Why did George W. Bush win on November 2?

Unlike in most elections, the economy did not play a key role. While not boom times, the country appears to have recovered from the end of the dot com bubble and recession, with substantial economic growth and, more recently, decent job growth. Indeed, the economy was in approximately the same good but not great condition as in 1996, when President Clinton was reelected.

Rather, this election, the first one contested since 9/11, was principally about national security. Most Americans believed that Mr. Bush was tough enough to be President and trusted him to do the right things. In his inspiring final commercial, principally broadcast in the swing states but available on his web site, Mr. Bush declared that he would never relent in defending America, “whatever it takes”. There were doubts at times about how efficient and effective the Bush Administration had been in its fight (for example, whether the war in Iraq was the right one and concerning the lack of weapons of mass destruction), but no one could doubt the President’s resolve, sincerity and willingness to get the job done.

As for John Kerry, he was a competent national candidate in the sense that he was able to deliver his message of overall change in a reasonably effective way. He also was able to galvanize support of the significant number of people who strongly disliked President Bush’s policies and would prefer almost anyone else. He also proved to be a good debater, generally scoring ahead of Mr. Bush each of the three forums. And to be fair to Mr. Kerry, with 48% of the popular vote and 252 electoral votes he obviously came close to winning.

Mr. Kerry’s problem, however, was that he was unable to define himself or his policies. His supporters were divided on the Iraq war, so he never could bring himself to say exactly what he had in mind, even in broad outline. Did he favor more troops, a faster pullout or the status quo on troop levels with some improvements? We never really learned and the senator certainly did not add to the clarity by famously voting both for and against the $87 billion war appropriation. Mr. Kerry favored closer relations with other nations and an unspecified “global test”, but we never were told what that meant in practice. At his convention in Boston, Mr. Kerry attempted to define himself by his Vietnam service but he did not address his later antiwar activities nor his consistent votes in the Senate against military actions and weapons systems. He also sought to portray himself as a moderate, despite been certified as having the most 2003 liberal voting record in the Senate.

Already a legend has grown up that Mr. Bush’s win was the result of a massive outpouring of intolerant fundamentalists in the Red States. Part of this was the result of a confusing question on exit polls concerning unspecified “moral values”, which many voters, especially those supporting Mr. Bush, unsurprisingly thought were important. But as David Brooks points out in The New York Times, the proportion of evangelical voters did not increase between 2000 and 2004. Also, while Bush voters, like voters in general, were against gay marriage, approximately 49% of the president’s supporters were open to civil unions. Although social issues were a backdrop in the election, this was a contest about national security and voters made their decision in favor of President Bush largely on that basis.