Interesting article. For those who'd like to know what the article said, without actually reading the article, here is a summary:

In 2004, Bush lost votes in his key areas: Rural and small cities. Even more surprising. Bush picked up votes in large urban cities - traditionally Democratic strong holds - and an area he did little campaigning or spending of ad money.

So while Bush's "base" left him at the polls in 2004, Bush picked up unlikely votes - urban cities in 2004.

An analysis shows a 16% increase of voters from 2000 to 2004 in urban cities, yet Bush picked up over 66% percent of the vote in large urban cities - that's over a 150% increase in 2004 from 2000. Also, statistics show that the majority of voters who voted for Bush in 2004 from the large urban cities were white voters - again traditionally leaning towards voting Democrat.

Amazing and clearly very Rovian, isn't it?

Contrarian, extraordinaire