Scorecard 2004 vs 2000

[Airbornelawyer]

Final tallies might change, but here's an observation:

In every state except one, Bush received a higher percentage of the vote than he did in 2000. That is 50 out of 51 states plus DC (in DC he went from 8.95% to 9.25%). Only Vermont went the other way, from 40.7% in 2000 to 38.9% in 2004. Among Bush's strongest improvements were 4 "9-11 voter" states: New York (+5), New Jersey (+6), Connecticut (+6) and Hawaii (+8).

Kerry improved on Gore's totals in 23 states and DC. Only in Vermont was this at Bush's expense. In the other states it was basically from Nader voters.

In Pennsylvania in 2000, Gore and Nader together took 52.7% of the vote, with Gore getting 50.6%. They kept Nader off the ballot this time, and Kerry got ... 50.8%.

In North Carolina, Gore got 43.2% of the 2000 vote. In 2004, with a North Carolina senator as running mate, Kerry got ... 43.5% of the vote.

Of course, let's not pick on Edwards. In 2000 in Massachusetts, Bush received 32.5% of the vote to Gore's 59.8%. The party nominated a Massachusetts senator for President, and that favorite son added 2.3%, to 62.1%. Bush added 4.5%, to 37%. But it's even worse in the Bay State: Gore and Nader together took 66.2%. They kept Nader off, and Kerry lost 4%.

So if anyone tells you the conventional wisdom is that the country remains divided 50/50, and the result is the red states got redder and the blue states bluer, they are wrong. Except for Vermont, every state got redder.

[Airbornelawyer]

The first 25 states (I'm too tired to finish all):
AL - Bush 63% Kerry 37% -- Bush 57% Gore 42%
AK - Bush 62% Kerry 35% -- Bush 59% Gore 28% Nader 10%
AZ - Bush 55% Kerry 44% -- Bush 51% Gore 45% Nader 3%
AR - Bush 54% Kerry 45% -- Bush 51% Gore 46%
CA - Bush 44% Kerry 55% -- Bush 42% Gore 53% Nader 4%
CO - Bush 53% Kerry 46% -- Bush 51% Gore 42% Nader 5%
CT - Bush 44% Kerry 54% -- Bush 38% Gore 56% Nader 4%
DE - Bush 46% Kerry 53% -- Bush 42% Gore 55%
DC - Bush 9% Kerry 90% -- Bush 9% Gore 85% Nader 5%
FL - Bush 52% Kerry 47% -- Bush 49% Gore 49%
GA - Bush 59% Kerry 41% -- Bush 55% Gore 43%
HI - Bush 45% Kerry 54% -- Bush 37% Gore 56% Nader 6%
ID - Bush 68% Kerry 30% -- Bush 67% Gore 28%
IL - Bush 45% Kerry 55% -- Bush 43% Gore 55%
IN - Bush 60% Kerry 39% -- Bush 57% Gore 41%
IA - Bush 50% Kerry 49% -- Bush 48% Gore 49%
KS - Bush 62% Kerry 36% -- Bush 58% Gore 37% Nader 3%
KY - Bush 60% Kerry 40% -- Bush 57% Gore 41%
LA - Bush 57% Kerry 42% -- Bush 53% Gore 45%
ME - Bush 45% Kerry 53% -- Bush 44% Gore 49% Nader 6%
MD - Bush 43% Kerry 56% -- Bush 40% Gore 57% Nader 3%
MA - Bush 37% Kerry 62% -- Bush 33% Gore 60% Nader 6%
MI - Bush 48% Kerry 51% -- Bush 46% Gore 51%
MN - Bush 48% Kerry 51% -- Bush 46% Gore 48% Nader 5%
MS - Bush 60% Kerry 40% -- Bush 58% Gore 41%

[Razor]

Kerry improved on Gore's totals in 23 states and DC. Only in Vermont was this at Bush's expense.

COL Moroney, sir; looks like you need to put those UW skills to use once again. The EXEVAL will be in four years. :)

[NousDefionsDoc]

Well, in his defense, he was sickly...I mean sick. ;)

Edit to add - I'm stealing the first one to rub lib noses in it like a bad puppy.

[Achilles]

Die Tom Daschle!!!!

[Airbornelawyer]

One correction: Vermont is not the only state where Bush did worse. In South Dakota, he went from 60.3% to 59.9%. This can probably be attributed to Daschle's (ultimately unsuccessful) get-out-the-vote drive to save his own ass, rather than to any shift in the South Dakota electorate.

[Airbornelawyer]

Kerry improved on Gore's totals in 23 states and DC. Only in Vermont was this at Bush's expense. In the other states it was basically from Nader voters.It turns out it was 26 states.

However, the Nader thesis appears correct. When you factor in the Nader vote, the left did better in 2004 in only 7 states: Idaho, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming. Most of these are solidly Republican states; Vermont is strongly Democrat and New Hampshire remains a swing state. Only in Vermont and South Dakota was the left's improvement greater than 1% (3% in Vermont and 1.9% in South Dakota).

As I said above, South Dakota's shift is probably more about Daschle. Vermont's leftward shift is probably due to liberal Vermont Republicans following Sen. Jeffords out of the GOP.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Wonder what the NRA membership total looks like next to POTUS' win margin. :p

[The Reaper]

Wonder what the NRA membership total looks like next to POTUS' win margin. :p

More NRA members than the margin of victory.

You gotta love the Dems fascination with such a hot button topic motivating single-issue voters. I am sure that they will propose more stupid legislation in the future.

That should make the Republicans very happy.

The funniest thing to me is the libs wailing about the ignorant rednecks in the red states, after they courted the lowest of the underclass (like felons, illegal immigrants, frauds, etc.) for themselves.

TR

[Roguish Lawyer]

Interesting, AL. Especially in light of the pathetically bad campaign that Bush ran. He could have kicked Kerry's ass with better managers and better debate performances, IMHO.

[Doc]

Interesting, AL. Especially in light of the pathetically bad campaign that Bush ran. He could have kicked Kerry's ass with better managers and better debate performances, IMHO.

Concur.

[Doc]

I'll go further to say that Bush won because voters believed him to be the protector and a man who means what he says and says what he means. That slogan could have been taken right off a sign at the SFQC.

[Airbornelawyer]

One more observation.

A few months back, one of the major left-wing bloggers, probably suffering from tunnel-vision, stated he knew no Gore voter who would vote for Bush, and therefore there must not be any. He assumed Kerry would benefit from all Gore's voters and Nader voters returning to the fold, which would give Kerry at least 51%. Add in the expected edge the Democrats would have in new voters due to Rock the Vote!, MoveOn and all the 527 money, as well as libertarians, paleoconservatives and others who would switch from having supported Bush, and the only question for him was how big the Kerry landslide would be.

What actually happened?

The Nader voters did return to the fold. Nader got 2,882,728 votes in 2000, and only about 404,000 and counting this year. I doubt the Naderites went to Bush.

New voters weren't as big a boon as Soros and Puffy and the Boss thought. The exit poll showed a 53/46 edge for Kerry among new voters, though there's a large margin of error in that now-infamous exit poll.

Yet Kerry lost.

Dick Morris was right. Kerry could not simultaneously appeal to lefties to get the Naderites back and appeal to Democratic moderates and so-called "9-11 voters." For every Naderite he brought back, he lost more than one Democrat.

If new voters broke at the same rate as all voters, I estimate Kerry lost 3.1 million Gore voters to Bush. If the 53/46 new voter break is correct, Kerry lost almost 3.7 million Gore voters to Bush.

The left is blaming Karl Rove and his ignorant bible-thumpin' gay-hatin' evangelicals for their loss. No doubt some evangelicals were part of the mix, but it was the former Gore voters who changed the balance.

[brownapple]

The Nader voters did return to the fold. Nader got 2,882,728 votes in 2000, and only about 404,000 and counting this year. I doubt the Naderites went to Bush.


I've seen some analysis that thinks that the Naderites did not go to Kerry. That as a result of the "dirty tricks" by the Kerry campaign to keep Nader off the ballot in many states, the Naderites either voted for Bush out of anger or did not vote in the Presidential race at all.

No way to know, but it could be that the efforts to keep Nader off the ballot backfired.