We're being set up like a bunch of day show addicts. It's a cheap but effective narrative gimmick; it helps set the stage for the next episode's surprise resolution.

"Before the election Bush's lead rollercoastered back and forth between 1% and 15% every couple days, responding to every trivial accusation. <last-minute unfounded reports of awful Dem behavior X> must have given Bush just the short-lived bounce he needed. In retrospect, how lucky for the country we didn't have a repeat of the 2000 close call. Just imagine the acrimony that would have followed this time around!"

One more factor so when the votes are counted, anyone wishing to contest the result that Bush "got more" can be ridiculed and marginalized, and the authorities (SC? HS? OSP?) will have sufficient credibility to put them down hard.

Historical revisionism is a lot more convincing if you can lay some foundations for it ahead of time.

Giovanni