A comment I'll make here so that I don't feel the need to make it over and over again

[womzilla]

In a very close election, any distinguishable group can be identified as "the" reason the election turned the way it did.

For instance, there were a lot of people talking about throwing pro-choicers under the bus after the 2004 presidential election, because of course if single-issue anti-choicers had voted for Kerry instead of Bush, Kerry would have won.

There are more helpful ways of thinking about an election, and about the politics before and after an election, than trying to find "the" single cause for the election's results.

Comments

[barondave.livejournal.com]

"The" single cause for the election results is that you can't fool all the people all the time.

This is why Abraham Lincoln gets invoked so often.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

Yes. When a Hugo award under my administration was won by a single vote, people speculated who that single voter might be.

They all were.

[drelmo.livejournal.com]

"No one does anything for one reason."

[washa-way.livejournal.com]

As usual, Python got there first:

"Well, this is largely as I predicted, except that the Silly Party won. I think this is mainly due to the number of votes cast."

[wild-irises.livejournal.com]

This is something I have been thinking for the better part of a week now, and haven't articulated anywhere near as well as you just did.

Thank you!