I don't completely agree with the Jonathan Rauch column he is
trying to debunk, but Peter Wehner overstates his case in arguing that 2004 wasn't
basically a base election. Wehner recites some of the familiar
factoids: "President Bush increased his vote total from 2000 to
2004 by almost a quarter (23 percent)... President Bush not only
mobilized his base, he increased his popularity among Hispanics,
African Americans, Catholics, and Jews, to list just a few of the
non-traditional Republican groups whom Bush appealed to in his
reelection campaign. Bush also became the first president since
1988 to win more than 50 percent of the popular vote and received
the most votes by any presidential candidate in history."
Let's look at those non-base numbers first. Bush improved his
share of the African American vote from 9 percent in 2000 to 11
percent in 2004, a pretty modest increase. He also saw his
percentage of the Jewish vote rise from 19 percent to about 24
percent, again not exactly earth shattering. Among Hispanics, Bush
probably got closer to 40 percent than the 44 percent in widely
trumpeted early 2004 exit polls, about five points better than
2000. Bush lost every group he, according to Wehner, "increased his
popularity among," except for Catholics.
Now let's take a look at Bush's swelling vote totals overall
from 2000 and 2004. In 2000, the two candidates of the left -- Gore
and Nader -- together won about 51 percent of the vote. It was
therefore impressive for Bush to cobble together a majority in a
two-man race four years later, especially with such high turnout
from Democratic voting blocs. But there was high turnout from
Republican voting blocs as well, including evangelicals. Both
parties turned out their base. That's why "Bush received the most
votes by any presidential candidate in history," and it's also why
John Kerry received the second most votes of any presidential
candidate in history.
In the end, Bush was reelected with just 51 percent of the vote.
That is roughly three points better than his 2000 showing, despite
9/11, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush tax cuts, and all
the benefits of incumbency. He flipped exactly two states, Iowa and
New Mexico, while losing New Hampshire.
All that is to say, despite all the improvements in raw numbers,
2004 looked mostly like 2000. Which is to say, mostly like a base
election.
topics:
Iraq, Africa
