During a rally in Maine last week, President Bush reaffirmed his approach to the war on terrorism by explaining his reason for invading Afghanistan and Iraq.

"Since the terrible morning of September the 11th, 2001, we have fought the terrorists across the Earth, not for pride, not for power, but because the lives of our citizens are at stake," Bush said during his speech, drawing applause from the crowd.

The next day, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry, stumping at Philadelphia's Temple University, told the audience the United States military must continue to attack the terrorists where they live and not back down.

"Americans know this," Kerry said in his speech. "We understand the stakes."

In a presidential race that has become increasingly heated and divisive, both parties want citizens to know how much their vote counts by emphasizing that this is a "high-stakes" election year.

And political experts and campaign representatives say it's not just rhetoric ,because the major issues from the past elections have significantly changed.

"In 2000, we were arguing tax policies and Social Security policies," said Keith Kincaid of Squier, Knapp, Dunn, a Washington, D.C.-based political consulting firm. "The earth shifted on 9-11, and now we're talking about should we be in Iraq? Do we pre-emptively strike terrorists?"

Campaigns always want to make the election high-stakes because if they didn't, people wouldn't come out to vote, Kincaid said.

"We're arguing about life and death issues this time instead of policy issues," he said.

It's a very divided electorate this year, Kincaid said, and every political move is subject to scrutiny. He added that the attention to detail is a testament to how close the election is.

"You want to make the distinctions clear, that's what you have to do in politics," Kincaid said. "You can't say the choice is a small one. That's not a good message."

And campaign representatives, such as Kerry spokesman Rodell Mollineau, want to reinforce the differences between the candidates. He said there's no question that this election is high stakes given the events of the past four years.

"If voters don't think it is, they should ask themselves where we were in 2000 economically and among the international community," Mollineau said.

People didn't think it mattered which way they voted because citizens had prospered for eight years under former president Bill Clinton, Mollineau said.

"Back in 2000, we had a surplus, but Bush turned a $5 trillion surplus into trillions in debt and deficits, which jeopardizes Social Security for our generation," he said.

"Bush showed how four years of failed leadership can affect the country."

At stake in the election is the country's national security, economic recovery, and direction in the next few years, said Bush-Cheney 2004 spokeswoman Sharon Castillo.

"This is one of the most important, if not the most important, election in our generation," she said.

Both candidates have a very different approach on how to handle the stakes, Castillo said, and the president's line of policy is more in tune to the needs of Americans.

"The American people recognize the president has been a steady leader in the war on terror by not dealing with terrorism like it's a law-enforcement issue, the way John Kerry has," Castillo said. "The American people realize he says what he means and means what he says."

But not everyone shares the perception that there is a lot riding on who comes out the victor. MSU James Madison College Professor Doug Hoekstra said it always seems like high stakes for the people who want to retain or gain office.

"It's very possible it's high stakes, but there's not enough clarity to make that obvious," Hoekstra said.

Bush, on the one hand, has a fairly clear indicated line of policy in the war in Iraq and terrorism, but Kerry doesn't have the same clearly indicated line of policy, Hoekstra said. He added that the importance of the 2000 election was less obvious as it was hard for voters to differentiate between Bush and Democrat Al Gore.

"Quite reasonably, people had a bit of uncertainty about both Gore and Bush because they both seemed to be mainstream politicians, so it was hard to make predictions about what they would do," he said. "This election, there's a whole new line of national policy discussion that wasn't there before."

And even if there is a lot at stake, change and progress is always gradual, Kincaid said.

"Is it going to be high stakes as in your life will change dramatically on Nov. 3? No," he said. "But it is high stakes in terms of where we'll be in the long term.

"We'll see the effects five or 10 years from now."