A deepening divide between red and blue

"Democrats need to think about their message, and what they can do to broaden the appeal of that message," says Alan Abramowitz, a political scientist at Emory University.

Both candidates performed well among their respective bases, with Bush carrying white men and regular churchgoers, and Kerry winning strong support among African-Americans, as well as winning women.

Similarly, the ground game seemed to come out as a near-draw, with the relatively high turnout not giving either side a clear edge - though Kerry was expected to hold an advantage in that respect. Turnout was estimated at 112 million, higher than in 2000, but not quite as high as some earlier predictions had held. Notably, Kerry failed to generate a discernible surge in turnout among young voters, who were once seen as a possible hidden source of support: Only 10 percent of voters were age 18 to 24, roughly the same as in other recent elections, though they backed Kerry by roughly 10 points. [Editor's note: The original version incorrectly stated the percentage of voters who fell into the 18-24 age range.]

Bush drew support from three-quarters of evangelicals, who made up one-fifth of the electorate.

Voters were sharply split on a variety of issues, from the Iraq war to the economy to gay marriage.

Significantly, many of Kerry's voters were primarily motivated by opposition to Bush, rather than by strong enthusiasm for their own candidate - suggesting that anger may not have proved the motivating force many Democrats once believed it would be.

To some observers, Bush's victory was all the more striking as it came on the heels of a string of bad news, from violence and missing explosives in Iraq to high oil prices and the flu vaccine shortage. With a majority of voters believing the country was headed in the wrong direction, the challenge for Bush was to persuade enough of those voters that a change in leadership was too big a risk - something he did by pounding on Kerry as a flip-flopper who was soft on defense.

"What [the Bush campaign] did so effectively was make Kerry seem like an unacceptable alternative," says Bruce Buchanan, a political scientist at the University of Texas.

Kerry also struggled to connect with voters on a personal level, never managing to turn dissatisfaction with Bush's policies into a clear majority of support for his candidacy.

But others argue that Kerry actually faced an enormous challenge in running against an incumbent president during wartime - and point out that the senator managed to come extremely close to winning. And given the country's intense polarization, the outcome may have hinged less on what either campaign did than on national conditions and which side was ultimately more motivated.

"Kerry did about as well as the Democrats could have hoped," says Peverill Squire, a political scientist at the University of Iowa. "I'm not sure either candidate could have done much more than they did to change the course of the election."

Page: 1 | 2