2004 United States presidential election
The U.S. presidential election of 2004 took place on Election Day, Tuesday, November 2. The Republican candidate, George W. Bush, won re-election to the presidency over his Democratic rival, Senator John Kerry by over three million votes and thirty-five electoral college votes. Bush was inaugurated to a second four-year term on Thursday, January 20, 2005.
Overview
Among the features of the results (based on the currently available, uncertified vote totals as of November 9, 2004) were the following:
- George W. Bush became the first candidate since his father—George H. W. Bush, in winning election in 1988—to receive a majority of the popular vote (that is, over 50% of it); it also marked the seventh consecutive election in which the Democratic nominee failed to reach that threshold.
- At least 12 million more votes were cast than in the 2000 election. The record turnout—the highest since 1968—was attributed partly to the intensity of the division between the candidates and partly to intensive voter registration and get-out-the-vote efforts by both major parties and their allies.
- The large turnout enabled each major-party candidate to set a record. Bush received the largest number of votes of any Presidential candidate in U.S. history. Kerry, however, also received more votes than any candidate in any previous U.S. election, though not as many as Bush in this election.
- Bush won with the smallest margin of victory for a sitting president in U.S. history in terms of the percentage of the popular vote. (Bush received 2.5% more than Kerry; the closest previous margin won by a sitting President was 3.2% for Woodrow Wilson in 1916.) In terms of absolute number of popular votes, his victory margin (approximately 3 million votes) was the smallest of any sitting President since Harry S. Truman in 1948. Furthermore, more votes were cast for candidates other than the winner than in any previous U.S. presidential election.
- Aside from the 2000 election (which Bush won by just 5 votes in the Electoral College), it was the smallest margin of victory won in the Electoral College since 1916, when Woodrow Wilson beat Charles Evans Hughes by 23 votes, 277 to 254.
- The counties where Bush led in the popular vote amount to 83% of the geographic area of the U.S. (excluding Alaska, which did not report results by county, but had all districts but one of the two in Juneau vote for Bush).
- Only three states picked a winner from a different party than they had in 2000. Bush took Iowa and New Mexico (combined 12 electoral votes), both won by Democrat Al Gore in 2000, while Kerry took New Hampshire (4 electoral votes), which Bush had won.
- As in 2000, electoral votes split along sharp geographical lines: The west coast, northeast, and most of the Great Lakes region for Kerry, and the southeast, Great Plains, and Mountain states for Bush.
- Minor-party candidates received many fewer votes, dropping from a total of 3.5 per cent in 2000 to approximately one percent. As in 2000, Ralph Nader finished in third place, but his total declined from 2.9 million to 400,000, leaving him with fewer votes than Pat Buchanan had received in finishing fourth in 2000. The combined minor-party total was the lowest since 1988.
- The election marked the first time an incumbent president was re-elected while his political party increased its numbers in both houses of Congress since Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1936 election. It was the first time for a Republican since William McKinley in the 1900 election.
The entire House of Representatives (435 members) and approximately one-third of the Senate (34 of 100 members) were also up for election. The Republican Party increased its majorities in both houses of Congress. (See the U.S. House election, 2004 and the U.S. Senate election, 2004 for more information.)
Election results
The following figures for the popular vote are preliminary and unofficial (from [1]). In many states, the final official figures will be different after the counting of absentee ballots and provisional ballots. Charges of voter suppression or malfunctioning voting machines are not reflected in the totals provided by election officials or reported here.
The members of the Electoral College formally voted on December 13, 2004. On January 6, 2005, when Congress met for the official counting of the electoral votes, Democratic Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones and Senator Barbara Boxer made an official objection to the counting of Ohio's electoral votes. As a result, the House and Senate separately debated the inclusion of Ohio's votes. Within four hours of the objection, however, the last effective challenge to the election results ended, when the Senate voted 74–1 and the House voted 267–31 to reject the challenge to Ohio's votes. The counting process is detailed in the United States Code (specifically 3 USC §§ 15, 16, 17, and 18).
In the final accepted count, Bush received 286 electoral votes, and Kerry received 251. One vote went to Kerry's running mate, John Edwards, when one of the electors pledged to Kerry voted for Edwards instead. For Vice President, 286 votes went to Bush's running mate, Dick Cheney, and 252 to Edwards.
Even if Congress had voted to reject Ohio's 20 electoral votes, the outcome would have been the same. With 518 valid votes cast (instead of 538), the majority necessary for election by the Electoral College under the Twelfth Amendment would have been 260 votes, which Bush and Cheney, each with 266, would have reached. If Ohio's votes had been deemed to have been cast, but not counted, so that no candidate had a majority, Bush and Cheney would have certainly been chosen by the House and Senate, respectively, under the Twelfth Amendment's procedures.
| Presidential Candidate | Running Mate | Party | Electoral Vote (EV) | Popular Vote (PV) | Ballot Access | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| George W. Bush of Texas (W) | Richard B. Cheney of Wyoming | Republican | 286 | 62,028,194 | 50.73% | 50+DC |
| John F. Kerry of Massachusetts | John Edwards of North Carolina | Democrat | 251 | 59,027,612 | 48.28% | 50+DC |
| John Edwards of North Carolina | John Edwards of North Carolina | Democrat | 1 | (not running) | 0 | 0 |
| Ralph Nader of Connecticut | Peter Miguel Camejo of California | Independent, Reform | 0 | 456,356 | 0.38% | 34+DC |
| Michael Badnarik of Texas | Richard Campagna of Iowa | Libertarian | 0 | 396,888 | 0.32% | 48+DC |
| Michael Peroutka of Maryland | Chuck Baldwin of Florida | Constitution | 0 | 142,841 | 0.12% | 36 |
| David Cobb of California | Patricia LaMarche of Maine | Green | 0 | 119,465 | 0.10% | 27+DC |
| Others | 0 | 96,197 | 0.08% | N/A | ||
| Totals | 538 | 122,267,553 | 100.00 | N/A | ||
| Other elections: 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012 (complete list at the end of the page) | ||||||
See also U.S. presidential election, 2004 (detail). For members of the 2004 United States Electoral College, see United States presidential electors, 2004.
"Faithless elector" in Minnesota
One elector in Minnesota cast a ballot for president with the name of "John Ewards" (sic) written on it. The Electoral College officials certified this ballot as a vote for John Edwards for president. The remaining nine electors cast ballots for John Kerry. All ten electors in the state cast ballots for John Edwards for Vice President. (John Edwards' name was spelled correctly on all ballots for Vice President.) This was the first time in U.S. history that an elector had voted for the same person for both President and Vice President.
Electoral balloting in Minnesota was performed by secret ballot, and none of the electors admitted to casting the Edwards vote for President, so it may never be known who was the "faithless elector". It is not even known whether the vote for Edwards was deliberate or accidental, although the Republican Secretary of State and several of the Democratic electors and have expressed the belief that this was an accident.
Electoral vote error in New York
New York's initial electoral vote certificate indicated that all of its 31 electoral votes for president were cast for "John L. Kerry of Massachusetts" instead of John F. Kerry, who won the popular vote in the state. This appears to have been a typographical error, and an amended electoral vote certificate with the correct middle initial was transmitted to the President of the Senate prior to the official electoral vote count.
Presidential/Vice Presidential candidates
There were six candidates who were on the ballot in states with enough electoral votes to have a theoretical chance of winning a majority in the Electoral College. For other candidates, see List of candidates in the U.S. presidential election, 2004.
On March 10, Bush officially clinched the number of delegates needed to be nominated at the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York City. Bush accepted the nomination on September 2, 2004 and selected Vice President Cheney as his running mate. Bush faced only token opposition in Republican primaries. The Bush/Cheney ticket appeared on the ballot in all 50 states, plus the District of Columbia. (In New York, the ticket was also on the ballot as candidates of the Conservative Party of New York State.) See also George W. Bush presidential campaign, 2004 and U.S. Republican Party presidential nomination, 2004.
On March 11, after meetings with Democratic superdelegates in Washington, D.C. and former primary election opponents, Massachusetts Senator Kerry accumulated the 2,162 delegates required to clinch the nomination. The Democratic National Committee's website acknowledged him as the party's nominee at that time, almost three months prior to the party convention. Had something happened to Kerry before the election, the DNC would likely have been the main body involved in choosing an alternate nominee—most likely Kerry's running mate, U.S. Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, announced on July 6. Senators Kerry and Edwards were formally nominated by the Democratic Party at the July 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston, Massachusetts. The Kerry/Edwards ticket was on the ballot in all 50 states, plus the District of Columbia. In New York, the ticket was also on the ballot as candidates of the Working Families Party. See also the John Kerry presidential campaign, 2004 and U.S. Democratic Party presidential nomination, 2004.
Nader, although initially running as an independent, was listed in several states as the Reform Party candidate, the Populist Party candidate, the Better Life Party candidate, or the PEC candidate. In other states he was not a candidate because he did not meet the requirements in those states for ballot access. He was endorsed by the Reform Party; however, the Reform Party had earlier split into multiple parties, and in many states what used to be the Reform Party is now the America First Party, which did not endorse Nader.
Nader was on the ballot in 34 states plus DC.
On September 18, 2004, the Florida Supreme Court ordered that Nader be included on the ballot in Florida for the election. The court rejected arguments that the Reform Party did not meet the requirements of the Florida election code for access to the ballot — that the party must be a "national party" and that it must have nominated its candidate in a "national convention" — and therefore Nader should have attempted to file as an independent candidate. Specifically, the court ruled that the term "national party" must be interpreted as broadly as possible. Florida is a swing state that was the subject of much controversy in the previous election.
Badnarik was nominated by delegates to the Libertarian Party National Convention on May 30, 2004 in Atlanta, Georgia. In the closest presidential race in Libertarian Party history, Badnarik beat Talk radio host Gary Nolan and Emmy and Tony award-winning producer Aaron Russo on the third ballot. The three candidates were separated by only a handful of votes on the first two ballots. The candidates debated each other at various state Libertarian Party conventions leading up to the national convention. The debate held at the Libertarian Party of California convention (this year March 12-14 in San Jose) was aired by C-SPAN and PBS. State parties often conduct non-binding straw polls following their debate and may then vote to endorse a candidate. However, as is normal practice, delegates to the national convention voted freely for the candidate of their choice. The Badnarik/Campagna ticket was on the ballot in 48 states and the District of Columbia, the largest number of states and number of electoral votes for any third party. The Libertarian Party failed to gain ballot access in New Hampshire and Oklahoma. See also U.S. Libertarian Party presidential nomination, 2004.
The Constitution Party nominated Peroutka for President on June 25, 2004 and Baldwin for Vice President on the 26th. Former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, a possible Constitution Party presidential nominee, did not attend the convention. The Peroutka/Baldwin ticket was on the ballot in 36 states.
Cobb was chosen as the Presidential candidate of the Green Party on the second ballot at the Green National Convention on June 25, 2004; LaMarche was nominated as the party's Vice Presidential candidate. It is notable that Nader was seeking the endorsement of the Green Party for his presidential run, but the membership decided to nominate Cobb as the Green Party presidential candidate, in part due to an eagerness among Greens to distance the party from the "spoiler" label. The Cobb/LaMarche ticket was on the ballot in 27 states, plus the District of Columbia.
Timeline
See U.S. presidential election, 2004 timeline
Debates
See U.S. presidential election debates, 2004
Three presidential debates were organized by the Commission on Presidential Debates:
- September 30 at the University of Miami, with questions from moderator Jim Lehrer of PBS. Topics were foreign policy and homeland security.
- October 8 at Washington University in St. Louis, in a town-hall format moderated by Charles Gibson of ABC.
- October 13 at Arizona State University, with questions from moderator Bob Schieffer of CBS. Topics were domestic and economic policy.
One vice-presidential debate was held:
- October 5 at Case Western Reserve University, moderated by Gwen Ifill of PBS.
Newspaper endorsements
The online edition of Editor & Publisher, a journal covering the North American newspaper industry, tabulated newspaper endorsements for the two major candidates. As of November 1, 2004, their tally showed the following:
| Endorsements | ||||
| 2004 | 2000 | |||
| Bush | Gore | Neutral, Unknown | ||
| Bush | 189 | 93 | 8 | 88 |
| Kerry | 208 | 43 | 94 | 71 |
Main article: Newspaper endorsements in the U.S. presidential election, 2004
Electoral College changes from 2000
The U.S. population is continuously shifting, and some states grow in population faster than others. With the completion of the 2000 census, Congressional re-apportionment took place, moving some representative districts from the slowest growing states to the fastest growing. As a result, some states will send a different number of electors to the U.S. Electoral College, since the number of electors allotted to a state is equal to the sum of the number of Senators and Representatives from that state.
The following table shows the change in electors from the 2000 election. Red states represent those won by Bush; and Blue states, those won by both Gore and Kerry. All the states listed use a winner-take-all allocation of electors. Each of these states was won by the same party in 2000 that won it in 2004; thus, George W. Bush won a net gain of seven votes due to reapportionment, reflecting changes in population.
| Gained votes | Lost votes |
|---|---|
|
|
(This table uses the currently common Red->Republican, Blue->Democratic color association, as do the maps on this page. Some older party-affiliation maps on Wikipedia use the opposite color coding, for historical reasons.)
Vote splitting concerns
Some supporters of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry were concerned that the independent candidacy of Ralph Nader would split the vote against the incumbent, thus allowing the Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush to win the 2004 election. Many Democrats blame Ralph Nader for splitting the vote in the 2000 presidential election when he ran as the candidate of the Green Party.
Such splits are of particular concern because most states assign the presidential electors they send to the Electoral College, to the candidate with the most votes (a plurality), even if those votes are less than 50 percent of the total votes cast—in such a situation, a relatively small number of votes can make a very big difference. For instance a candidate who won narrow pluralities in a significant number of states could win a majority in the electoral college even though they did not win a majority or even a plurality of the national popular vote. While Ralph Nader and the Green Party ultimately support replacing the Electoral College with direct popular elections, both have also suggested that states instead use instant-runoff voting to select their presidential electors, which would partially address the issue of vote splitting.
Opponents of Ralph Nader's candidacy often referred to vote splitting as the spoiler effect. Some voters who preferred Ralph Nader's positions over John Kerry's voted for John Kerry to avoid splitting the vote against the incumbent, claiming to be choosing the "lesser of two evils." These voters often used slogans such as, "anybody but Bush," and "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush." A group of people who supported Nader in 2000 have released a statement, entitled Vote to Stop Bush, urging support for Kerry/Edwards in swing states.
Battleground states
See 2004 swing state section in Swing states.
During the campaign and as the results came in on the night of the election there was much focus on Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania. These three "swing" states were seen as evenly-divided, and with each casting 20 electoral votes or more they had the power to decide the election. As the final results came in, Kerry took Pennsylvania and then Bush took Florida, focusing all attention on Ohio.
The morning after the election both candidates were virtually neck-and-neck and it was clear that the result in Ohio, which along with two other states (New Mexico and Iowa) had still not declared, would decide the winner. Bush had established a lead of around 130,000 votes but the Democrats pointed to provisional ballots that had yet to be counted, initially reported to number as high as 200,000. Bush had preliminary leads of less than 5 percent of the vote in only four states, but even if Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico had all eventually gone to Kerry, a Bush win in Ohio would have created a 269-269 tie in the Electoral College, resulting in the House of Representatives voting to decide the winner, with each state, regardless of its population, casting one vote. That scenario would almost certainly have resulted in a Bush victory, because Republicans control more House delegations. Therefore, the outcome of the election hinged solely on the result in Ohio, regardless of the final totals elsewhere. In the afternoon Ohio's Secretary of State, Kenneth Blackwell, announced that it was statistically impossible for the Democrats to make up enough valid votes in the provisional ballots, now reportedly numbering 140,000 (and later still estimated to be only 135,000), to win, and John Kerry conceded defeat.
The upper midwest bloc of Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin is also notable, casting a sum of 27 electoral votes. However, all the swing states are important. The following is list of the states considered swing states in the 2004 election by most news organizations and which candidate they eventually went for. The two major parties chose to focus their advertising on these states:
- Colorado (Bush)
- Florida (Bush)
- Iowa (Bush)
- Maine (Kerry)
- Michigan (Kerry)
- Minnesota (Kerry)
- New Hampshire (Kerry)
- New Mexico (Bush)
- Nevada (Bush)
- Ohio (Bush)
- Oregon (Kerry)
- Pennsylvania (Kerry)
- West Virginia (Bush)
- Wisconsin (Kerry)
New during this campaign
International observers
At the request of the United States government, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) sent a team of observers to monitor the presidential elections in 2004. It was the first time the OSCE had sent observers to a US presidential election, although they had been invited in the past [2]. In September 2004 The OSCE issued a report (PDF 168K) on US electoral processes.[3][4]
Earlier, some 13 US Representatives from the Democratic Party had sent a letter to United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan asking for the UN to monitor the elections. The UN responded that such a request could only come from the official national executive. The move was met by considerable opposition from Republican lawmakers [5]. The OSCE is not affiliated with the United Nations.
International observers faced a number of hurdles. Because US electoral law is largely state law, individual US states could refuse to allow them to observe the elections on various grounds; for instance, a state law may require observers to be registered voters from the area [6].
Electronic voting
Some states rushed to have new electronic voting systems operational for the 2004 election. Many security analysts warned that computer voting terminals had a significant possibility of voter fraud or data corruption by a software attack. Others said that recounts would be nearly impossible with the machines and criticised the lack of a "paper trail", which is included in many other trivial events such as grocery shopping or using an ATM. Machines which do not use a paper trail are called Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) systems. One of the largest manufacturers of DRE voting systems is Diebold, also a manufacturer of ATMs. Author Bev Harris, in her book Black Box Voting, describes in detail the problems created by DRE systems.
Proponents of computer voting say that the intent of the voter can be recorded with greater certainty and accuracy than using paper ballots.
Better World Links on Electronic Voting
Campaign law changes
The 2004 election was the first to be affected by the campaign finance reforms mandated by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as the McCain-Feingold Bill for its sponsors in the United States Senate). Because of the Act's restrictions on candidates' and parties' fundraising, a large number of so-called 527 groups emerged. Named for a section of the Internal Revenue Code, these groups were able to raise large amounts of money for various political causes as long as they do not coordinate their activities with political campaigns. Examples of 527s include Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, MoveOn.org, The Media Fund, and America Coming Together. Many such groups were active throughout the campaign season. (There was some similar activity, although on a much lesser scale, during the 2000 campaign.)
To distinguish official campaigning from independent campaigning, political advertisements on television were required to include a verbal disclaimer identifying the organization responsible for the advertisement. Advertisements produced by political campaigns usually included the statement "I'm [candidate's name], and I approve this message." Advertisements produced by independent organizations usually included the statement "[Organization name] is responsible for the content of this advertisement" and, from September 3 (60 days before the general election), such organizations' ads were prohibited from mentioning any candidate by name. Previously, television advertisements only required a written "paid for by" disclaimer on the screen.
This law was not well known or widely publicized at the beginning of the Democratic primary season, which led to some early misperception of Howard Dean, who was the first candidate to buy television advertising in this election cycle. Not realizing that the law required the phrasing, some people viewing the ads reportedly questioned why Dean might say such a thing—such questions were easier to ask because of the maverick nature of Dean's campaign in general.
Colorado's Amendment 36
- Main article: Colorado Amendment 36
A ballot initiative in Colorado, known as Amendment 36, would have changed the way in which the state apportions its electoral votes. Rather than assigning all 9 of the state's electors to the candidate with a plurality of popular votes, under the amendment Colorado would have assigned presidential electors proportionally to the statewide vote count, which would be a unique system (Nebraska and Maine assign electoral votes based on vote totals within each congressional district). The amendment ultimately failed, receiving only 34% of the vote.
Legal challenges
Election watchers and political analysts forecast a number of contested election results in a manner similar to the Florida voting recount of 2000. Various states grappled with their own legal issues that could have affected the outcome of the vote, while both of the major political parties and a number of independent groups like the ACLU marshalled numbers of lawyers.
In several states including Ohio, Colorado, Florida, and Nevada, there were lawsuits or other disputes about such issues as "voter challenging," voter registration, and absentee ballots. These were considered unlikely to change the Electoral College result. In Florida, for example, multiple lawsuits were filed even before the election, but few observers expected any of them to change the official result that Bush had outpolled Kerry by roughly 400,000 votes. As of the morning of November 3rd, the deciding state in the electoral vote count was Ohio, where Bush held a 136,000 vote lead. Democrats' hopes rested on the approximately 135,000 provisional ballots that had yet to be counted. Nevertheless, after concluding that a recount would not likely change the election results, Kerry conceded defeat at about 11:00 EST that morning. The Republican Party declared victory on the afternoon of November 3rd.
Two of the third-party candidates, Badnarik and Cobb, cooperated in requesting a recount of the Ohio vote; although, Cobb led the effort. After announcing their intention and soliciting donations, they quickly raised $150,000 to cover the state's required fee and other costs. A statewide recount of the presidential vote was completed; however, some observers claim that the recount was conducted improperly, and illegally, and have filed a new lawsuit, which is currently pending. The Congressional Democrats who objected to the counting of Ohio's electoral votes relied on part on information about voting irregularities provided by observers working for the Cobb campaign.
Election controversy
Main articles: 2004 U.S. election voting controversies (summary); 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities (detail).
After the election, some sources have reported early indications of possible data irregularities and systematic flaws during the voting process, which are covered in detail by the election controversy articles. Although the overall result of the election were not challenged by the Kerry campaign, third-party presidential candidates David Cobb and Michael Badnarik obtained a recount in Ohio. This recount was completed December 28, 2004, amid allegations of illegal recount procedures in many counties. Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee, and other political organizations, are investigating further. No comprehensive independently reviewed analyses have yet been publically released, but the People for the American Way Foundation produced a preliminary report on vote suppresion in the election (pdf) and the House Judiciary Committee Democrats released a 100-page status report (pdf) on irregularities and potential illegal conduct in Ohio.
One part of the controversy relates to electronic and optical-scan voting machines, which were used in greater numbers than before due to concerns over the reliability of manual machines raised during the 2000 election. Other reported problems relate to abnormally high voter turnout (more votes in many precincts than registered voters in said precincts), discrepancies between exit poll data and actual results especially in swing states, and the complications which arose due to machine shortages, particularly in highly-democratic areas and in closely contested states.
In the January 6 House of Representatives vote at the official counting of the electoral votes, the motion to reject Ohio's electoral votes was supported by 31 Democrats. It was opposed by 178 Republicans, 88 Democrats and one independent. Not voting were 52 Republicans and 80 Democrats. [7] Four people elected to the House had not yet taken office, and one seat was vacant. When the Senate rejected a similar motion, it was supported only by its maker, Senator Boxer, with 74 Senators opposed and 25 not voting. During the debate, not one Senator, either Democrat or Republican, argued that the outcome of the election should be changed by either court challenge or re-vote.
Miscellaneous
See Post Election Selection Trauma, Bev Harris, 2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities for current issues. Results of the U.S. presidential election, 2004 links to the certified results for each state, giving the votes for each candidate and some links to states where results are available by county.
See also
- U.S. House election, 2004
- U.S. Senate election, 2004
- Canada and the 2004 U.S. presidential election
- 2004 U.S. election in progress
- Other close U.S. presidential elections: 1800, 1844, 1876, 1884, 1888, 1916, 1960, 1968, 1976, 2000
External links and references
Official Candidate Websites (Alphabetical, by Last Name)
- Michael Badnarik (Libertarian)
- George W. Bush (Republican) (Now redirects to national Republican Party website located below)
- David Cobb (Green)
- John Kerry (Democrat)
- Ralph Nader (Independent)
- Michael Peroutka (Constitution)
Official Party Websites (Alphabetical, by Political Party)
- Constitution Party
- Democratic National Committee
- Green Party of the United States
- Libertarian Party
- Reform Party
- Republican National Committee
Election video archive
- Internet Archive's Election 2004 archive has lots of freely downloadable movies
Election 2004 link directories
- Over 3000 Links on the U.S. Presidential Election 2004
- Open Directory Project - Presidential Campaign 2004 category
- Yahoo! - 2004 Presidential Election
- Looksmart - US Presidential Election 2004
- E-Democracy.US Election 2004 Links
State-by-state forecasts of electoral vote outcome
- Probability analysis of Electoral College based on latest poll results by state
- Electoral Vote Predictor 2004
- Election Projection: Detailed electoral analysis, updated frequently
- Coldheartedtruth Battleground States Election Projection
- Federal Review Composite Poll
- Larry J. Sabato's Crystal Ball
- Professor Pollkatz's Pool of Polls
- Wake Up America Election Projections
- Running the Numbers: Election 2004
- Swing State Project
- Hedgehog Report's Bush vs. Kerry
- President Elect: swing-state analysis, updated infrequently
- Race 2004
- Dale's Electoral College Breakdown 2004
- http://polls.ontheweb.nl/
- USA Today polls
- Electoral college simulations
Analysis of the Election
- Prof. Sam Wang's Electoral College Meta-Analysis
- Gallup Poll: LATEST SNAPSHOT Based on Likely Voters
- US Election 2004 Web Monitor
- Estimated odds of various election outcomes
- Analysis of misleading advertising from both Bush and Kerry
- Coldhearted analysis of the election
- Hedgehog Report
- Electoral Vote Predictor
- Alternate views of the electoral results map
Minnesota electoral voting snafu
New York electoral voting snafu
Election 2004 global debate and voting
Election 2004 protests
Election 2004 news media
- Better World Links on Election News
- Associated Press Presidential Elections
- BBC Vote USA 2004
- CNN America Votes 2004
- Fox News You Decide 2004: Election 2004 coverage
- The Guardian US Elections 2004
- The Washington Post Election 2004 coverage
- Yahoo! News Election 2004
- Directory of Media Endorsements including links to read them and some 2000 vs. 2004 endorsement analysis.
News articles
- Green Party considers 2004 strategy - MSNBC, July 2003
Election campaign funding
- 2004 Center for Responsive Politics compiles data about who gives and who receives
- Money Maps