There are 100 people in a classroom. In order to become class president you need 51 votes from classmates. Team A and Team B look for candidates to represent them. A survey shows that 40 students identify with team A, 40 identify with team B with 20 people wavering back and forth between the two.
After the selection process is complete it turns out that the Candidate for team A never managed to gather more than 40% of his team’s votes (16 people). The Candidate for team B gathered roughly 75% of his team’s votes (30 people).
With the candidates established the general election begins. Candidate A continues to push and appeal to his base voters, ignoring the 20 wavering people and the 24 members of his own team that didn’t vote for him.
Polling shows that Candidate B is slowly picking up wavering people (6 of the 20) by appealing not only to their base of thirty but to the wavering group as well. They are now at 36 votes. Meanwhile, Candidate A remains at 16 votes by making no effort to appeal to anyone beyond their ‘base’ whatsoever.
Candidate A becomes frustrated with these polling reports and hires new managers that ‘double down’ and increase the number of statements that appeal to those 16 votes and only manage to alienate the other 84 votes.
Who would be surprised when Candidate A then loses the election in a landslide? Not me.