Are you kidding? You think that nothing is to be gained by looking at elaborate, expensive, costly disasters, that we lose an election that couldn't be lost, and we don't ask why?
Why learn things when it’s so much easier to invent them and make gullible voters think a hard leftist (moderate my arse) is a conservative and it is a patriotic duty to elect him?
My point is, why look at 2004 turnout figures?? They mean absolutely nothing eight years later and especially with three wave elections in between. It is absolutely useless research.
We know why Romney lost, because he was a sucky, moderate candidate in the same mold as all the other moderate losers. He was shoved down the republican electorate’s throat despite everybody being for literally everybody but him. And people are wasting their time going back to 2004 and saying “well golly gee, Ma, if only the same people that voted eight years ago had voted last November, why Romney would be president!” Why stop at 2004? How about 1856, check those numbers.