Isn't is obvious what happened to all the young voters? They all went to Canada to avoid the draft.

I'm afraid you are incorrect on just about all your points.
For this election, you see the large voter turnout and assume it was equal (or similar) parts lib and reasonable in that extra block. I think you should actually find that the "young" knownothings in fact again voted against reason and for the liberal, but the reasonable people outnumbered them by such margins that they still lost.
I suggest looking at the MNI papers this week - WSJ usually prints a breakdown of the wards. If you really need to, compare against the same data from 4 years ago. But, for now, look at the voting wards for the campus areas - I think you'll find those campus areas voted almost as heavily lib as the mid-isthmus wards - and that's where the know-nothing students and other libs are.

The same can always be found for any college campus - look at the wards around Marquette, UW-M, UW-LaCrosse and Eau Claire, and probably UW-Oh.
UW-P can be an exception, ag students tend to ave a little more sense and basis in reality.

Ever since Ford botched things in '76 by not letting Reagan's winning nomination vote be effected, every 4 years the vote has been conservative, with Perot splitting '92 and '96, even against such a non-candidate as Slick Willie. The "incumbent's 2nd term" elections for conservatives have always made gains for conservatives over the 1st term. In '84 RWR had more than '80, in '92 the votes against Clinton were more than against Dukakis in '88, and now in '04 the results are better for GWB than in '00.

Oh, and umm, college liberals learn something? Naaawww, that ain't gonna happen. Plus, there is sure to be a fresh batch of know-nothings to replace them 4 years from now.

And GWB is a socially moderate President, so I see no reason another can't be nominated in '08 - but who to pull in the female/feminist vote to rival Hillary? Liz Dole? Condi? Christine Todd Whitman? Will the GOP need to nominate a woman or otherwise just default? Would even a woman VP even cut it in terms of pulling in the women voters?

Something for GWB to consider, for the benefit of the party and America's future: If Cheney decided to resign "for health reasons" around 2007 or so, perhaps the new VP Bush selected would be able to carry the torch forward - and if that were one of the above prospects, that would make the GOP the 1st party to put a woman (or even minority woman) in the top pair of offices. That would make a Hillary challenge difficult.

Anyway, for your premise to hold up, we would have to see the '06 voters still split about even, still slightly conservative. But I think you will actually see the margin in '06 greatly exceeding the '02 margin, indicating the "core voter" margin in '04 was also greater than in '00. it's just that the Dims had to have such a huge turnout of know-nothings (largest ever, right?) just to make it close.

Also, IIRC, the new laws make it illegal for election officials or offices to release voter age or birth data. Not sure if they can do that in generic age "groups" or "blocks" - but if they did, you'd still have to trust the liberal felony-commiting election officials to give you un-biased factual data.