That's right and some of those that would have flipped stayed home. There was some increase in rat voters in various places such as university towns. All this means is that the "independent" voter was effected, not the base. You can't call a anyone that votes R and D a base R. The flip floppers are sympathetic to rat agit prop.
"I'm not sure I believe their figures. I know I don't understand them."
The nummbers come from various Sec of State offices. I'm sure they are good numbers, as are the simple statistics based on them.
"You won't get it because they don't exist...and certainly not from this study."
The facts do exist as data over the years for all candidates for all offices in many years, but to the analysis is very complicated and time consuming. It's a full time project, that I estimate would take roughly up to 2 years for 50 states for 1 person from past experience in WI. Here I can see there was no change in the real R base turnout, or vote. The rats gained the I vote.
That is probably a correct assumption. At least it's the only assumption that is touted by other study groups, e.g. Tarrance. All the other assumptions and "facts" quoted by many on this thread are nothing more than "gut feelings".
The facts do exist as data over the years for all candidates for all offices in many years, but to the analysis is very complicated and time consuming.
The facts that exist are raw numbers like what party got how many votes. If there's something other than exit poll info to tell us if R's voted for R's or D's for D's or I's for whatever, I'm not aware of it. I'm sure people run their studies and make certain assumptions but as to hard and cold fact, I don't know how the could ascertain them.
I agree whole heartedly on the analysis being time consuming and complicated....I tried it. All I got was a big headache. Too much apples and oranges.
Anyway, I still say, the answer for us is to begin preparation for the 2008 Beast..and the sooner the better.