AnalysisA clear winner has emerged with a clear lesson for Democrats: they must have a southern strategy - or perish, writes Martin Kettle
So who won it for George Bush this time? Unlike 2000, when it took a five-four 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 per cent to 48 per cent margin in the popular vote to go with his expected narrow victory in the electoral college.
In the Bush era, the electoral map of the US has consolidated into a great swath of "red states" - confusingly for Europeans the colour of the more right-wing 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 mid-west centred on the Great Lakes, and John 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 per cent to 45 per cent among male voters, while Mr Kerry won almost as comfortably, 52 per cent to 47 per cent, among women. This confirms a striking electoral contrast between the US and western Europe.
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 per cent of all white male votes (against Mr Kerry's 38 per cent), along with 54 per cent of white female votes (Mr Kerry trailed with 45 per cent).
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 per cent, two points better than in 2000, but eclipsed by Mr Kerry's 89 per cent.
Among Latino voters, on the other hand, Mr Bush pushed his share up from 35 per cent four years ago to 42 per cent 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 per cent of Latino votes in Florida this time, a key reason for his success in this crucial state.
The generation gap showed up powerfully, too. First-time voters and 18 to 29-year-olds leaned towards Mr Kerry by 54-44 per cent, but expectations that a great rush of new voters, (55 per cent 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 per cent) 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. 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 per cent of this group supporting him.
Mr Bush also scored heavily over Mr Kerry among gun owners (59-39 per cent) and among military veterans (55-43 per cent). Mr Kerry had a commanding lead among gay and lesbian voters.
Iraq confirmed its role as a key indicator in the 2004 contest, with 85 per cent of those who approved the initial decision to go to war supporting Mr Bush, and 87 per cent of those who opposed it supporting Mr Kerry instead.