The most realistic evaluation of the election, without the bullshit from either Left or Right is HERE IN SUNDAY WSJ.

The nation did not undergo a rightward shift in 2004 any more than it had when it elected Reagan in 1980 and re-elected him in 1984. The policy preferences of Americans are remarkably stable, a fact that has been confirmed by virtually every scholar who has looked at the matter.

Marty Peretz said it like this:

Neither the Kerry enthusiasm (and the Bush hatred) of Eminem (himself given to vile homophobic and racist ranting) nor of Paris Hilton, of Sean Combs (with his "Vote or Die" campaign) or Whoopi Goldberg amounted to anything except publicity for themselves (Hollywood thinking of themselves?). And then there was the cinema thug Michael Moore, fabulist and fibster.

VDH in NRO said it this way--

...democratic populism is now defined by pampered New York metropolitan columnists, billionaire heiresses, financial speculators, and a weird assortment of embittered novelists, bored rock stars, and out-of-touch Hollywood celebs.

My take is that the election was decided not by one thing but by ten or so "things" stacked atop each other in our minds; things like Swifties, ACT, Move on dot Org, the media bias, gay marriage, the Hollywood Left, and so on. No single thing dominated. This is a very rational essay, for those of you seeking real thought.