and this article about bush's turnout efforts in florida provides further evidence that this is indeed the case: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/07/politics/campaign/07florida.html?hp&ex=1099803600&en=35c0eb28543d9af2&ei=5094&partner=homepage
this surprises me since nearly all the articles i read prior to the election about the turnout operations and new registration statistics painted a picture benefiting the democrats -- guess that just goes to show you have to watch out for the media's liberal bias :)
(hmm, but now that i think about it, i remember reading that new registrations for democrats outnumbered republicans in almost all swing states except for florida...)
On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 02:42:05 +0800, kjkhoo at softhome.net
<kjkhoo at softhome.net> wrote:
> At 11:29 am -0800 5/11/04, Adam Souzis wrote:
> >In 2000, exit polls broke down the electorate this way: 21% liberal,
> >50% moderate, 29% conservative. In 2004, some moderates moved
> >rightward: 21% liberal, 45% moderate, 34% conservative. This a large
> >and dismaying shift
>
> There may have been no such shift of moderates to conservative.
>
> While the total turnout rate (based on VEP) increased by about 2.6%,
> the turnout for Southern states increased by about 5% and for the
> swing states by about 7%.
>
> So it may well have been that while more liberals came out, even more
> conservatives also came out, and moderates didn't. In CA, total
> turnout dropped by 9%, in WA by 14%, in NY by 2%, etc.
>
> [Data from GMU's elections site, and I guess the numbers for 2004 are
> provisional, as they don't have data for "Total Votes", only for
> "Vote for Highest Office", presumably meaning the counted votes]
> ___________________________________
>
>
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>