Thursday, November 04, 2004
51-48
by the Editors
Post date: 11.04.04
Issue date: 11.15.04
his hurts. The convictions and the dreams of American liberalism have genuinely failed to carry the day; and so, for the sake of liberalism, but also for the sake of America, it is the hour for making discriminations among the varieties of despair.
There certainly are grounds for despair. In their first term, without a popular mandate, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney governed in a radically sectarian manner, in conformity with only the wishes of their hallowed base; and there is no reason to think that the popular mandate that they have now secured for a second term will provoke them to reconsider their virulence and their smallness and their indifference to the evidence of experience beyond their own. In the aftermath of this election, the president speaks about unifying the country, but he spoke that way in the aftermath of the last election, and he became the most spectacular disuniter of America in contemporary history. We must not expect the Bush administration to rise above its theology, its secrecy, its instrumental attitude toward the courts, its sympathy for the rich, its economicist approach to health care, its easy conscience about the exploitation of the environment, its belief in its own infallibility, its regular sensation of perfection. There is no sign that the Bush administration has any good idea about how to correct its course in Iraq or to put an end once and for all to Osama bin Laden; or that it regards anti-Americanism as a serious impediment to American values and American interests abroad. The Bush administration may now be expected to behave triumphally and (as the talking heads say) to move forward with its agenda. Hard times, brutish times, lie ahead.
But there is a kind of despair, a glamorous pessimism, that liberals must at all costs avoid. The cartography of the electoral college may show a continent of red with some blue lesions at the extremities; but the popular vote in the election of 2004 was 51 percent for Bush and 48 for Kerry, and those are not the numbers of a political or philosophical rout. Fifty-one to forty-eight: Those are the numbers, rather, of a conspicuously unclear and unthrilling Democratic candidate, whose advantage in money did not offset a disadvantage in authenticity. But the important point is that, all the healing pieties of the morning after notwithstanding, this is a country divided against itself about many matters of first principle. The diversity of worldviews upon which we pride ourselves is haunting us. In such a welter of fundamental differences, the work of argument and organization becomes even more necessary. American liberalism did not die on November 2. It merely lost an election.
There is honor, moreover, in a certain kind of loss. In our distracted and accelerated and gamed society, with its religion of winning, we sometimes forget this. But the many millions of Americans who believe that the tax code should be more fair; and that one of the ends of government is to bother itself about its neediest and least fortunate citizens; and that the morality of the market is not all the morality that a society requires; and that the Bible is not the basis of a democratic political order, or of our political order; and that robust stem-cell research, and science more generally, is a primary social good; and that gay marriage is a question of equality and not the beginning of the end of civilization; and that American troops must not be sent to war ignorantly or dogmatically, or without the means to win; and that the good reputation of the United States in the world is one of its most powerful historical instruments--the many millions of Americans who believe these things are not wrong. They are merely not a majority. But they are a very large minority.
This is not to say that the wounding outcome of this election should fill liberals with a sense of their own purity. Not everybody to the left of Bush is like everybody else to the left of Bush; and it would be catastrophic for the Democratic Party to wallow now in the sort of Michael Moore leftishness that made many Americans worry whether John Kerry was sufficiently obsessed with American security, and sufficiently excited about American power, to protect them at home and to promote their purposes abroad. (On the question of American power, the American people are right and Ted Kennedy is wrong.) An internecine quarrel must now begin. But it cannot begin where there is only alienation, and the self-fulfilling confusion of the Bush administration with the United States of America. This country is bigger than its every president. This Constitution is not easy to destroy. This is not the apocalypse. But it is the most formidable challenge to American liberalism in our time.
the Editors
by the Editors
Post date: 11.04.04
Issue date: 11.15.04
his hurts. The convictions and the dreams of American liberalism have genuinely failed to carry the day; and so, for the sake of liberalism, but also for the sake of America, it is the hour for making discriminations among the varieties of despair.
There certainly are grounds for despair. In their first term, without a popular mandate, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney governed in a radically sectarian manner, in conformity with only the wishes of their hallowed base; and there is no reason to think that the popular mandate that they have now secured for a second term will provoke them to reconsider their virulence and their smallness and their indifference to the evidence of experience beyond their own. In the aftermath of this election, the president speaks about unifying the country, but he spoke that way in the aftermath of the last election, and he became the most spectacular disuniter of America in contemporary history. We must not expect the Bush administration to rise above its theology, its secrecy, its instrumental attitude toward the courts, its sympathy for the rich, its economicist approach to health care, its easy conscience about the exploitation of the environment, its belief in its own infallibility, its regular sensation of perfection. There is no sign that the Bush administration has any good idea about how to correct its course in Iraq or to put an end once and for all to Osama bin Laden; or that it regards anti-Americanism as a serious impediment to American values and American interests abroad. The Bush administration may now be expected to behave triumphally and (as the talking heads say) to move forward with its agenda. Hard times, brutish times, lie ahead.
But there is a kind of despair, a glamorous pessimism, that liberals must at all costs avoid. The cartography of the electoral college may show a continent of red with some blue lesions at the extremities; but the popular vote in the election of 2004 was 51 percent for Bush and 48 for Kerry, and those are not the numbers of a political or philosophical rout. Fifty-one to forty-eight: Those are the numbers, rather, of a conspicuously unclear and unthrilling Democratic candidate, whose advantage in money did not offset a disadvantage in authenticity. But the important point is that, all the healing pieties of the morning after notwithstanding, this is a country divided against itself about many matters of first principle. The diversity of worldviews upon which we pride ourselves is haunting us. In such a welter of fundamental differences, the work of argument and organization becomes even more necessary. American liberalism did not die on November 2. It merely lost an election.
There is honor, moreover, in a certain kind of loss. In our distracted and accelerated and gamed society, with its religion of winning, we sometimes forget this. But the many millions of Americans who believe that the tax code should be more fair; and that one of the ends of government is to bother itself about its neediest and least fortunate citizens; and that the morality of the market is not all the morality that a society requires; and that the Bible is not the basis of a democratic political order, or of our political order; and that robust stem-cell research, and science more generally, is a primary social good; and that gay marriage is a question of equality and not the beginning of the end of civilization; and that American troops must not be sent to war ignorantly or dogmatically, or without the means to win; and that the good reputation of the United States in the world is one of its most powerful historical instruments--the many millions of Americans who believe these things are not wrong. They are merely not a majority. But they are a very large minority.
This is not to say that the wounding outcome of this election should fill liberals with a sense of their own purity. Not everybody to the left of Bush is like everybody else to the left of Bush; and it would be catastrophic for the Democratic Party to wallow now in the sort of Michael Moore leftishness that made many Americans worry whether John Kerry was sufficiently obsessed with American security, and sufficiently excited about American power, to protect them at home and to promote their purposes abroad. (On the question of American power, the American people are right and Ted Kennedy is wrong.) An internecine quarrel must now begin. But it cannot begin where there is only alienation, and the self-fulfilling confusion of the Bush administration with the United States of America. This country is bigger than its every president. This Constitution is not easy to destroy. This is not the apocalypse. But it is the most formidable challenge to American liberalism in our time.
the Editors
So Much to Savor
A big win for America, and a loss for the mainstream media.
By Peggy Noonan
Thursday, November 4, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST
God bless our country.
Hello, old friends. Let us savor.
Let us get our heads around the size and scope of what happened Tuesday. George W. Bush, 43rd president of the United States, became the first incumbent president to increase his majority in both the Senate and the House and to increase his own vote (by over 3.5 million) since Franklin D. Roosevelt, political genius of the 20th century, in 1936. This is huge.
George W. Bush is the first president to win more than 50% of the popular vote since 1988. (Bill Clinton failed to twice; Mr. Bush failed to last time and fell short of a plurality by half a million.) The president received more than 59 million votes, breaking Ronald Reagan's old record of 54.5 million. Mr. Bush increased his personal percentages in almost every state in the union. He carried the Catholic vote and won 42% of the Hispanic vote and 24% of the Jewish vote (up from 19% in 2000.)
It will be hard for the mainstream media to continue, in the face of these facts, the mantra that we are a deeply and completely divided country. But they'll try!
The Democrats have lost their leader in the Senate, Tom Daschle. I do not know what the Democratic Party spent, in toto, on the 2004 election, but what they seem to have gotten for it is Barack Obama. Let us savor.
The elites of Old Europe are depressed. Savor. The nonelites of Old Europe, and the normal folk of New Europe, especially our beloved friend Poland, will not be depressed, and many will be happy. Let's savor that too.
George Soros cannot buy a presidential election. Savor. "Volunteers" who are bought and paid for cannot beat volunteers who come from the neighborhood, church, workplace and reading group. Savor.
The leaders of the Bush effort see it this way: A ragtag band of more than a million Republican volunteers who fought like Washington's troops at Valley Forge beat the paid Hessians of King George III's army. Savor.
As I write, John Kerry is giving his speech. He looks hurt. Who wouldn't? He fought to the end, for every vote, untiring and ceaseless. I told some young people recently who were walking into a battle, "Here's how to fight: You fight until they kill you, until they kill you and stop your heart, and then you let them carry you out of the room. But you fight until they carry." I think that's how the Democrats fought. Good for them.
To admit defeat with attempted grace is a moving sight. Kerry did well. His talking about his "good conversation" with the president was gracious and helpful. He was honest about the facts of the vote in Ohio. When he thanked his people from the bottom of his heart it was a real thanks. "Thanks to Democrats and Republicans and Independents. . . . Thanks to everyone who voted." "Don't lose faith, what you did made a difference . . . and building on itself . . . the time will come when your votes, your ballots, will change the world. And it's worth fighting for." A lot of pundits and editorialists are going to say, "His best speech of the campaign was his last." But that's not the point.
Mr. Kerry graced democracy today. He showed his love for it. Savor.
And now the president is speaking. He looks tired and happy. He looks as if the lines on his forehead are deeper. Maybe it's the lighting. "We had a really good phone call," he said of Mr. Kerry. "He was very gracious . . . and he and his supporters can be proud of their efforts." Good for them both. He announced his agenda: reform the tax code, privatize Social Security, help the emerging democracies of Iraq and Afghanistan. "And then our servicemen and -women will come home with the honor they have earned."
"Today I want to speak to every person who voted for my opponent. . . . I need your support. . . . I will do all that I can do to earn your trust. . . . We have one country, one Constitution, and one future that binds us." All good. Savor.
Who was the biggest loser of the 2004 election? It is easy to say Mr. Kerry: he was a poor candidate with a poor campaign. But I do think the biggest loser was the mainstream media, the famous MSM, the initials that became popular in this election cycle. Every time the big networks and big broadsheet national newspapers tried to pull off a bit of pro-liberal mischief--CBS and the fabricated Bush National Guard documents, the New York Times and bombgate, CBS's "60 Minutes" attempting to coordinate the breaking of bombgate on the Sunday before the election--the yeomen of the blogosphere and AM radio and the Internet took them down. It was to me a great historical development in the history of politics in America. It was Agincourt. It was the yeomen of King Harry taking down the French aristocracy with new technology and rough guts. God bless the pajama-clad yeomen of America. Some day, when America is hit again, and lines go down, and media are hard to get, these bloggers and site runners and independent Internetters of all sorts will find a way to file, and get their word out, and it will be part of the saving of our country.
Last note. As much as anyone, the POW wives of Vietnam, who stood against the Democratic nominee for president and for the Republican, can claim credit for the Bush victory. Everyone with a computer in America, and a lot of people with TVs, saw their testimony about the 1970s, and their husbands, and John Kerry. You could not come away from their white-haired, soft-faced, big-eyeglasses visages without thinking: He should not be commander in chief.
Oh, another last note. Tuesday I heard three radio talkers who refused to believe it was over when the ludicrous, and who knows but possibly quite mischievous, exit polls virtually declared a Kerry landslide yesterday afternoon. They are Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham. The last sent me an e-mail that dismissed the numbers as elitist nonsense and propaganda. She is one tough girl and they are two tough men. Savor them too.
A big win for America, and a loss for the mainstream media.
By Peggy Noonan
Thursday, November 4, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST
God bless our country.
Hello, old friends. Let us savor.
Let us get our heads around the size and scope of what happened Tuesday. George W. Bush, 43rd president of the United States, became the first incumbent president to increase his majority in both the Senate and the House and to increase his own vote (by over 3.5 million) since Franklin D. Roosevelt, political genius of the 20th century, in 1936. This is huge.
George W. Bush is the first president to win more than 50% of the popular vote since 1988. (Bill Clinton failed to twice; Mr. Bush failed to last time and fell short of a plurality by half a million.) The president received more than 59 million votes, breaking Ronald Reagan's old record of 54.5 million. Mr. Bush increased his personal percentages in almost every state in the union. He carried the Catholic vote and won 42% of the Hispanic vote and 24% of the Jewish vote (up from 19% in 2000.)
It will be hard for the mainstream media to continue, in the face of these facts, the mantra that we are a deeply and completely divided country. But they'll try!
The Democrats have lost their leader in the Senate, Tom Daschle. I do not know what the Democratic Party spent, in toto, on the 2004 election, but what they seem to have gotten for it is Barack Obama. Let us savor.
The elites of Old Europe are depressed. Savor. The nonelites of Old Europe, and the normal folk of New Europe, especially our beloved friend Poland, will not be depressed, and many will be happy. Let's savor that too.
George Soros cannot buy a presidential election. Savor. "Volunteers" who are bought and paid for cannot beat volunteers who come from the neighborhood, church, workplace and reading group. Savor.
The leaders of the Bush effort see it this way: A ragtag band of more than a million Republican volunteers who fought like Washington's troops at Valley Forge beat the paid Hessians of King George III's army. Savor.
As I write, John Kerry is giving his speech. He looks hurt. Who wouldn't? He fought to the end, for every vote, untiring and ceaseless. I told some young people recently who were walking into a battle, "Here's how to fight: You fight until they kill you, until they kill you and stop your heart, and then you let them carry you out of the room. But you fight until they carry." I think that's how the Democrats fought. Good for them.
To admit defeat with attempted grace is a moving sight. Kerry did well. His talking about his "good conversation" with the president was gracious and helpful. He was honest about the facts of the vote in Ohio. When he thanked his people from the bottom of his heart it was a real thanks. "Thanks to Democrats and Republicans and Independents. . . . Thanks to everyone who voted." "Don't lose faith, what you did made a difference . . . and building on itself . . . the time will come when your votes, your ballots, will change the world. And it's worth fighting for." A lot of pundits and editorialists are going to say, "His best speech of the campaign was his last." But that's not the point.
Mr. Kerry graced democracy today. He showed his love for it. Savor.
And now the president is speaking. He looks tired and happy. He looks as if the lines on his forehead are deeper. Maybe it's the lighting. "We had a really good phone call," he said of Mr. Kerry. "He was very gracious . . . and he and his supporters can be proud of their efforts." Good for them both. He announced his agenda: reform the tax code, privatize Social Security, help the emerging democracies of Iraq and Afghanistan. "And then our servicemen and -women will come home with the honor they have earned."
"Today I want to speak to every person who voted for my opponent. . . . I need your support. . . . I will do all that I can do to earn your trust. . . . We have one country, one Constitution, and one future that binds us." All good. Savor.
Who was the biggest loser of the 2004 election? It is easy to say Mr. Kerry: he was a poor candidate with a poor campaign. But I do think the biggest loser was the mainstream media, the famous MSM, the initials that became popular in this election cycle. Every time the big networks and big broadsheet national newspapers tried to pull off a bit of pro-liberal mischief--CBS and the fabricated Bush National Guard documents, the New York Times and bombgate, CBS's "60 Minutes" attempting to coordinate the breaking of bombgate on the Sunday before the election--the yeomen of the blogosphere and AM radio and the Internet took them down. It was to me a great historical development in the history of politics in America. It was Agincourt. It was the yeomen of King Harry taking down the French aristocracy with new technology and rough guts. God bless the pajama-clad yeomen of America. Some day, when America is hit again, and lines go down, and media are hard to get, these bloggers and site runners and independent Internetters of all sorts will find a way to file, and get their word out, and it will be part of the saving of our country.
Last note. As much as anyone, the POW wives of Vietnam, who stood against the Democratic nominee for president and for the Republican, can claim credit for the Bush victory. Everyone with a computer in America, and a lot of people with TVs, saw their testimony about the 1970s, and their husbands, and John Kerry. You could not come away from their white-haired, soft-faced, big-eyeglasses visages without thinking: He should not be commander in chief.
Oh, another last note. Tuesday I heard three radio talkers who refused to believe it was over when the ludicrous, and who knows but possibly quite mischievous, exit polls virtually declared a Kerry landslide yesterday afternoon. They are Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham. The last sent me an e-mail that dismissed the numbers as elitist nonsense and propaganda. She is one tough girl and they are two tough men. Savor them too.
Vindication
Savoring the victory.
President Bush's win last night was a ratification of the good sense of the American public. Between the end of the Cold War and the start of the war on terrorism, the public was not able to reach a political consensus — as evidenced by the failure of any presidential candidate to reach an absolute majority of the popular vote. After September 11, the public seems to have reached that consensus. The public trusts the Republican party to wage the war on terrorism, and about the Democratic party it has no such confidence.
That judgment is correct. The Democrats, including John Kerry, are known to have bad instincts on national security. Kerry and like-minded Democrats have a deep distrust of American power. Kerry spent the last year suggesting, and appealing to the sentiment, that we could return to a pre-9/11 posture.
“Bush ran a campaign that,
while not flawless, was better than
any Republican presidential campaign
for, well, 16 years.”
This issue is not, of course, the only reason Bush won. He ran a campaign that, while not flawless, was better than any Republican presidential campaign for, well, 16 years. Moral issues have become a substantial advantage for Republicans. (The growth in the Republican advantage in rural areas seems to be based on this fact.)
If John Kerry had won, the nation would have suffered through a renewal of the Vietnam syndrome: an unwillingness to use military force even when necessary. Europe would have seen his victory as a reason to oppose any American impulses in this direction.
Considerable credit today must go to Bush personally, who was an energetic and appealing candidate. He risked his presidency on Iraq, in an exercise of principled and brave leadership. He withstood enormous pressure to buckle in reaction to setbacks there, and his strength and resolve ultimately saw him through in this election. Also, Dick Cheney campaigned tirelessly for the ticket and proved to be an asset on the campaign trail as well as in the West Wing.
The president overcame the hostility of liberals, the media, European public and elite opinion, and some of the deepest pockets of the Left. He also guided his party to a broad victory: Not since 1936 has a president won reelection with expanded majorities in the House and Senate. Democrats will now have to rethink their positions on foreign policy and, if they have the stomach for it, on social issues as well. Smart Republicans, however, will know that they cannot afford hubris. They dodged a bullet. They need to promote a conservative agenda that builds on the Republicans' strength on national security and moral values while expanding their base. Bush still has to win the war on terrorism (beating the insurgency in Iraq is a profound challenge), reform entitlements, and get conservative judges through the Senate. But since his victory advances all of those goals immeasurably, he can take a moment to savor it, as we will.
Savoring the victory.
President Bush's win last night was a ratification of the good sense of the American public. Between the end of the Cold War and the start of the war on terrorism, the public was not able to reach a political consensus — as evidenced by the failure of any presidential candidate to reach an absolute majority of the popular vote. After September 11, the public seems to have reached that consensus. The public trusts the Republican party to wage the war on terrorism, and about the Democratic party it has no such confidence.
That judgment is correct. The Democrats, including John Kerry, are known to have bad instincts on national security. Kerry and like-minded Democrats have a deep distrust of American power. Kerry spent the last year suggesting, and appealing to the sentiment, that we could return to a pre-9/11 posture.
“Bush ran a campaign that,
while not flawless, was better than
any Republican presidential campaign
for, well, 16 years.”
This issue is not, of course, the only reason Bush won. He ran a campaign that, while not flawless, was better than any Republican presidential campaign for, well, 16 years. Moral issues have become a substantial advantage for Republicans. (The growth in the Republican advantage in rural areas seems to be based on this fact.)
If John Kerry had won, the nation would have suffered through a renewal of the Vietnam syndrome: an unwillingness to use military force even when necessary. Europe would have seen his victory as a reason to oppose any American impulses in this direction.
Considerable credit today must go to Bush personally, who was an energetic and appealing candidate. He risked his presidency on Iraq, in an exercise of principled and brave leadership. He withstood enormous pressure to buckle in reaction to setbacks there, and his strength and resolve ultimately saw him through in this election. Also, Dick Cheney campaigned tirelessly for the ticket and proved to be an asset on the campaign trail as well as in the West Wing.
The president overcame the hostility of liberals, the media, European public and elite opinion, and some of the deepest pockets of the Left. He also guided his party to a broad victory: Not since 1936 has a president won reelection with expanded majorities in the House and Senate. Democrats will now have to rethink their positions on foreign policy and, if they have the stomach for it, on social issues as well. Smart Republicans, however, will know that they cannot afford hubris. They dodged a bullet. They need to promote a conservative agenda that builds on the Republicans' strength on national security and moral values while expanding their base. Bush still has to win the war on terrorism (beating the insurgency in Iraq is a profound challenge), reform entitlements, and get conservative judges through the Senate. But since his victory advances all of those goals immeasurably, he can take a moment to savor it, as we will.
IT'S OVER, they way we all knew it would end. A complete defeat of the Democratic Party and of the European Left. Perhaps they will now understand the time has come for them to go back to hte drawing board and re-think their future.
They have declined for a generation, now they have nowhere left to go but out into the oblivion, or back up into the arena after having found a new set of values and policies that have some meaning. Personally, I am hoping for their re-birth. The road will be long and hard.
Kerry Calls Bush to Concede ElectionWed Nov 3, 2004 11:41 AM ET
Kerry Concedes Election To Bush
Kerry Concedes, Says He Hopes Healing Can Begin
By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic Sen. John Kerry conceded the White House race to President Bush in a phone call on Wednesday, ending uncertainty about ballot counting in Ohio and cementing Bush's re-election to a second four-year term.
In a dispute that evoked memories of the prolonged election recount in Florida in 2000, questions about provisional and absentee ballots in Ohio had delayed the final outcome of the presidential election for hours.
Kerry will make a public statement at 1 p.m. EST (1800 GMT) in Boston, a senior aide to the Massachusetts senator said. Bush is expected to speak publicly at 3 p.m. EST (2000 GMT).
Ohio's 20 electoral votes were the final hurdle to give either candidate the Electoral College majority of 270 needed to win the White House after a divisive campaign that focused on the war in Iraq, the battle against global terrorism, and the economy.
Bush's election win sends him into a second term facing daunting challenges from a worsening insurgency in Iraq -- the aftermath of his decision to invade the country in 2003 -- and soaring federal budget deficits.
Republicans also celebrated expanded majorities in the House of Representatives and the Senate, building the president's mandate and easing Bush's agenda in Congress.
Unlike the disputed 2000 election when Democrat Al Gore lost the White House but won the popular vote, Bush captured the popular vote this time. With 99 percent of precincts reporting, Bush had 51 percent of votes overall against Kerry's 48 percent.
White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card made a predawn appearance before Bush supporters at a planned victory rally to say Bush had a "statistically insurmountable" lead in Ohio and had won a majority of the popular vote.
"We are convinced that President Bush has won re-election," Card said, adding Bush would make a statement later on Wednesday.
Kerry's running mate, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, told supporters in Boston there would be no concession until all votes had been counted in Ohio.
"It's been a long night, but we've waited four years for this victory, we can wait one more night," Edwards said, adding: "We will fight for every vote." Continued ...
They have declined for a generation, now they have nowhere left to go but out into the oblivion, or back up into the arena after having found a new set of values and policies that have some meaning. Personally, I am hoping for their re-birth. The road will be long and hard.
Kerry Calls Bush to Concede ElectionWed Nov 3, 2004 11:41 AM ET
Kerry Concedes Election To Bush
Kerry Concedes, Says He Hopes Healing Can Begin
By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic Sen. John Kerry conceded the White House race to President Bush in a phone call on Wednesday, ending uncertainty about ballot counting in Ohio and cementing Bush's re-election to a second four-year term.
In a dispute that evoked memories of the prolonged election recount in Florida in 2000, questions about provisional and absentee ballots in Ohio had delayed the final outcome of the presidential election for hours.
Kerry will make a public statement at 1 p.m. EST (1800 GMT) in Boston, a senior aide to the Massachusetts senator said. Bush is expected to speak publicly at 3 p.m. EST (2000 GMT).
Ohio's 20 electoral votes were the final hurdle to give either candidate the Electoral College majority of 270 needed to win the White House after a divisive campaign that focused on the war in Iraq, the battle against global terrorism, and the economy.
Bush's election win sends him into a second term facing daunting challenges from a worsening insurgency in Iraq -- the aftermath of his decision to invade the country in 2003 -- and soaring federal budget deficits.
Republicans also celebrated expanded majorities in the House of Representatives and the Senate, building the president's mandate and easing Bush's agenda in Congress.
Unlike the disputed 2000 election when Democrat Al Gore lost the White House but won the popular vote, Bush captured the popular vote this time. With 99 percent of precincts reporting, Bush had 51 percent of votes overall against Kerry's 48 percent.
White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card made a predawn appearance before Bush supporters at a planned victory rally to say Bush had a "statistically insurmountable" lead in Ohio and had won a majority of the popular vote.
"We are convinced that President Bush has won re-election," Card said, adding Bush would make a statement later on Wednesday.
Kerry's running mate, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, told supporters in Boston there would be no concession until all votes had been counted in Ohio.
"It's been a long night, but we've waited four years for this victory, we can wait one more night," Edwards said, adding: "We will fight for every vote." Continued ...
