44% vs. 40% isn't nearly as bad as the collection of nitwits, from Gary Bauer to Phyllis Schafly, that have been repeating the bogus "Romney got fewer votes than McCain" nonsense.
You’re right that these people should take more care to be accurate, especially in trying to figure out what went so wrong, how it could have been different, and how to make it different going forward. In the days after the election that sort of thing can be forgiven. I guess it takes a week or longer to get the final numbers.
But I do think repeating the bogus 44% figure is a big deal because of the false narrative it is used to advance. If it really was 44%, then that means Bush was almost within 10 points with Hispanics. This is used to convince conservatives and Republicans to go the Bush route of pandering and being firmly left wing on immigration. I mean, if Bush was that close, then maybe more of the same could get us even closer.
However, the reality that Bush got no more than 40% takes it from a nearly single-digit loss to as much as a landslide 20 point loss. This shows that even a shameless panderer like Bush (who even coined, or at least made popular a new nauseating platitude in ‘family values don’t stop at the Rio Grande’), against an uninspiring opponent in Kerry, will still get his clock cleaned with Hispanics. It shows the folly and limits of Bush style pandering. It shows that even in a good year for Republicans with a good showing with Hispanics, we’ll nonetheless lose big with Hispanics.
There really is no good reason to expect a shift among immigrant groups from Democrats to Republicans. California proves that even ‘moderate’ Republicans can’t win Asians or Hispanics even though the Democrats have run the state into the ground. And so what if we do manage to get back up to Bush’s 40%? It won’t be long before the Hispanic share of the electorate grows large enough that even a 40% showing will represent an absolute loss from our dismal showing in 2012.