He sure did -- and as Michael Barone said in U.S. News & World Report, they STILL didn't turn out in any significant larger numbers; they voted in the same numbers they did in 2000.
It was the Hispanics.
From the interactions with Hispanics that I have had, and my collegues are predominantly Hispanic, moral issues were among the chief reason some inclined to Democrats changed their vote.
This, imo, is where the rise in Hispanic and African American support came from. There is no dispute, for example, that gay marriage ranks as a high concern for the black community and may well have made a difference in Ohio where his support doubled from that community.
But the untold story of the 2004 election, according to national religious leaders and grass-roots activists, is that evangelical Christian groups were often more aggressive and sometimes better organized on the ground than the Bush campaign. The White House struggled to stay abreast of the Christian right and consulted with the movement's leaders in weekly conference calls. But in many respects, Christian activists led the charge that GOP operatives followed and capitalized upon.
In dozens of interviews since the election, grass-roots activists in Ohio, Michigan and Florida credited President Bush's chief political adviser, Karl Rove, with setting a clear goal that became a mantra among conservatives: To win, Bush had to draw 4 million more evangelicals to the polls than he did in 2000. But they also described a mobilization of evangelical Protestants and conservative Roman Catholics that took off under its own power. Care to tell any more lies, Howlin?