What I don't understand in all the election postmortems is taking the vote totals as given, in view of the evidence that they were suppressed: http://knappster.blogspot.com/2004/11/right-before-our-eyes.html. Detailed analyses like Bradford's don't make sense if the counts may be off by a factor of 4 or more. It's reasonable to assume that what Knapp observed in 2004 also happened in several previous elections, so we've probably been basing decisions about strategy on faulty evidence for years.