THE 2004 ELECTION A footnote or a turning point? By William M. Lunch

What do the election results in 2004 mean? Does the victory by President George W. Bush signal, as some conservatives argue, the start of a period of political dominance by Republicans comparable to the one the GOP had in the first third of the 20th century? Or was this election just a footnote — a detour in an era of social and cultural change in which traditionally subordinate groups such as women and minorities sustain their movement toward greater equality in our culture and politics? We aren’t likely to know the answer for at least a couple of years, but there are some hints.

To understand the meaning of the election, we start with the results. In 2004, turnout went up significantly — more citizens registered and voted than at any time since 1968 — and the “red” (Republican) states shifted to the right to become “redder” while the “blue” (Democratic) states — including Oregon, Washington and California — shifted to the left to become “bluer.” To some extent, the red-blue divisions simply reflect urban-rural differences, certainly very familiar in the Northwest. We will return to those divisions in a bit, but for now it is enough to say that the United States became a more polarized nation in 2004. What happened in our corner of it?

Oregon, Washington and the Electoral College:
Almost from the very start of the 2004 presidential contest, the Northwest got plenty of attention because both Oregon and Washington were thought to be competitive — or “in play” — by both major political parties.

The attention focused on the two Northwest states could be traced, in large measure, to the Electoral College, the odd institution we use to elect presidents. It grew out of a compromise at the Constitutional convention, but unlike many other compromises in 1787, it did not work as intended. The intent of the founders was that the Electoral College would function rather like a nominating convention to send a number of major candidates for president to the U.S. House of Representatives, where the choice would be made. But as early as the election of 1796, roughly the current structure emerged in which electors are “pledged” to vote for a candidate of one or the other of the major political parties. Ever since, the basic structure of presidential elections has remained as it was in the 18th century.

Each state has a number of electoral votes equal to its total number of U.S. senators and representatives, ensuring small states have at least three electoral votes, but making the big states, such as California, with 55, the big prizes in the Electoral College. The Electoral College never meets; in fact, the electors travel to their own state capital in December to cast their ballots. But the electors are ciphers — their votes are known because they are pledged to vote for the presidential and vice presidential candidates of their party.

The Northwest: competitive for president in 2004?
In 2004, Oregon and Washington were targeted as “swing states,” meaning that it was thought they might vote for either Bush or Kerry early on in the presidential campaign. Most of the swing states, such as Ohio, Iowa and Wisconsin, were located in the upper Midwest. But Oregon and Washington were on lists that included no more than about 18 states that political strategists in both parties thought might switch from Republican to Democratic or vice-versa. So curiously enough, Oregon — with a population of about 3 1/2 million — received far more attention by the presidential candidates than did California, with a population approaching 35 million.

In the end, only three states changed from 2000 to 2004 — Iowa and New Mexico, which had voted narrowly for Gore, shifted to Bush, while New Hampshire, which had narrowly voted for Bush in 2000, shifted to Kerry in 2004. And recall that Bush is from Texas, next door to New Mexico, and Kerry’s Massachusetts is next door to New Hampshire.

Despite the extra attention and television ads, when votes for president were counted in Oregon and Washington, both states followed very familiar patterns, voting for Kerry by clear margins. Within the states, Eastern Oregon and Eastern Washington went solidly for Bush, but west of the mountains, Democratic support in the vote-rich urban counties, both in the Willamette Valley and the Puget Sound areas, carried the day. So the urban-rural split in Oregon and Washington was as evident in presidential voting in 2004 as it was in 2000.

Exit polls show the regional differences. In Oregon’s Multnomah County, voters favored Kerry two-to-one over Bush. In the Portland suburbs and the Salem area, the major candidates just about split the vote, but in Eastern and Southern Oregon, Bush won by almost two to one. In Washington, the patterns were similar: Kerry winning big in and around the central city and prevailing narrowly in the suburbs but losing to Bush in rural areas.

Traditional and emerging political divisions:
The Northwest regional pattern of the vote is similar but not identical to the national pattern.

Gender and Race: Most men in the Northwest favor the GOP, while most women favor the Democrats. Ethnic and racial minorities — African-Americans, Hispanics and Asians — all prefer the Democrats, though to different degrees. Whites favored Bush nationally but were tied in Oregon and preferred Kerry in Washington.

Education: Traditionally, the least educated voters — those without a high school diploma — have voted for Democrats, but that association is fading. As voters become better educated, larger proportions vote for Republicans — but not the best educated voters. In 2004, nationally, Bush lost narrowly among those without a high school diploma, won narrowly among high school graduates and did a little better among those with some college and college graduates. But Bush lost among the voters who have done post-graduate study. Much the same relationship between education and politics was evident in the Northwest.

Income: The relationship between income and the vote is simple in the nation: the higher a voter’s income, the more likely he or she is to vote for Republicans. But in Oregon, while the very highest income group voted for Bush, those with moderately high incomes, from $75,000 to $200,000, favored Kerry, along with the low-income constituency ($30,000 per year or less) long associated with the Democrats. Middle-income voters, from $30,000 to $75,000, supported Bush in both Oregon and Washington. So income did not work well to predict presidential votes in the Northwest in 2004. Instead, cultural divisions were prominent.

Cultural divisions: Divisions over race, religion and gender roles became much sharper in the 2000 and 2004 elections than they were even in the Cold War era. For example, by a variety of measures, the Northwest is the most secular region in the nation, and the political impact of that outlook was inescapable. Nationally, when voters were asked their religion, only 10 percent said “none,” but in Washington 16 percent gave that answer and in Oregon 28 percent of voters did. Non-religious voters favored Kerry over Bush widely, by 67 to 31 percent nationally; by 66 to 32 percent in Oregon; and 72 to 27 percent in Washington.

On another cultural front, when voters were asked if they are gay or lesbian, four percent answered yes nationally; 77 percent of those voted for Kerry. We do not have state poll data on that question, but in the West regionally, 75 percent of self-identified gays and lesbians voted for Kerry.

By contrast, 23 percent of white voters nationally identified themselves as evangelical or “born-again” religious believers. Among them, 78 percent voted for Bush. In Oregon, among whites identified as evangelical or born-again, 76 percent voted for Bush. The question was not reported for Washington, but 21 percent of voters there described themselves as white conservative Protestants; in that group, 88 percent voted for Bush.

At the local level:
The voters made many choices on Nov. 2. U.S. Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Patty Murray (D-WA) were easily re-elected. In both states, except for congressional districts where an incumbent was not running (open seats), incumbent members of the U.S. House of Representatives were re-elected. In the open districts, the political party that held the seat in 2002 retained it. So in Oregon, the House delegation remains four Democrats and one Republican, while in Washington, the House delegation is still six Democrats to three Republicans.

	At party headquarters in Corvallis, Republicans work to get voters to the polls.
	Party stalwarts watch election returns at Corvallis’ Democratic headquarters.

Washington voters also selected a new governor, after Gary Locke decided not to seek a third term. At this writing, the contest between Democratic Attorney General Christine Gregorie and former state Sen. Dino Rossi, the Republican, is still too close to call. A hand recount is in progress and should be completed by Dec. 22.

We began by noting that this year the “red” states became “redder” and the “blue” states “bluer.” That pattern was evident here. In Oregon, Democrats retook control of the state senate while winning every race for statewide office — secretary of state, state treasurer and attorney general. Washington Democrats retook control of their state Senate and with it the entire state legislature. So at the state level, Nov. 2 was a good day for Northwest Democrats, even if they were unhappy about the national results.

Race, religion, gender and new voters:
We return to our original question — what does all this mean? The answer is never completely clear. If it was, many pollsters and political scientists — probably including me — would be out of work.

Nonetheless, some patterns are evident. The old class-based political divisions that emerged out of the New Deal are fading nationally and have almost disappeared in the Northwest. Instead, cultural divisions that revolve around race, religion and now gender have become more powerful, as such divisions were from the end of the Civil War until the start of the Great Depression.

Nationally, this shift has strengthened the Republicans, particularly in the South, where whites now vote overwhelmingly for Republican candidates for Congress as well as president. African-American voters are almost unanimous in support of the Democrats but are outnumbered in every Southern state.

The great unanswered question is whether 2004 was a “realigning election,” one in which new political divisions became evident that will last for a generation. Do the cultural divisions that so heavily influenced voting patterns in 2004 signal a return to Republican political dominance, as the GOP enjoyed from 1896 to about 1932?

The year 2004 was one in which many millions of new voters joined the electorate for the first time. Voter registration tables popped up like spring flowers on college campuses all over the nation, including OSU, and millions of students registered for the first time.

It is typical of realigning elections that new voters appear in large numbers, but in such elections they have usually chosen the political party about to establish its dominance by wide margins. This time, most new voters — 11 percent of the national total — voted for Kerry, by 53 to 46 percent, as did new voters in Oregon by a two-to-one margin. Nationally, 54 percent of voters under 30 preferred Kerry to 45 percent for Bush. At the same time, Republicans succeeded in registering and turning out millions of religious conservatives, some of whom had not voted before, but many of whom were once Democrats.

Will the first-time young voters who chose Kerry or the religious conservatives who voted for Bush continue to register and vote? Perhaps both groups will remain politically engaged? As we say in broadcasting, stay tuned ... OSU

Oregon’s top political analyst Bill Lunch is professor and chair of the political science department at OSU and is the political analyst for Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB). In his academic work and teaching at OSU, Lunch emphasizes American national political institutions, Northwest regional politics, and environmental, natural resource and science policy. In 1986-87, students at OSU voted him the “outstanding faculty member” for his teaching; in 1993-94, a student honor society named him one of its “top profs” for his teaching and advising. Lunch has published a number of articles concerning American politics, elections, public opinion, and environmental, health and science policy. His work has appeared in the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and The Oregonian as well as academic journals. His book, The Nationalization of American Politics, was published by the University of California Press. He has recently written on national politics and political institutions and on political culture and controversies in Oregon and the Northwest, particularly concerning health care policy and the influence of extremist groups in the region. In 1998-99 Lunch served as president of the Pacific Northwest Political Science Association, a regional professional association. He has been OPB’s political analyst since 1988 and can be heard regularly on OPB radio. His political analysis also has been heard regionally on radio networks including the Northwest Public Affairs Network (NPAN), nationally on National Public Radio (NPR) and internationally on Canadian National Radio (CNR) and the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). He has won awards for his broadcasting for “Excellence in Commentary and Analysis” from the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) and the National Press Club. Lunch has spoken to many groups in Oregon and Washington including the Portland City Club, the Salem City Club, the Oregon Historical Society, the Oregon State Bar, the Oregon Public Health Association, and the Oregon and Washington library associations, among others.

Join The OSU Alumni Association and get the full magazine