Your premise is absolutely flawed because it suggests any candidate would have pulled in the same amount of support as Kerry in that area because it wasn't specifically him that acted as the driving force behind the increased support and rather, the anti-Bush sentiment.
Yes? Is this a revolutionary notion? Sentiments and moods, reactions against incumbents and divisive politicians very strongly drive elections and electoral behaviour. And anti-Bush sentiment was a very pronounced one in 2004 with the areas which Kerry registered in. Flawed is what I would call believing that the voting habits of an entire region (not even a single state!) are determined by the geographical origin of a candidate, as you appear to. That is a bald and limited understanding of electoral behaviour. People don't vote based purely on the fact that the man they are voting from is from a state in some degree of geographical proximity. That is not how real life works. I don't say, incidentally, that it was 'purely' about this or that. That kind of thinking is precisely what I'm disputing here.
What your're advancing here is a very, very simplistic assertion - and it's an assertion which isn't even based on an accurate premise. (Bush did not bolster his standing in every swing state, as I've already gone over) Taxing me on supposedly not explaining my point, when I've just done so at length, and you have not done so at all, is becoming reminiscent of previous circular and unproductive arguments on here.
As such, I'm am happily retiring from this one.
Last edited: