darkstar0155
Member
I'll go ahead and play my usual role of PoliGAF's John Kerry Defense Force. Bush was a very polarizing president after the 9/11 effect wore off so I think it was pretty much inevitable that the 2004 election was going to be more of a referendum on him than anything else. This is a small data set to be working with, but in general you do tend to see especially high percentages of an incumbent's supporters voting "for their candidate" and their opponent's supporters voting "against the incumbent." 1992 doesn't really seem to fit that pattern. Perhaps Perot's strong third party run had something to do with that (or maybe my hypothesis is off). At the end of the day John Kerry was "generic Democrat" in many senses and he basically performed to expectations. I don't think he was a great candidate but I think he was better than, say, Dukakis or Gore.
I know more than a few dem leaning independents that voted Bush solely because they though he would be better to continue the war with than changing. I think that and the swift boater attacks is what mostly did him in.