It was all plausible enough to have Britt Hume and the rest of the talking heads chewing over the possibility of waiting for the upper mid-west for a decision in this election.
It appears that what the Democrats didn't count on was the enormous turnout in the Republican counties. Precincts that went for Bush by 5K in 2000 returned margins more than twice as large this time. Once again, we saw the conventional wisdom proved wrong in an American Presidential election. This time the error was in thinking that a high turnout automatically favored the Democrat and the challenger. Somewhere in the chaos of the early afternoon predictions of John Kerry's coming success, I heard one east coast prof say that "so many people wouldn't turn out just to say 'good job, Mr President.'" Maybe not, but they clearly turned out to say "No you don't, Mr gay-loving, abortion-mongering, defeat-peddling *liberal*!" The fact is that, while the Democrat's base was energized by the close election in 2000, and by hatred for George W. Bush, the Republican base was at least equally energized, and there are slightly, but significantly more of them now.
In an article on Slate subtitled "Why you keep losing to this idiot" William Saletan gave the answer: George W. Bush is simple, and people like that. While there may be truth in that idea, attributing the loss to that factor alone is condescending and self-deluding. This campaign aired the real issues faced by America at this critical juncture in our history. Much to my regret, the people chose George Bush's vision of how to proceed. However, calling the slim, but real, Republican majority "simple," (meaning "simple minded" of course,) is sour grapes, and dangerously out of touch with reality.