David Shuster at msnbc's Hardblogger points out some interesting things about the election. Kerry got five million votes more than Gore got but they can all be attributed to two groups - Nader voters and youth. Discounting those two groups, Bush got nine million more votes than Kerry. Shuster gives a list of possibilities:

1. The $200 million "get out of the vote" money pumped in to this election by ACT and the Media Fund was totally ineffective or wasteful.
2. The dark Internet conspiracy theorists are correct and something massively fraudulent happened on election day. (The evidence does not support that.)
3. John Kerry was a worse candidate than Al Gore... but it was masked by (1) ACT and Media Fund efforts that made the most of a bad hand;
4. President Bush made significant in-roads among moderates and "security moms."
5. The Republican "get out the vote effort" was far more effective and efficient than the democrats.

I do not agree with 1 and 2. I'm unsure about 3. But I'm definitely inclined to go with 4, and 5.

I think that 2. can be thrown out. No one has proved any fraud and the few cases that have been suggested would only account for thousands of votes instead of millions.

5. is an interesting one. Democrats made a huge effort to register new voters targeting likely Democrats. This is one reason that the actual election results shocked them so much. They won the registration battle and they thought that a high-turnout meant that all of their new voters were going to the polls. Republicans targeted infrequent voters. Since half the country usually sits out an election, this group has enormous potential. It is also easier to get these people to vote than it is to get people who have never bothered to register.

3. and 4. are flip sides of the same coin. Was Kerry a worse candidate than Gore? Is Bush a better candidate now than four years ago? I think that both are true but not for any reasons that Kerry could affect.

Gore got a lot of votes from the halo effect. Times were good during most of the 1990s and Gore was part of that administration. He distanced himself from the Clintons personally but he promised more of the same economically. Kerry was never part of the Clinton administration and could not catch any of that reflected glory.

Bush on the other hand was an unknown in 2000. By 2004 we have an idea of what to expect from him. Kerry is now the unknown. He said that he would do better but had no record of leadership (this is why governors make better candidates) .

And of course, September 11 changed a lot of people's priorities.

Suster's column goes on to say

[...]a year and a half ago, Democrats had the making of a cutting edge and impressive "bottom-up" organization. It was known as the Internet-savvy "Dean campaign." The candidate, of course, proved unworthy of what his energetic Internet supporters had built. But remember, the organization included "meet-ups" in cities and towns all across the country, local e-mail lists, and passionate local leaders who knew their neighbors.

He is wrong here. Kerry's campaign tried to make use of meet-ups, debate parties, email lists, etc. They were partly effective. The difference was that Kerry never motivated workers the way that Dean did. Kerry was always the person you thought would win but not your personal first choice.