Niles Caulder
Jr. Member
Posts: 638
|
 |
« on: November 04, 2004, 12:28:45 PM » |
|
Lewis brings up a good point.
I think both parties may have been guilty of this logical fallacy to a degree, but Democrats obviously more so:
They were very familiar with which districts traditionally go their way, and they know that the margin of victory in their own friendly regions have historically indicated how the remaining neutral and unfriendly regions play out. Ordinarilly a (relatively) Excessive Crush in their friendly districts indicate an edge in swing districts and a significantly respectful fight in ordinarilly unfriendly districts.
In this election, the turnout was tremendously high, but was so for both Wings. Both polar regions had Excessive Crushes that in the final analysis, cancelled each other out. The Democrats were proceeding under the assumption a high turnout would favor them as it indicates popular disatisfaction--but that extra turnout was split down the middle from the polar opposite wings. So of course, it came down to the mushy middle once again, that broke slightly but significantly for Bush.
|
