Reply #15: Is it worth explaining

[Febble]

why "that reasoning" isn't quite sound, quite apart from the fact that the data seem to be wrong?

According to Leip, Kerry got 5,775 votes in 2004, and Gore + Nader got 4,834. So Kerry did 1.19 times better than Gore+Nader, which you might like to call an increase of 19%. Or, you could say, he did 1.28 times better than Gore alone, which you might like to call an increase of 27%. On the other hand, Bush increased his vote from 7,842 in 2000 to 10,474 in 2004, ie by 1.34 times, or 34%.

But I don't see that any of these data demonstrate whether or not the official results are likely to be correct, or otherwise, although it's certainly worth speculating where the extra votes for either side came from. Some will be from new voters, some from rare voters, some from defectors.

FWIW, I made this plot of national votes from 1968-2004. It could be interpreted in a number of ways, but I think it's informative. I also think Democrats can take some heart from it: