When your past voters who are considered generally the better informed, more engaged voters and who tend to being more morals based and American/patriotic types who see civic affairs and voting as a duty, start staying at home rather than show up to vote for your more recent candidates, then you need to be looking at why.
They do these studies to be able to draw the wrong conslusions later. Do you think they’ll ever come to the conclusion “gee, maybe we shouldn’t fund and nominate a moderate again”? Gerald Ford, loss, George Bush Sr., loss, Bob Dole, loss, George Bush Jr., bare win then bare win, John McCain, loss, Mitt Romney, loss.
No, they’re looking at turnout numbers, as if they matter. “Golly, gee I wonder why conservatives and evangelicals stayed home last November. Couldn’t be because we nominated a moderate, wishy-washy, flip-flopping, unprincipled Mormon who, though he lost to John McCain four years ago, we thought he’d be sure to win this year.” They gave conservatives any number of reasons to stay home, they pushed Romney, then they manipualted the figures in Iowa to give him momemtum for New Hampshire, then they had John McCain join him on the stage, then they literally destroyed any and all possible challengers to him.
But they’re looking at 2004 turnout figures to see why he could have lost. Please! I’m not fooled by this crap. They’ll never draw the honest conclusion from the data, that they’re chosen candidates suck and lose, they’ll draw up some turnout strong man and cry “if only!” Then they’ll push yet another candidate who sucks and will lose, a la Chris Christie or Jeb Bush.