As an analysis of the rhetoric of the 2004 presidential election, I offer an extension of Roderick P. Hart's theory from CampaignTalk: Why Elections Are Good for Us about the dialectical function of campaigns. The dialectical function of a campaign offers a specific formula that winning/losing incumbents and winning/losing challengers have followed throughout Hart's historical analysis. I determined that the results from Hart's Diction 5.0 program were relevant, yet not predictive results of the 2004 presidential election. In my analysis, I propose that Hart's approach failed to predict the outcome of the 2004 presidential election. Although he does give insight into the effects of rhetorical choices, Hart's approach did not predict the outcome of the election. I also include extensive charts that show my findings, along with criticism and support of Hart's quantitative analysis of rhetoric.