So, who won it for George Bush this time? Unlike 2000, when it took a 5-4 majority among the judges on the US supreme court to deliver the White House to the Republicans, the answer in 2004 lay firmly in the ballot box. A clear majority of all voters across the US gave Mr Bush a 51%-48% margin in the popular vote to go with his expected narrow victory in the electoral college.How was that electoral college majority made up? Once again, Mr Bush won a clear majority of states, with 28 in the bag by yesterday, compared with John Kerry's 19 (plus the District of Columbia), and three states still undecided. With only Iowa, Ohio and New Mexico still to declare, only a single state - tiny New Hampshire - had switched allegiance since 2000, voting Democrat this time instead of Republican.In the Bush era, the electoral map of the US has therefore consolidated into a great swath of "red states" - confusingly for Europeans the colour of the more rightwing party - stretching across the middle of the country from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico, contrasted with clusters of Democratic "blue states" on the margins - the Pacific coast (plus Hawaii but not Alaska), the upper midwest centred on the western Great Lakes, and Mr Kerry's home region of the north-east.That picture contains a vivid reminder of several of the truths of modern presidential politics. The Republicans command rural America and have a narrow majority in the suburbs, while the Democrats are stronger in the old cities. But perhaps the most important piece of US electoral geography is in the south. Ever since the Democrats ensured that black Americans in the southern states got the right to vote in the 1960s, the south has swung ever more conclusively into the Republican camp. That pattern continued this week.Neither Al Gore in 2000 nor Mr Kerry this year managed to win a single southern state. Significantly, the only two Democrats who have won the presidency since black Americans got the vote in the south have been southern governors: Jimmy Carter of Georgia in 1976 and Bill Clinton of Arkansas in 1992 and 1996. The lesson for Democrats contemplating the task in 2008 is clear: they must have a southern strategy - or perish.But it was not just the south and the heartlands that won it for Mr Bush this week. It was also American men, and American white men in particular. Mr Bush beat Mr Kerry 54% to 45% among male voters, while Mr Kerry won almost as comfortably, 52% to 47%, among women. This confirms a striking electoral contrast between the US and western Europe, including Britain. In Europe, by and large, men vote to the left of women. In America, it is the other way round; there men vote to the right of women.  The real eye-opener, though, was Mr Bush's success among white voters, where the president captured a remarkable 61% of all white male votes (against Mr Kerry's 38%), along with 54% of white female votes (Mr Kerry trailed with 45%). No Democratic presidential candidate has captured a majority of the white electorate in the US since Lyndon Johnson in 1964. Mr Kerry did no better than his several predecessors. It may be many years before it happens again. In the south, Mr Bush outpolled Mr Kerry by more than two-to-one among white Americans.Among the ethnic minorities overall, Mr Bush did much less well, though he nevertheless managed to improve his numbers. Among African Americans, he took a mere 11%, two points better than in 2000, but eclipsed by Mr Kerry's 89%. Among Latino voters, on the other hand, Mr Bush pushed his share up from 35% four years ago to 42% this time, a telling score for the future, as the disproportionately young Latino electorate expands. The president's successors will have to do even better than this to keep states like Florida, Arizona and even Mr Bush's home state of Texas from falling eventually into Democratic hands. Mr Bush took 56% of Latino votes in Florida this time, a key reason for his success in this crucial state.The generation gap showed up powerfully this week, too. First-time voters and 18-29s leaned towards Mr Kerry by 54%-44%, but expectations that a great rush of new voters (55% of whom backed Mr Kerry) would swing the election for the Democrats proved unfounded. Mr Bush meanwhile had narrow leads among early and late middle-aged voters, as well as a strong lead (58%-41%) among married voters with children. Voters aged over 60 leaned more heavily than others towards Mr Bush.Not surprisingly, richer voters were disproportionately for Mr Bush and poorer voters for his challenger. Union members leaned towards Mr Kerry by nearly two to one, but people in full-time work narrowly went for Mr Bush.  Religion's place as a key political indicator - and as a central explanation of Mr Bush's success - was also confirmed on Tuesday. Regular churchgoers voted for Mr Bush by nearly two-to-one. The president had a 13-point lead among Protestant voters, managed almost a tie with the Catholic Mr Kerry among Catholic voters, but trailed badly among traditionally Democratic Jewish voters, especially in Florida. But Mr Bush's strength among evangelical Protestants, especially strong in the south, was prodigious, with 76% of this group supporting him.Mr Bush also scored heavily over Mr Kerry among gun owners (59%-39%) and among military veterans (55%-43%). Mr Kerry, on the other hand, had a commanding lead among gay and lesbian voters (78%-21%), a much smaller group than the other two.Iraq confirmed its role as a key indicator in the 2004 contest, with 85% of those who approved the initial decision to go to war supporting Mr Bush and 87% of those who opposed it supporting Mr Kerry instead.As the opinion polls had suggested for many weeks, only a small number of voters decided who to vote for in the final week of the contest. Among those who did so, Mr Kerry had a 53%-45% advantage, rather less than poll experts would normally expect. The great majority of Americans, though - nearly 80% - say they decided who to vote for long ago. Among these, Mr Bush led by 52%-47%. The president, in other words, probably had the 2004 election in the bag all along.