The Horserace Blog, election analysis, Part II

Second part of this truly superb post election analysis is up now. Read it through once, sleep on it, then read it again the next day.
Some learning comes from seminars, Q&A, Socratic method, whatever you want to call it.
But worthwhile learning also comes from didactic exposition.
This is the latter. Really excellent.
The Horserace Blog: "Bush made inroads all across the nation. He won the votes of more Democrats, more blacks, more Jews, more Catholics and Protestant evangelicals, than he did in 2000. More than this, though, he was able to appeal to each group without alienating or frustrating the others. Winning presidential coalitions are composed of sub-groups whose views are often irreconcilable. Thus, for instance, relatively secular 'security moms' in the suburbs might be turned off by the gay marriage amendment (or perhaps Bush's pro-life stand), while evangelicals might consider such a proposal a prerequisite for their vote. A good campaign manages to make a specific pitch to each subgroup, keeping them relatively separated from one another. If this is not done, if the campaign melds its message into a single pitch, it is possible for swing voters, or evangelicals, or (worse) both, to become turned off by the singular message."