After a close election last week that ended with President Bush
looking forward to another four years in office, there has been
speculation about what gave the incumbent candidate the edge and
pushed him to victory.
Throughout the campaign, both Bush and Sen. John Kerry focused
largely on national security and the war in Iraq, and many believed
these issues could make or break the election for either
candidate.
But in retrospect, particularly in light of the bans on gay
marriage which passed overwhelmingly in 11 states, some believe
domestic and moral issues trumped foreign policy as the deciding
factor in the 2004 presidential race.
Exit polls indicate that moral values, which encompass such
issues as abortion, stem cell research and gay marriage, were the
most important issues across the nation.
The economy, terrorism and the war in Iraq followed close behind
as concerns that were most important to voters.
The order in which voters value these issues fluctuated, with
Californians putting the highest priority on the war in Iraq while
the eastern U.S. was most concerned with terrorism.
In the Midwest, which includes important swing states and voted
almost entirely for Bush, morals were valued above any other single
concern and more than in any other region.
“The two biggest issues were this moral values thing and
the economy and jobs,” said Barbara Sinclair, professor and
Hoffenberg Chair in the UCLA political science department.
“You can reasonably assume that moral values … actually
caused people to vote for their candidate.”
“The people who thought moral values were the most
important issue went for Bush and the people who thought jobs were
the most important issue went to Kerry,” she added.
Internal politics were important to many voters as well.
“Domestic policy was especially important to me. I was
very worried at the lack of jobs. I’m very worried about
health care,” said Lauren Clark, a second-year history
student who voted for Kerry.
Students who voted for Kerry also considered how far government
should regulate such personal choices as marriage and abortion.
“There was a big concern about the overall role of
government in people’s lives, the blurring of separation
between church and state,” said Kristina Doan, president of
the Bruin Democrats.
Some students say they believe the government should have a
minimal role when it comes to marriage and abortion.
“It’s important to me that we don’t legislate
based on religious values,” said Janelle Smith, a second-year
psychobiology student who also voted for Kerry.
Other students were primarily concerned with security and
foreign relations.
Matt Knee, president of Bruin Republicans, said that
“security, bar none” was the most important issue he
considered in the 2004 election.
And Doan said she and other student Democrats were concerned
with how American foreign policy would affect the United
States’ image in the world.
The 2004 election was an anomaly in terms of foreign policy in
that the president remained in office despite a prolonged and
somewhat unpopular war that began under his administration,
according to Scott James, an associate professor of political
science at UCLA.
“It appears that the American people imposed no penalty on
the Bush administration for the ongoing war,” James said.
“Usually presidents are penalized when there’s an
ongoing war at the time of election.”
He sighted similar situations in the past, such as the
presidential elections during the war in Vietnam, the conflict in
Korea and the hostage situation in Iran in 1980, where presidents
suffered due to do being involved in a war.
As the election’s outcome shows, Kerry failed to
adequately gain support from voters and pull their support away
from Bush.
“They didn’t impose a penalty because Kerry
didn’t handle the issue well,” James said. “He
tried to be on both sides.”
Many voters pick a candidate for largely ideological reasons, to
take a concrete stand on a variety of issues regardless of the
personal practical implications of their choices.
“I think that most people who vote are doing it out of
ideology,” said Timothy Groseclose, an associate professor of
political science at UCLA.
Second-year Clark fell into that category: “It was just
general ideology more than anything,” she said, adding that
she disagreed with Bush on almost every issue.
According to Professor James, Republicans and Democrats both
will likely follow their party line because they agree with it
theoretically, not because it will benefit them personally.
And what the election may have come down to is that Bush more
effectively convinced the voters who aligned with his ideology to
go to polls and show their support than Kerry did with democratic
supporters.
“I would think what was probably most decisive was the
Republicans really did a better job in getting their folks out to
vote,” Sinclair said.
“Bush, it definitely can be argued, was a slightly better
campaigner. He stuck to one message,” Groseclose said.
And one group of people who came out to vote Republican this
year were those who were interested in such issues as abortion, gay
marriage and other moral issues.
“(The Republicans) got a lot of, essentially, the people
who were worried about cultural values,” Sinclair said.
But while some see the support of Americans who aligned with
Bush’s conservative cultural ideology as the tip factor in
the election, others do not.
“It’s a myth that it’s these new
conservative-values voters” who determined the election,
Groseclose said.
Bush’s status as an incumbent candidate may have been the
factor that gave him the needed edge that allowed him to assume
office for another four years.
“Bush got about a normal incumbent advantage,”
Groseclose said.
“Conservatives and liberals are divided approximately
50-50. What it comes down to is the moderate voters, and they tend
to vote for the incumbent a little more often,” he added.
“They give the benefit of doubt to an incumbent.”