. Blue states posted 4 of the top 6 increases and five of the top eight.

Bush's margins of victory widened and his margins of loss narrowed in all but 15 states and the District of Columbia. And in those 15 states where his margin of victory narrowed, Bush's percentages still increased in all but 4...and the District of Columbia.

In short, an overwhelming number of blue states became less blue and an overwhelming number of red states more red from 2000 to 2004. In essence, the country (if you go by these overall numbers alone) became *less* divided, less polarized.

The shift may be even more pronounced on the county-by-county level.

Upshot: Democrats have an awful lot more to be depressed about and Bush lovers have a lot more to be joyful about than they realize. Why wasn't this widely reported? Somebody get Rush, Drudge and Co. on this.

Numbers ranked below (apolgoies if this is misaligned. Did what I could. Send requests for Excel spreadsheets to quesney1973@yahoo.com)...

Change in Bush share of the vote

2004 2000 increase in Bush Kerry Bush Gore Bush share Hawaii 45% 54% 37% 55% 8% New York 40% 58% 33% 58% 7% Rhode Island 39% 60% 32% 61% 7% Alabama 63% 37% 56% 42% 7% Oklahoma 66% 34% 60% 38% 6% New Jersey 46% 53% 40% 56% 6% Tennessee 57% 42% 51% 47% 6% Connecticut 44% 54% 39% 56% 5% Nebraska 67% 32% 62% 33% 5% Arizona 55% 44% 51% 45% 4% Deleware 46% 53% 42% 55% 4% Kansas 62% 36% 58% 37% 4% Massachusetts 37% 62% 33% 60% 4% West Virginia 56% 43% 52% 46% 4% Louisiana 57% 42% 53% 45% 4% Utah 71% 26% 67% 26% 4% Alaska 62% 35% 59% 28% 3% Arkansas 54% 45% 51% 46% 3% Flrorida 52% 47% 49% 49% 3% Indiana 60% 39% 57% 41% 3% Kentucky 60% 40% 57% 41% 3% Maryland 43% 56% 40% 57% 3% Missouri 53% 46% 50% 47% 3% Pennsylvania 49% 51% 46% 51% 3% Georgia 58% 41% 55% 43% 3% California 44% 55% 42% 54% 2% Illinois 45% 55% 43% 55% 2% Iowa 50% 49% 48% 49% 2% Michigan 48% 51% 46% 51% 2% Minnesota 48% 51% 46% 48% 2% Mississippi 60% 39% 58% 41% 2% New Mexico 50% 49% 48% 48% 2% North Dakota 63% 35% 61% 43% 2% Texas 61% 38% 59% 38% 2% Colorado 52% 46% 51% 42% 1% Idaho 68% 30% 67% 28% 1% Maine 45% 53% 44% 49% 1% Montana 59% 38% 58% 33% 1% New Hampshire 49% 50% 48% 47% 1% Ohi 51% 49% 50% 47% 1% South Carolina 58% 41% 57% 41% 1% Virginia 54% 45% 53% 44% 1% Washington 46% 53% 45% 50% 1% Wisconsin 49% 50% 48% 48% 1% DC 9% 90% 9% 85% 0% Nevada 50% 48% 50% 46% 0% North Carolina 56% 44% 56% 43% 0% Oregon 47% 52% 47% 47% 0% South Dakota 60% 38% 60% 38% 0% Wyoming 69% 29% 69% 28% 0% Vermont 39% 59% 41% 51% -2%

--------------------

Improvement in Bush margins (positive number means increase in margin of victory or decrease in margin of loss)

improvement Bush Kerry Bush Gore in margin Alabama 63% 37% 56% 42% 12% Tennessee 57% 42% 51% 47% 11% Oklahoma 66% 34% 60% 38% 10% North Dakota 63% 35% 61% 43% 10% New Jersey 46% 53% 40% 56% 9% Hawaii 45% 54% 37% 55% 9% Rhode Island 39% 60% 32% 61% 8% West Virginia 56% 43% 52% 46% 7% New York 40% 58% 33% 58% 7% Connecticut 44% 54% 39% 56% 7% Louisiana 57% 42% 53% 45% 7% Nebraska 67% 32% 62% 33% 6% Deleware 46% 53% 42% 55% 6% Kansas 62% 36% 58% 37% 5% Indiana 60% 39% 57% 41% 5% Flrorida 52% 47% 49% 49% 5% Arizona 55% 44% 51% 45% 5% Georgia 58% 41% 55% 43% 5% Missouri 53% 46% 50% 47% 4% Mississippi 60% 39% 58% 41% 4% Kentucky 60% 40% 57% 41% 4% Arkansas 54% 45% 51% 46% 4% Utah 71% 26% 67% 26% 4% Maryland 43% 56% 40% 57% 4% Pennsylvania 49% 51% 46% 51% 3% Texas 61% 38% 59% 38% 2% Michigan 48% 51% 46% 51% 2% Massachusetts 37% 62% 33% 60% 2% Iowa 50% 49% 48% 49% 2% Illinois 45% 55% 43% 55% 2% South Carolina 58% 41% 57% 41% 1% New Mexico 50% 49% 48% 48% 1% California 44% 55% 42% 54% 1% Virginia 54% 45% 53% 44% 0% South Dakota 60% 38% 60% 38% 0% Wyoming 69% 29% 69% 28% -1% Idaho 68% 30% 67% 28% -1% Wisconsin 49% 50% 48% 48% -1% Ohio 51% 49% 50% 47% -1% North Carolina 56% 44% 56% 43% -1% Minnesota 48% 51% 46% 48% -1% Washington 46% 53% 45% 50% -2% New Hampshire 49% 50% 48% 47% -2% Nevada 50% 48% 50% 46% -2% Maine 45% 53% 44% 49% -3% Colorado 52% 46% 51% 42% -3% Alaska 62% 35% 59% 28% -4% Montana 59% 38% 58% 33% -4% Oregon 47% 52% 47% 47% -5% DC 9% 90% 9% 85% -5% Vermont 39% 59% 41% 51% -10%

[Brian Allen]

<< If this keeps up - 2006 will be great! >>

It will.

Compounded.

It will.

Compounded.

[grey_whiskers]

Rat voter fraud strikes again. Some wiseguy in Bismark voted four times.

Yeah, they held the voting in "the" building...
under "the" tree.

Full Disclosure: Yes, I lived in Minnesota. Yes, we made fun of Iowa and the Dakotas.

Second Disclosure: After suffering through Arizona summer, I'd love to move back to Minneapolis or even Fargo / Moorhead

Cheers!

[speedy]

Understood. ND is a beautiful state, but I think the winters would be a real test. And I say this as one living in MA.

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

It was this trend that caused Dick Morris to confidently call the election for Bush back when the media was have a goreasm over exit polls that had Kerry winning roundly. IIRC, Morris said, "The earliest returns show Bush is doing better than he did in 2000 in virtually every precinct outside of Kerry's home turf. He will win."

[Southack]

The pros are looking for a "realignment."

A realignment is a permanent shift in political sentiment.

But you don't find realignments by looking at the data for just one candidate. For instance, President Clinton improved his percentage from 42% of the popular vote in 1992 to 49% in 1996. If we drew conclusions from that improvement, we'd be claiming that Democrats would be sweeping the field clean of their opposition in 2000 and 2004.

Clearly that didn't happen.

Instead, you find "Realignments" by looking downticket at Party results. Here you see Republican improvements in the House and Senate for 1994, 1996, 1998, 2002, and 2004. That's a decade of lower-ticket improvements.

Further down the ticket, you see that Republicans have come back in from the wilderness to now control most state legislatures, most state governorships (including the top post in Massachusetts, California, and New York), as well as finally regain the lead in national voter registrations over Democrats in 2005.

Now *that's* a realignment.

The other notable change in 2000 and 2004 from earlier national elections was that Rove devised the first American political strategy to ever figure out how to win the Presidency without winning either California or New York.

That change in political strategy meant that Republicans were no longer held hostage to the more liberal politics that are required for winning those two states. Instead of being forced to pay homage to liberal New York power brokers, suddenly the GOP is listening to Alabama and Texas conservatives.

So not only do we see a political realignment, but we also see an ideological realignment.

Suddenly, liberal policies are a liability. Hollywood Leftism detracts, rather than adds to a candidate's national success chances.

So it's no surprise that after being beaten so widely, that in the face of this realignment the Democrats have moved pro-life Senator Reid into their Senate Minority Leadership Chair. Nor would it be a surprise if pro-life Roemer won the DNC chair (though that's no sure thing). Neither should it surprise anyone to see Hillary championing a "pro-chife" choice/life compromise position rather than touting the abortion on demand radicalism from the likes of NOW and NARAL.

Faced with national realignment, the Democrats who hope to be competitive in the future know that they have to move to the Right.

...such is the power of a realignment. Even the opposition has to make a move.

[quesney]

"The earliest returns show Bush is doing better than he did in 2000 in virtually every precinct outside of Kerry's home turf."

Err...except that Bush ALSO did better on Kerry's home turf. My numbers show Bush went up 4% in Massachussetts and his margin of loss shrank by 2% from the 2000 to the 2004 election. Support for Bush went up almost nationwide.

And I'd be fascinated by county-by-county results -- especially in Massachusetts. My guess is that his numbers surged in South Boston and other working class Reagan Democrat bastions.

[AlGone2001]

bookmark

[Lancey Howard]

Thanks for posting - - excellent!

[Lancey Howard]

President Clinton improved his percentage from 42% of the popular vote in 1992 to 49% in 1996. If we drew conclusions from that improvement, we'd be claiming that Democrats would be sweeping the field clean of their opposition in 2000 and 2004.

Any analysis of the two Clinton elections MUST take into account Ross Perot's 19% in '92. Likewise, though to a much lesser extent, the impact of Nader must be factored into the 2000 election. These wild cards DID effect the outcomes of those two elections.

[marblehead17]

ping

[CyberAnt]

What is your SOURCE for this information ..??

[CyberAnt]

Well .. that's part of the problem .. it won't "keep up" without our help. We need to continue to educate people about the conservative message.

And .. we need to get behind our LOCAL conservative people running for office and support them and their ideas - with our mouth and our money. I know this kind of involvement is not possible for everybody. But .. YOU CAN WRITE LETTERS OR EMAILS TO THE EDITOR of newspapers or magazines, etc. - YOU CAN WRITE LETTERS OR EMAILS TO YOUR CONGRESS PEOPLE - etc.

I have documents which contain the email addresses of bunches of media people. Whenever I have a bug under my collar - I send off an email. Like when this "exit strategy" thing kept getting hotter and hotter. I sent an email to hundreds of people with a simple message: EXIT STRATEGERY = V I C T O R Y

A secret I've learned - when you send your emails to lots of people - put just ONE NAME in the TO: box, and put ALL THE OTHERS IN THE bcc: box. The bcc stands for "blind carbon copy". That means that all the other people won't know you sent that message to all those other people - and they are less likely to throw your message out.

If our activism "keeps up" - 2006 will be great!!

[quesney]

Source of all the vote totals was the Washington Post 2004 election results page, which I googled. I dumped them into an excel spreadsheet, did the simple calculations of 2000-2004 changes and ranked them myself.

[Dark Wing]

Check out post #19

[Raffus]

Figures - Vermont!

[God luvs America]

wouldn't surpise me...I beleive Wisconsin is about 115% of voters who actually cast a ballot versus actual voters who were registered to cast a ballot!

[ChadGore]

This is some good work you've done here. Thanks for the post.