Sorting in recent elections

Has tha rgument for sorting been strengthened or weakened in recent elections? Fiorina has claimed in his book that voters who think alike usually vote alike. I have evidence in the 2008 presidential election is not be the case, as many voters were split on important issues to them. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26843704 For example, when asked if the voter was worried about another terrorist attack on US soil, 70% responded that they were at least somewhat worried. With Fiorinia's claim that voters think alike, vote alike, one candidate would be the clear cut winner on this issue. But the numbers tell us a different story. Of the people who are worried about anther terrorist attack, 50% voted for McCain and 48% voted for Obama. Voters who held terrorism as important could not agree upon who could prevent this from happening again. To further dismantle Fiorinia's argument, voters, when asked about potential Supreme Court appointees, 74% said that the nomination power was a factor in capturing their vote. An alomst even split occurs once again, with Obama gathering 54 % of the vote compared to 48 % towards McCain. Finally, when asked if the economy was good or poor, 93% said poor and the vote was split again, 54% voted for Obama while 44 % voted for McCain.

So what does this all mean? Well, to be honest, I'm not sure yet, so we need to keep digging. The next question I have: Have polarized activists subsoquently fueled sterotpyical sentiments onto the American public, therefore subconsciously implanting trigger phrases about each party, even though most of America is unpolar? Hopefully, I can clarify what that mess of question means. Fironia brings up the notion of George W. winning in 2000, through the help of a "fatigued public towards Clinton". He also states that Bush the elder lost his reelction bid due to his failed promises and a rival candidate who brought middle America back to the forefront. I believe Fiorinia is correct, saying that most of the American public is middle of the ground. But if this were true, would issues really matter versus how a candidate is percieved or how job performance is rated? With voter ideaology being centrist, wouldnt a voter play a give and a take game, therefore canceling out most issues? For example, voter A is in favor of gun control, inheritence tax cuts, Iraq and abortion. Pretty centrist for sake of argument, but what pushes this voter to vote the way they will end up deciding? This is where candidate likability and current regime satisifaction come into play. With the numbers above, votes tilted toward Obama because the current administration was failing. If the hot issue this election was the economy, and only 4 points above majority believed Obama to turn it around, why did the American public almost turn it into a coin flip and eventually lean towards Obama? This is why I believe that the majority of the American public can go either way on most issues, but the key to gathering votes in based on current administration job perception and candidate perception.