BritainIt wasn't just the great British public that went to bed on Tuesday night believing the US presidency had changed hands.
The residents of Number 10 Downing Street, too, woke up to find that, contrary to their expectations - but to their considerable relief - President George Bush will be holding onto the keys of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for another four years.
Victory for John Kerry would have galvanised Britain's anti-war movement and intensified pressure on Prime Minister Tony Blair to change course in his policy on Iraq.
It could also have emboldened his critics within the Labour Party, possibly even prompting a challenge to Mr Blair's leadership ahead of the next general election, which is likely to be held by the middle of next year.
But the devil he knows could be just as problematic for the Labour Prime Minister, cementing his unpopular position on a war that has split the country in half, and allowing him little room to wiggle away from the man who repeatedly invoked his name to secure re-election.
Many in the Labour Party are uncomfortable with Mr Blair's closeness to President Bush, believing the Democrats to be their natural transatlantic partners, and are disapproving of the prime minister's apparent unquestioning support for the US administration in the ongoing operation in Iraq.
While a change at the top of American politics may have allowed Mr Blair to conceive a unilateral exit strategy from Iraq, it is unlikely he will now be able to step back from continued and unswerving support for Mr Bush.
In an obvious effort to reassure those members of the British public who believe the joint Iraq policy of the United States and United Kingdom has exacerbated tensions in the Middle East, Mr Blair moved to link Iraq to regional peace efforts. In the Commons, he attempted to lighten the mood by offering his "warmest congratulations to President... [ and he paused] ...Karzai of Afghanistan", bringing down the house by paying tribute to the success of the Afghan election before Mr Bush's victory had been confirmed.
He went on, however, to assure Labour MPs that Mr Bush's win could lead to a breakthrough in the vexed issue of peace in the Middle East by promising that, whoever won in Washington, he would be championing that cause.
"Progress in the Middle East, along with democracy now in Afghanistan and to come, I hope, in Iraq - I think those three things together would be the single most significant contribution we could make to the reduction in terrorism," Mr Blair said.
"I will do everything I can to work with the President of the United States to secure that progress in the Middle East."
His words - which appeared to link, for the first time, Islamist terrorism with Arab anger about Western policy towards Israel - reflected the hope among some Labour MPs and the public at large that Mr Bush will use his second term to mend damaged relations with formerly close allies in Europe.
Mr Blair's optimism was not echoed by some ordinary Britons who expressed concerns that the aggressive policies of the past three years would further erode international security.
"It makes me fear that the world can only become even more frightening and our personal security here in London more fragile," said one London photographer of Mr Bush's election win. "I'm sure Blair will be relieved, though, because his partner-in-crime has been endorsed and he'll feel justified in having stuck so close on the war issue."
Lindsay German, of the Stop the War Coalition, said: "Many people will feel that his re-election will make the world a more dangerous place. He has threatened Syria, Iran, North Korea and Cuba and it will now be up to the movement to challenge the warmongers, George Bush and Tony Blair."
In the City, Mr Bush's win was seen as generally positive, as Mr Kerry had been perceived as favouring cheaper generic drugs and affordable, universal health care.
Economist and analysts polled saw defence contractors benefiting from the hawkish policies on Iraq specifically and the "war on terror" generally, but believed Mr Bush would be challenged by a record deficit of $422 billion.
British industry figures decried Mr Bush's protectionist policies and called on the US administration to take seriously its stated commitment to free trade. "The US is a protectionist nation and all the rhetoric of the election campaign has endorsed that," said Mr Digby Jones, director general of the Confederation of British Industry. "I really do hope that President Bush will now rise above that and set an example of free trade around the world showing he understands that globalisation does not mean Americanisation."