The 2004 Presidential Election

Paper Summary:

This paper explains that the turnout during the election was up sharply, meaning that both parties did a good job mobilizing their base supporters, leaving the election to the swing voters. The author points out that issues such as gay marriage, pro-life and choice, the selection of Supreme Court justices, the fear of terrorist attacks and the economy played a huge role in how people voted. The paper argues that Bush's campaign simply did a better job at solidifying his base in the South and West with those "good old country values", while Kerry did some "flip-flopping" that hurt his campaign among the swing voters. Charts.

From the Paper:

"Thus, in an election this close, one has to pay attention to the campaigns of each candidate. The nature of a campaign is to publicize its candidate and demonstrate his worth for office. Often times this worth is demonstrated simply by trying to prove one candidate better than the other. It has been proven, however, that campaigns do little to actually affect an election. Ideas of anchor partisanship and perceptual screening all feed into the idea that people are set in their views and already hold one candidate higher than the other. This preference plays itself out in a person's decision on all matters including a candidate's actions, speeches, and debates. In Appendix 2 we see how party lines influence our beliefs as to who actually won the presidential debates of 2004. Both candidates were declared victors by their respective party allegiances."

More papers on The 2004 Presidential Election:

• Comparison Essay # 53114 : "The 2004 Presidential Election"
• Essay # 2860 : "Media strategy for the 2004 Presidential Election"
• Essay # 63564 : "The 2004 U.S. Presidential Election"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: