You can read the post "upside down," but it will be easier like this:

Here is the table at 7:33 PM on election night:



---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And here is the table at 1:24 PM the next day:



In either order the big-city and rural shares of votes are the same within rounding error -- but seeing them in the right sequence makes it clearer how the pollsters increased the Bush vote shares in each category.

By the way, just using the 2000 size shares -- for instance, assuming that 9% of votes were cast in big cities and 23% in rural areas -- without altering anything else would have shaved Kerry's lead by about 2 points. That underscores the weirdness of arguing that the pollsters inflated the big-city vote in order to make Bush do better.