Massachusetts Senator John Kerry

captured the first stage in the long race to

determine the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee January 19 by winning 38

percent of the votes cast in the Iowa

precinct caucuses.

With this “Iowa bounce,” Kerry has

momentum going into the nation’s first

primary election, January 27 in New

Hampshire.

Most political observers also note that

North Carolina Senator John Edwards

gained politically with his strong 32 percent of the vote in second place, and former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, the third-place finisher with 18 percent,

lost momentum.

Just hours before the caucuses, pollsters said the race was too close to call

among those three and Missouri Congressman Dick Gephardt. A disappointed

Inside This Issue:

• Iowa Caucuses 2004: 

The Results . . . . . . . . . . . page1

• A Look Ahead: 

The New Hampshire 

Primary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 1

• Campaign Highlight: 

The Role of Foreign Policy 

in the 2004 Election. . . . . page 4

FAST FACTS:

✔ Democratic presidential 

candidates spent more than

$100 per caucus voter on 

television ads aimed at Iowa 

residents.

— (Wisconsin Advertising Project

Study, 2004)

Election

FOCUS

JANUARY 21, 2004 U.S. Department of State ISSUE 1 • NO 2

Since 1920, the New Hampshire

primary election has occupied a unique

place in the presidential campaign as

the first official primary in the country.

Those candidates who do well in New

Hampshire gain substantial momentum

for their campaigns that helps them in

later primaries and may carry them 

to eventual success in securing their

party’s nomination at the national 

convention. This year, the primary will

be held on January 27.

According to Charles Cook, editor

and publisher of the Cook Report, a

respected political newsletter, “If 

you look at the last seven presidential 

elections,” he says, “[of] the last 14

Democratic and Republican nominations, 13 out of 14 have gone to a

candidate who won either the Iowa

caucuses or the New Hampshire 

primary or both.” 

Presidential candidates understand

A Look Ahead: 

The New Hampshire Primary 

(continued on page 3)

(continued on page 2)

To receive this newsletter 

via a listserv go to:

 http://www.usembassy.de/mail

Democratic presidential hopeful Senator John Kerry

acknowledges his supporters at a victory party Monday,

January 19, 2004 in Des Moines. Kerry was declared 

the winner of the Iowa Caucus.© AP/WWP

Kerry Wins Iowa Democratic Caucuses;

New Hampshire Primary Next
ELECTION FOCUS 2004

2 ELECTION FOCUS 2004

The U.S. Department of State is pleased to present its election coverage newsletter, Election Focus 2004. The 

newsletter will provide non-partisan coverage of the U.S. election process, featuring articles, interviews, public opinion

polls, and other information on the presidential primaries, debates, conventions and campaign activities of the major 

presidential candidates.

Election Focus 2004 is produced by the Democracy and Human Rights team in the Bureau of International Information

Programs.

Gephardt, who came in fourth with

just 11 percent of the vote, is ending

his presidential aspiration and dropping out of the race. He has stated 

that he would support the eventual

Democratic nominee.

Another Democrat on the ballot

who was not a factor with just one

percent of the vote was Ohio

Congressman Dennis Kucinich.

State officials said turnout for the

caucuses exceeded 100,000, which

was high but not the record. In 1988,

there were 126,000 attendees.

Entrance polls taken by news

organizations indicated that 40 percent

of voters waited until the last week to

make up their minds on who to support.

According to veteran political

observer Morton Kondracke, the Iowa

voting was “strategic,” as citizens 

supported candidates they believed

could beat President George W. Bush,

the expected Republican nominee.

Republican National Committee 

chairman Ed Gillespie said that while

whomever the Democrats nominate

will be a strong challenger, it won’t

matter who that will be and the president is prepared to run on his record.

Earlier in the year, Kerry was considered the Democratic favorite to

challenge Bush’s reelection bid. Kerry

then faded in public opinion polls as

Dean moved up to the front-runner

position, but the Massachusetts senator started to climb again in Iowa as

the battle between Dean and Gephardt

turned negative with personal attacks

in televison ads and on the campaign

trail, and citizens were turned off.

As he campaigned furiously

throughout Iowa, Kerry had the support

of his Massachusetts colleague, Senator

Ted Kennedy, a popular figure among

Democratic voters. The bounce enabled

the self-proclaimed “Comeback Kerry”

to tell his cheering supporters he

intends to “give America back its soul.”

Dean, who also campaigned intensively in the state, brought in several

thousand activist volunteers in his

unsuccessful effort. The former

Vermont governor stressed an anti-Iraq

war theme in his speeches and that

resonated well in the early days. But

as political observer Michael Barone

pointed out, the recent capture of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein

undermined Dean’s message.

Still, Dean pledged to continue his

challenge and tried to put a positive

spin on his third-place finish. In 1988,

Republican George H.W. Bush and

Democrat Michael Dukakis each finished third in their respective Iowa

caucuses and both went on to win

their parties’ presidential nominations.

While most states hold primary

elections to choose their convention

delegates and determine candidates’

popularity, Iowa is one of a few that

uses the caucus system. It is part of

the fabric of Iowa politics, dating back

to 1846, when Iowa gained statehood.

Iowa will send 56 delegates to the

Democratic National Convention.

At each of the 1,993 precincts in

the state, on the Democratic side a candidate needed to win the support of at

least 15 percent of those in attendance

in order to be viable. On the Republican

side, where the Democrats’ 15-percent

rule does not apply, things were much

more quiet as Bush did not have any

primary opposition.

On January 13, Washington, D.C.

held a non-binding Democrat primary

which city leaders organized to be first

in the nation. Most of the presidential

candidates opted out of the popularity

race however, in deference to the traditional roles played by Iowa and New

Hampshire in the process. The District’s

39 national convention delegates will be

apportioned later in the year at a caucus.

Dean had a symbolic victory in

Washington, gaining 43 percent of the

vote, but only eight percent of registered

voters showed up at the polls. The

Reverend Al Sharpton came in second

with 34 percent and former Illinois

Senator and Ambassador Carol Moseley

Braun was a distant third. Shortly before

the Iowa caucuses, Moseley Braun, whose

campaign never got off the ground due

to debt and organizational difficulties,

dropped out of the race, throwing her

support to Dean.

The January 27 New Hampshire

primary will be the next stop on the

campaign trail. Joining the other

Democratic hopefuls for the state’s 27

convention delegates will be former Army

General Wesley Clark, Connecticut

Senator Joseph Lieberman and Sharpton,

all of whom elected not to compete 

in Iowa. ■

(continued from page 1)

— BUREAU OF —

INTERNATIONAL 

INFORMATION

PROGRAMS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
ELECTION FOCUS 2004

WWW.USEMBASSY.DE/USA 3

the importance of the New Hampshire

primary and direct their efforts there

months before the election takes place.

Former Vermont Governor Howard

Dean, Senator Joseph Lieberman

(Connecticut) and Senator John Kerry

(Massachusetts) all attended

Independence Day parades in New

Hampshire towns on July 4, 2003.

Dean ran his first television campaign

ad there in August.

Despite New Hampshire’s small

number of Electoral College votes—

the state has only four votes compared

to 34 for Texas (270 are needed to win

the general election in November)—

presidential candidates are aware that

doing well in the New Hampshire primary can turn any candidate, even a

lesser-known candidate, into a front

runner. Former President Clinton, for

instance, revived his viability for the

nomination only after his strong second place finish in 1992. Clinton was

the only candidate in the last seven

presidential elections to lose both the

Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire

primary and still go on to win his

party’s nomination. 

New Hampshire is a geographically

small state with a population of about

1.2 million, so candidates are able to

meet directly with much of the electorate in local settings such as churches

and schools. Such grassroots campaigning is not feasible in large states such

as California and New York, where, in

order for the candidates to reach large

numbers of voters, they need to invest

in expensive mass media techniques

such as television ads. “If the first primaries were in California and New

York, the person with the most money

would win, period,” an elected New

Hampshire official recently said.

A prime destination for candidates

is Dixville Notch, a tiny village in the

most northern part of the state. The 23

voters there historically are the first to

cast their ballot in the New Hampshire

primaries, just after midnight. As such,

Dixville Notch’s voters pride themselves

on having correctly chosen the eventual

Republican nominee every year since

1968. 

The latest polling results from the

American Research Group show former

Vermont Governor Howard Dean in

the lead with 28 percent support in

New Hampshire, Senator John Kerry

(Massachusetts) with 20 percent and

former General Wesley Clark with 19

percent. However, Kerry’s first place finish in Iowa and North Carolina Senator

John Edwards’ second place finish are

expected to give both candidates a boost

in the New Hampshire polls.

Other candidates, such as

Congressman Dennis Kucinich, and

the Reverend Al Sharpton have made a

few campaign visits to New Hampshire,

but polls indicate that support for these

candidates is very low among New

Hampshire voters, ranging from zero

to two percent. 

A strong finish in New Hampshire

for any of the leading Democratic 

candidates will put him in a strong

position before the important South

Carolina primary on February 3, which

is the first primary in a Southern state.

The results there may be an indicator

of how other southern states with large

African American populations will

vote in their primary elections. Also

Democratic primaries will take place

in six other states around the country,

including Arizona, Delaware, Missouri,

New Mexico, North Dakota, and

Oklahoma. Candidates who did not do

well in the New Hampshire primary

(continued from page 1)

A Look Ahead: The New

Hampshire Primary

“Granite Staters [New

Hampshire residents] are

tough but fair with those who

would be President. Toward

the end of the race, when

the temperature gets colder

and the campaigning gets

hotter, it takes dedication to

survive. Here is democracy

at its best, for it takes more

than a big bankroll or name

recognition to impress us.”

--Nackey Loeb, former publisher of

Manchester, N.H. Union Leader

Newspaper.
ELECTION FOCUS 2004

4 ELECTION FOCUS 2004

will be under some pressure to make a

good showing in some of those races.

President Bush will almost surely

win the New Hampshire Republican

primary, although the Bush-Cheney

campaign does not currently have a

campaign headquarters there, and the

president has not actively campaigned

in the state. Other Republicans such as

Senator John McCain (Arizona), however, are scheduled to campaign over

the next few weeks on Bush’s behalf.

There are 13 Republican challengers to

Bush on the New Hampshire ballot, all

virtually unknown. Many of these

Republican challengers are single-issue

candidates and are campaigning about

trade and tax issues, to name a few.

As the primary draws near,

Democratic primary candidates are

advocating their positions on important issues in an attempt to distinguish

themselves from the Bush administration, as well as their fellow Democratic

candidates. The economy will be 

the most important issue for New

Hampshire voters. Nearly all of the

Democratic candidates support some

form of tax relief for middle-class

Americans, arguing that the Bush

administration’s tax policies disadvantage that group. On this issue, the

administration argues that their tax

cuts have benefited the middle class

and all Americans by increasing

income. 

New Hampshire shares an international border with Canada and relies

heavily on export and high-tech 

industries, so trade policy and unemployment will also be significant

election issues. ■

A Council on Foreign

Relations panel discussion

Washington—“Terrorism is the

prism through which the public sees

George Bush,” said Andrew Kohut,

director of the Pew Research Center

for the People and the Press on

January 14 at a meeting at the Council

on Foreign Relations.

Kohut joined Edward Rollins,

chairman of the Rollins Strategy

Group and campaign advisor to former

President Ronald Reagan, and

Douglas E. Schoen, a Democratic

pollster and campaign advisor to 

former President Bill Clinton, in 

discussing the role of foreign policy 

in the 2004 presidential election. 

Despite the various political opinions expressed by the panelists, all

agreed that foreign policy, specifically

the war on terrorism, will undoubtedly

play a crucial role in the 2004 elections.

Drawing on a recent Pew poll, Kohut

noted that the war on terror is as high

a priority to the American people as the

economy this election year. This is a

significant finding, according to Kohut,

who said that in the 2000 election, foreign affairs had little, if any, importance

to the average American voter.

But the terrorist attacks on the

World Trade Center and Pentagon on

September 11, 2001, and President

Bush’s response to those attacks made

foreign policy an important issue to the

public, the panelists said. “People can’t

underestimate Bush again,” Rollins

added. “They see him as a leader.”

Foreign affairs will also play a

crucial role in the Democratic primaries. According to Rollins, former

Vermont Governor Howard Dean has

had the ability as a front runner to

shift the Democrats’ conversation from

what he calls the “bread and butter”

issues such as the environment and the

deficit, to foreign policy issues such as

the war in Iraq. 

Following are selected questions

asked to the panel of experts by moderator James Lindsay, vice president of

the Council on Foreign Relations,

about the role of foreign policy in the

2004 election.

Lindsay: How much more

prominent are foreign policy

issues this election year? 

Kohut: The most important thing to

recognize is that while people’s concerns about terrorism are not as

pressing as they were a year ago or

two years ago right after the [9-11]

attacks, they are still there, and the

war on terrorism and protecting the

country against terrorism is as high as

any national priority. In fact, we are

The Role of Foreign Policy 

in the 2004 Election

Campaign★★Highlight
ELECTION FOCUS 2004

going to release a poll tomorrow where

we ask people to rate 21 priorities.

Number one is fixing the economy.

Number two is protecting the country

against terrorism. And they are actually

tied. The president’s approval ratings

on terrorism have anchored his overall

approval ratings, particularly when

times have gotten tough for him, when

he sunk to 50 percent in the fall of

2003. He was always at 65 and 60 

percent on terrorism, and that’s good

for him at this point. 

In fact, if you look at the polls,

and if you look at history, foreign 

policy is an advantage to the Bush

side in two very significant ways.

One, an incumbent president always

has an advantage because of the

stature gap, and whoever the Democrat

is, he or she is going to have to measure

up, and that’s a challenge. Secondly,

Republicans do better typically—

unless things are going very badly—

on foreign policy—than Democrats.

And so that’s two points for Bush. 

The other issue, however, that may

affect the administration to a certain

extent is the way things are going in

Iraq. Nonetheless, people have stuck

with the idea that this was the right

thing to do, even though they have

many doubts about the way it was done

and the timing of it. The Democrats’

opportunity is to exploit those doubts

if that situation continues to get worse.

Lindsay: Is Bush vulnerable

on foreign policy? If he does

have vulnerability, is it 

simply Iraq, or could it tie

into bigger issues?

Rollins: Free elections are always

about the incumbent president, and

obviously when the country is looking

for an alternative, as they were with

President Jimmy Carter in ‘80 and

they were with President George H.W.

Bush in ‘92, someone can rise out of

the pack and become a very significant alternative.

I think President Bush today 

has the most important presidential

quality you can have. People can’t

underestimate him again. They see

him as a leader. They see him certainly

as someone who has led us into a war.

He holds the respect of the military.

Obviously he led his party into a

midterm election in which they picked

up seats, which was unprecedented. 

Bush clearly has his own political

base that is very solid. There are no

Republican defectors. There’s no 

challenge. And I think that’s a very,

very good place to be.

Kohut: The odds favor Bush. There’s

no question about it. But there are

always wild cards. Another attack is a

wild card. A change of mind on the

part of the American public about how

much of a terrorist threat we really

face, in an environment where jobs

don’t surface, and the domestic agenda

takes supremacy, I would really argue

against. I think that on balance you are

probably right, but you can’t rule it out. 

Lindsay: The question then

becomes for a Democratic

candidate: What is your goal

on foreign affairs? Are you

trying to neutralize the 

president’s advantage there?

Are you trying to redefine it?

Are you trying to recast 

the elections?

Schoen: I think there are probably

three things the Democrats should try

to do. The first thing you try to do is

neutralize the nation. I think you want

to do that in a couple of ways. First,

you want to increasingly raise doubts

about the success of the enterprise.

And I think the polling that we’ve seen

suggests that there’s real doubt about

the way Bush has conducted himself

in the international context — the failure to have a multilateral dimension,

consult the U.N.—has again raised real

doubts. So I think you can begin to

undermine the president on that level,

and also suggest that the venture in

Iraq, however good an idea it might

have been, has not been prosecuted

successfully—or as successfully as it

might have been. 

I’m not sure you are going to 

succeed in winning the issue, but if

you neutralize it, you’re way ahead 

of the game. 

Lindsay: Does foreign policy

as an issue particularly 

resonate one way or the

other with different groups

on gender basis or income

basis or regional basis? 

Kohut: I was just looking at our 

survey that we’re going to release

tomorrow, and it has an extraordinary

thing in it for Bush and the Republicans.

And the fact of the matter is that two

very important groups who have been

on the Democratic side in most national elections are now giving higher 

priority than their corresponding

demographic groups to strengthening

the U.S. military. 

Women are now giving strengthening the military a higher rating than

men. Older voters are giving strengthening the military a higher rating than

younger people. And those have been

two core Democratic constituencies.

And that’s a very, very big problem 

for the Democrats. 

READ MORE ABOUT IT

CAMPAIGN 2004: Foreign Policy 

in the Presidential Election 

http://www.cfr.org/campaign2004/ ■

5 wWW.USEMBASSY.DE/USA