What do you think?
Rate this book
The Lost Majority: Why the Future of Government Is Up for Grabs - and Who Will Take It
In today€™s fraught political climate, one thing is the dream of the emerging Democratic majority is dead. How did the Democrats, who seemed unstoppable only two short years ago, lose their momentum so quickly, and what does it mean for the future of our two-party system? Here, RealClearPolitics senior analyst Sean Trende explores the underlying weaknesses of the Democratic promise of recent years, and shows how unlikely a new era of liberal values always was as demonstrated by the current backlash against unions and other Democratic pillars. Persuasively arguing that both Republicans and Democrats are failing to connect with the real values of the American people - and that long-held theories of cyclical political "realignments" are baseless - Trende shows how elusive a true and lasting majority is in today€™s climate, how Democrats can make up for the ground they€™ve lost, and how Republicans can regain power and credibility. Trende€™s sur
272 pages, Hardcover
First published January 3, 2012
9 people are currently reading
246 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
April 3, 2025
"This book aims to provide a sense of order to our current politics, by fundamentally reevaluating the way political majorities are made."
--Sean Trende, The Lost Majority
Superb and predictive psephological analysis, Trende's The Lost Majority represents data-driven journalism, an approach to elections that combines statistical models and careful examination of voter patterns to reveal the fickle nature of electoral majorities. Trende writes well, a skill particularly evident in Majority's first two sections, which are historically focused and where a lesser writer could have easily stranded his readers in a statistical bog. Majority presents plenty of data sets, but Trende’s axiomatic analysis provides consistent clarity. Trende’s key points include:
--Long-term historical realignments are largely overstated: Trende treats parties as rational (and irrational) actors who make decisions with real effects, even as they in turn are affected by current events. Trende argues that parties don't so much preside over realignments, but rather make distinct choices that lead to temporary, short-term coalition shifts. Memorably, Trende compares the widely accepted notion of long-term historical realignments to finding the face of Jesus in a grilled cheese sandwich--if you look hard enough, from far enough away, you can probably find anything. But once the statistics are examined on a closer-level, the concept generally falls apart.
--Party extinction is unlikely: Demographics are not destiny, Trende demonstrates, despite what correspondents, journalists, and political science wonks have been spouting for years. Again, Trende simply examines the historical shifts of major demographic and ethnic groups within American society, and demonstrates that economics and class-movement are far better predictors of where a person will ultimately vote than their ethnic/racial composition.
--The southern shift is a historical narrative that proves too simple - and too short: Once again, Trende clearly enumerates his argument, demonstrating that the south's shift to the Republican party was not primarily the result of white-angst and Dixiecrat anti-statism (read: racism), but rather represented the carefully cultivated in-roads made by Republicans (who were often transplanted Northerners) in the ever-growing southern suburbs of small-to-mid-sized southern cities. To be clear - Trende doesn’t deny racism impacted southern voting patterns - it did. He simply places economics above racism as to what actually moved voting patterns. He also notes that the late-confederacy’s rightward voting shift started far earlier (under FDR) and took far longer (well into the 1990s) than is widely understood. Indeed, voters in Old Appalachia took even longer to convince than those of the Old South, and when they ultimately did join the party of Henry Clay, Trende is able to again show that they did so for distinctly economic reasons. Perhaps the most fascinating item from this chapter is Trende’s regression analysis of 1968's three-way presidential race. The results are surprising, and represent a nuanced counterpoint to the simplistic “southern switch" narrative parroted by many writers.
--The Reagan Coalition was an effect, not a cause: Trende demonstrates painstakingly (on a county-by-county level in many cases) that what has been termed the Reagan Revolution was actually the result of a series of political marriages that took place in 1952: the Eisenhower Coalition. As Trende succinctly notes, Reagan was the final effect--not the primary cause.
--President Obama's new and permanent Democratic coalition was neither: Trende dispenses with the myth of the new Obama Coalition quickly, culminating in what now seems obvious--the disastrous 2010 midterm losses. Along the way, Trende demonstrates that Obama's coalition was merely President Clinton's coalition--albeit, both deeper and narrower in scope.
I can't recommend this work enough for anyone wanting a clear picture of the last 120 years of American electoral history -- all in a relatively brief 210 pages. Equally important, Trende’s general thesis regarding demographic certainties has proved accurate over time, something that seemed far from certain when Lost Majority was first published. By bringing clear historic principles, focused statistical analysis, and dashes of humor to the psephological field, Trende leaves the reader in a far stronger position to understand political cycles moving forward.
For further reading, see http://www.realclearbooks.com/article...
--Sean Trende, The Lost Majority
Superb and predictive psephological analysis, Trende's The Lost Majority represents data-driven journalism, an approach to elections that combines statistical models and careful examination of voter patterns to reveal the fickle nature of electoral majorities. Trende writes well, a skill particularly evident in Majority's first two sections, which are historically focused and where a lesser writer could have easily stranded his readers in a statistical bog. Majority presents plenty of data sets, but Trende’s axiomatic analysis provides consistent clarity. Trende’s key points include:
--Long-term historical realignments are largely overstated: Trende treats parties as rational (and irrational) actors who make decisions with real effects, even as they in turn are affected by current events. Trende argues that parties don't so much preside over realignments, but rather make distinct choices that lead to temporary, short-term coalition shifts. Memorably, Trende compares the widely accepted notion of long-term historical realignments to finding the face of Jesus in a grilled cheese sandwich--if you look hard enough, from far enough away, you can probably find anything. But once the statistics are examined on a closer-level, the concept generally falls apart.
--Party extinction is unlikely: Demographics are not destiny, Trende demonstrates, despite what correspondents, journalists, and political science wonks have been spouting for years. Again, Trende simply examines the historical shifts of major demographic and ethnic groups within American society, and demonstrates that economics and class-movement are far better predictors of where a person will ultimately vote than their ethnic/racial composition.
--The southern shift is a historical narrative that proves too simple - and too short: Once again, Trende clearly enumerates his argument, demonstrating that the south's shift to the Republican party was not primarily the result of white-angst and Dixiecrat anti-statism (read: racism), but rather represented the carefully cultivated in-roads made by Republicans (who were often transplanted Northerners) in the ever-growing southern suburbs of small-to-mid-sized southern cities. To be clear - Trende doesn’t deny racism impacted southern voting patterns - it did. He simply places economics above racism as to what actually moved voting patterns. He also notes that the late-confederacy’s rightward voting shift started far earlier (under FDR) and took far longer (well into the 1990s) than is widely understood. Indeed, voters in Old Appalachia took even longer to convince than those of the Old South, and when they ultimately did join the party of Henry Clay, Trende is able to again show that they did so for distinctly economic reasons. Perhaps the most fascinating item from this chapter is Trende’s regression analysis of 1968's three-way presidential race. The results are surprising, and represent a nuanced counterpoint to the simplistic “southern switch" narrative parroted by many writers.
--The Reagan Coalition was an effect, not a cause: Trende demonstrates painstakingly (on a county-by-county level in many cases) that what has been termed the Reagan Revolution was actually the result of a series of political marriages that took place in 1952: the Eisenhower Coalition. As Trende succinctly notes, Reagan was the final effect--not the primary cause.
--President Obama's new and permanent Democratic coalition was neither: Trende dispenses with the myth of the new Obama Coalition quickly, culminating in what now seems obvious--the disastrous 2010 midterm losses. Along the way, Trende demonstrates that Obama's coalition was merely President Clinton's coalition--albeit, both deeper and narrower in scope.
I can't recommend this work enough for anyone wanting a clear picture of the last 120 years of American electoral history -- all in a relatively brief 210 pages. Equally important, Trende’s general thesis regarding demographic certainties has proved accurate over time, something that seemed far from certain when Lost Majority was first published. By bringing clear historic principles, focused statistical analysis, and dashes of humor to the psephological field, Trende leaves the reader in a far stronger position to understand political cycles moving forward.
For further reading, see http://www.realclearbooks.com/article...
March 20, 2020
A very interesting argument about the failures of traditional electoral politics analysis. Trende says explicitly that the book is geared to the layman, though he has such an encyclopedic knowledge of congressional elections that I admit I was swimming in names and years a bit toward the end. No flashy predictions here, in the words of George Carlin “the weather will continue to change on and off for a long, long time”
July 12, 2014
This work is a reminder that "Pundits" are often wrong, and then spectacularly so. The same poor reasoning that led Democrats to proclaim the GOP a "regional party" in 1964, right before they won the Presidency 5 out of the next 6 elections, led the GOP to assume an easy victory in 2012.
In other words this book shows the conventional wisdom in election politics to be usually wrong, whether in the short-term or long-term. American politics has always been built on coalition building among the major parties and those coalitions are always tenuous and rarely last more than a couple cycles. What wins elections, especially at the National level, has far more to do with the candidate (see Obama, Barack and Reagan, Ronald) than with the particular policy positions of the DNC or GOP.
This also goes for assuming "immigrant groups" will always continue their voting patterns. Italians were a guaranteed GOP vote from 1900 until 1960, Irish always voted Democrat from 1860 until 1900, Germans GOP, etc.
I highly recommend this book for those interested in understanding the American electorate and why certain candidates win and how they won the way they did.
In other words this book shows the conventional wisdom in election politics to be usually wrong, whether in the short-term or long-term. American politics has always been built on coalition building among the major parties and those coalitions are always tenuous and rarely last more than a couple cycles. What wins elections, especially at the National level, has far more to do with the candidate (see Obama, Barack and Reagan, Ronald) than with the particular policy positions of the DNC or GOP.
This also goes for assuming "immigrant groups" will always continue their voting patterns. Italians were a guaranteed GOP vote from 1900 until 1960, Irish always voted Democrat from 1860 until 1900, Germans GOP, etc.
I highly recommend this book for those interested in understanding the American electorate and why certain candidates win and how they won the way they did.
February 21, 2025
“Life is a Sisyphean race, run ever faster toward a finish line that is merely the start of the next race.” - Matt Ridley
"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." - Isaac Newton
This book is the best explanation of both contemporary American election results and the shifting priorities given to various issues by politicians. Sean Trende is an expert at counterfactuals that shatter the sense of inevitability, ascribed by most political scientists and historians, as to why Democrats or Republicans control the Executive or Legislative branches at any given point in time.
In America's two party system, majorities of 51% or better are required of successful politicians and parties. This demands coalitions of convenience between otherwise divergent special interest groups, such as free market libertarians and the religious right both voting for Mitt Romney, or Barack Obama's appeal to both Wall Streeters and atheist neckbeards on reddit. Almost everyone taking a course on Introductory American Politics in college is taught that new demographies or political crises periodically bring about "Realignments" - coalitions of unstoppable authority that last for decades, such as the supposed New Deal Coalition of 1932-1968.
Trende embraces the importance of forming coalitions to attain power while compellingly disputing the existence of their decades-long majority rule. Democracies have no dynasties - they are Darwinian cauldrons where hyper-ambitious individuals summon hordes of ideologically inspired analysts, canvassers and voters in a never-ending arms race for control. Therefore, the incumbent and challenger's coalition must be broken down and reformulated during every election cycle.
When a politician successfully implements new legislation, or prioritizes one faction's interests over another's, it guarantees the alienation of parts of their coalition. The minority party can then poach the disaffected to its side. This accelerates after a party loses a couple election cycles, as its politicians quickly moderate their approach to specified issue positions that recapture 51% popularity.
Constant turnover, between or within the two political coalitions, will always be the rule at each level and branch of government. - 10/14/14
"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." - Isaac Newton
This book is the best explanation of both contemporary American election results and the shifting priorities given to various issues by politicians. Sean Trende is an expert at counterfactuals that shatter the sense of inevitability, ascribed by most political scientists and historians, as to why Democrats or Republicans control the Executive or Legislative branches at any given point in time.
In America's two party system, majorities of 51% or better are required of successful politicians and parties. This demands coalitions of convenience between otherwise divergent special interest groups, such as free market libertarians and the religious right both voting for Mitt Romney, or Barack Obama's appeal to both Wall Streeters and atheist neckbeards on reddit. Almost everyone taking a course on Introductory American Politics in college is taught that new demographies or political crises periodically bring about "Realignments" - coalitions of unstoppable authority that last for decades, such as the supposed New Deal Coalition of 1932-1968.
Trende embraces the importance of forming coalitions to attain power while compellingly disputing the existence of their decades-long majority rule. Democracies have no dynasties - they are Darwinian cauldrons where hyper-ambitious individuals summon hordes of ideologically inspired analysts, canvassers and voters in a never-ending arms race for control. Therefore, the incumbent and challenger's coalition must be broken down and reformulated during every election cycle.
When a politician successfully implements new legislation, or prioritizes one faction's interests over another's, it guarantees the alienation of parts of their coalition. The minority party can then poach the disaffected to its side. This accelerates after a party loses a couple election cycles, as its politicians quickly moderate their approach to specified issue positions that recapture 51% popularity.
Constant turnover, between or within the two political coalitions, will always be the rule at each level and branch of government. - 10/14/14
July 6, 2014
Sean Trende's The Lost Majority ably debunks political realignment theory but misses the import of 2012 which counters his read of the 2008 election. His bias trumps his analysis.
November 30, 2016
Great read in light of the recent election.
September 16, 2020
I found the vast majority of this book simply amazing. Trende takes the usual historical analysis of political party power in the US a step further by dismantling the idea of 30-year “realignment” cycles and unmasking the intra-party divisions during long periods of dominance.
Trende starts in the 1920s and highlights the coalition that kept the Republican party ascendant up to the 1932 election. He then studies how the Democratic party tweaked its coalition during this time until it emerged victorious under FDR. In this way, showcasing the fluctuating coalitions built by each party at the expense of the other, Trende highlights the unpredictable aspect of political dominance by one party and the inevitable fracture of any assembled coalition.
Towards this second point, Trende highlights the growing fissures between the conservative Southern Democrats and the national party, to the point that the perpetual congressional majority between 1930s-1990s become a mirage of Democratic dominance. Trende also focuses on the external factors that shape political opportunities such as WWII’s pivotal role in keeping FDR in office or the Cold War’s influence in the Republican party’s advantage for the presidency.
Trende also dismantles any predictions of future party dominance by highlight how many unforeseen events have turned upside down previous forecasts and the unexamined assumptions that project current trends forward indefinitely.
My only quibble with this book was the detail with which Trende sought to disprove the invulnerability of Obama’s coalition. His extensive analysis (at the county level!) of how Obama’s margins fit within Clinton’s previous coalition rather than being an unexpected realignment was more than a little tiring.
Nonetheless, I found Trende’s argument incredible compelling in putting the course of political dominance completely up for grabs of the political party that makes the most of the opportunities presented by history.
Trende starts in the 1920s and highlights the coalition that kept the Republican party ascendant up to the 1932 election. He then studies how the Democratic party tweaked its coalition during this time until it emerged victorious under FDR. In this way, showcasing the fluctuating coalitions built by each party at the expense of the other, Trende highlights the unpredictable aspect of political dominance by one party and the inevitable fracture of any assembled coalition.
Towards this second point, Trende highlights the growing fissures between the conservative Southern Democrats and the national party, to the point that the perpetual congressional majority between 1930s-1990s become a mirage of Democratic dominance. Trende also focuses on the external factors that shape political opportunities such as WWII’s pivotal role in keeping FDR in office or the Cold War’s influence in the Republican party’s advantage for the presidency.
Trende also dismantles any predictions of future party dominance by highlight how many unforeseen events have turned upside down previous forecasts and the unexamined assumptions that project current trends forward indefinitely.
My only quibble with this book was the detail with which Trende sought to disprove the invulnerability of Obama’s coalition. His extensive analysis (at the county level!) of how Obama’s margins fit within Clinton’s previous coalition rather than being an unexpected realignment was more than a little tiring.
Nonetheless, I found Trende’s argument incredible compelling in putting the course of political dominance completely up for grabs of the political party that makes the most of the opportunities presented by history.
January 3, 2018
A thorough, scientific examination of how coalitions are built and destroyed
This is a very deep analysis of how American political parties are able to capture and subsequently lose parts of the American electorate. The book also examines, with the rigor of a doctoral thesis, why those shifts lead to election victories. As a result, I have to change the way I think about elections, at least in the multidimensional mosaic of American voters.
The book takes longer to read than other books of this size, because the arguments explain nuance, such as the seemingly contradictory but actually reasonable demands of different parts of the white working class. Considering their effect on the 2016 election, seeing the analysis here provides some extra information that I would've liked to have before 2016.
One other critical segment of the population that the author dissects is the Latino population. Here is the only time where I read the book and my preconceived notions were verified. The Latino vote is not Democratic. Anyone in Texas can tell you that. It's also not just about abortion. Latinos have a wide set of viewpoints on environmental regulation, immigration and the relationship between church and state. In a book that made me change my view on who will vote for whom, that was one issue where i agreed from the outset.
There are many other claims in the book that make a lot of sense (it's not just the economy, charisma can cover up issues but not all of them, depth and breadth are at odds in coalition building). This is why I recommend the book to anyone who wants to better critique political punditry. You can use the theme of coalition building to determine whether Bernie would've won or if Ted Cruz is electable. It's a solid foundation, thanks to the arguments in this book.
This is a very deep analysis of how American political parties are able to capture and subsequently lose parts of the American electorate. The book also examines, with the rigor of a doctoral thesis, why those shifts lead to election victories. As a result, I have to change the way I think about elections, at least in the multidimensional mosaic of American voters.
The book takes longer to read than other books of this size, because the arguments explain nuance, such as the seemingly contradictory but actually reasonable demands of different parts of the white working class. Considering their effect on the 2016 election, seeing the analysis here provides some extra information that I would've liked to have before 2016.
One other critical segment of the population that the author dissects is the Latino population. Here is the only time where I read the book and my preconceived notions were verified. The Latino vote is not Democratic. Anyone in Texas can tell you that. It's also not just about abortion. Latinos have a wide set of viewpoints on environmental regulation, immigration and the relationship between church and state. In a book that made me change my view on who will vote for whom, that was one issue where i agreed from the outset.
There are many other claims in the book that make a lot of sense (it's not just the economy, charisma can cover up issues but not all of them, depth and breadth are at odds in coalition building). This is why I recommend the book to anyone who wants to better critique political punditry. You can use the theme of coalition building to determine whether Bernie would've won or if Ted Cruz is electable. It's a solid foundation, thanks to the arguments in this book.
March 17, 2023
I am weak in politics. This book is a synthesis of the thoughts and observations in the state of the American system as accumulated through 2012 and over 120+ years.
Trump was only mentions twice.
The author’s theory is that we have 100+ years of accumulating history in US politics and there are cyclical sway to the system that is oscillating at a faster rate. These realignments are not predicable to a who or time, but enough that he called the contrasting sway to President Obama. Enough that with enough data and time there are factors that appears to influences it.
The goal of the Politics are no longer to achieve a great goal like an arms race in infrastructure, upskilling our nations, restoring a healthier environment, or enabling paradigm changing science. We are hijacked in the perpetual crisis of the moment. The politics sway for the sake of populism and we have achieved little outcome.
There is enough understanding to manipulate the system. As a retrospective - concerning.
Trump was only mentions twice.
The author’s theory is that we have 100+ years of accumulating history in US politics and there are cyclical sway to the system that is oscillating at a faster rate. These realignments are not predicable to a who or time, but enough that he called the contrasting sway to President Obama. Enough that with enough data and time there are factors that appears to influences it.
The goal of the Politics are no longer to achieve a great goal like an arms race in infrastructure, upskilling our nations, restoring a healthier environment, or enabling paradigm changing science. We are hijacked in the perpetual crisis of the moment. The politics sway for the sake of populism and we have achieved little outcome.
There is enough understanding to manipulate the system. As a retrospective - concerning.
January 7, 2012
The best arguments are ones that are novel but obvious in retrospect, ones that make you question your very sanity for ever believing something as silly as the opposing argument. Sean Trende, who is an excellent political analyst, accomplished that in The Lost Majority, as he thoroughly demolished realignment theory and a "cyclical view" of American politics. (It's worth pointing out that I've been a big fan of Trende's work on RCP for a while, so I was definitely looking forward to this book.) At times, it felt like I was reading a refutation of a geocentric universe. Trende emphasizes the role of events and how difficult it is to please everyone all of the time. His revisionist take on the political coalitions of the 20th century is both stimulating and persuasive--he greatly truncates the New Deal Majority and credits the Reagan Majority to Eisenhower.
A few key lessons and observations from Trende:
1. Don't attribute changes in specific issues to changes in coalitions. The issues that President Reagan faced were not the same as the ones that President Eisenhower faced, but they won on the back of the same coalition.
2. "Coalitions of everyone" rarely succeed in the long-term; people have conflicting interests.
3. Bill Clinton was a remarkably skilled politician.
4. Republicanism in the South grew for mainly economic reasons, not because of racism.
5. Quantitative models of electoral probabilities tend to miss things by their very nature.
6. Voters tend to abhor aggressive ideologues but can support sunny/measured ones.
This is a great read for the upcoming campaign. It's a bit demoralizing if you're looking to become Mark Hanna (whose success is most likely overrated, if you agree with Trende's argument), but otherwise, it's really worthwhile.
A few key lessons and observations from Trende:
1. Don't attribute changes in specific issues to changes in coalitions. The issues that President Reagan faced were not the same as the ones that President Eisenhower faced, but they won on the back of the same coalition.
2. "Coalitions of everyone" rarely succeed in the long-term; people have conflicting interests.
3. Bill Clinton was a remarkably skilled politician.
4. Republicanism in the South grew for mainly economic reasons, not because of racism.
5. Quantitative models of electoral probabilities tend to miss things by their very nature.
6. Voters tend to abhor aggressive ideologues but can support sunny/measured ones.
This is a great read for the upcoming campaign. It's a bit demoralizing if you're looking to become Mark Hanna (whose success is most likely overrated, if you agree with Trende's argument), but otherwise, it's really worthwhile.
April 21, 2014
There are some books you just can't put down, or books you keep reading over and over. Sean Trende's "The Lost Majority: Why the Future of Government Is Up for Grabs - and Who Will Take It" is an outstanding analysis of American political history. He demolishes the popular realignment theory and credibly challenges popular beliefs among both Democratic and Republican experts about forging lasting majorities.
He makes a convincing case that the New Deal coalition forged by Franklin Roosevelt lasted at the latest until 1946, despite the lasting reforms they brought about. He also makes a surprising case that President Dwight D. Eisenhower actually forged a longer lasting coalition that enabled the GOP to win most presidential elections from 1952 to 1992, and gave state parties a framework to build competitive statewide candidates. It was based on three legs: the South, the suburbs, and the white working class.
With laser like precision, he shows how and why the Democratic Party lost the white working class and the South. He delves into the 2008 Democratic primary fight between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and shows the deep fissures the threatened to split the party in two. What brought the party together and sealed Obama's election was the financial crisis of 2008.
Because of this book, I have come to rely on Sean Trende's frequent articles on American politics to cut through the spin and actually know what is going on and what is likely to happen. If you want to understand the forces which drive American politics, then you need to read this book.
He makes a convincing case that the New Deal coalition forged by Franklin Roosevelt lasted at the latest until 1946, despite the lasting reforms they brought about. He also makes a surprising case that President Dwight D. Eisenhower actually forged a longer lasting coalition that enabled the GOP to win most presidential elections from 1952 to 1992, and gave state parties a framework to build competitive statewide candidates. It was based on three legs: the South, the suburbs, and the white working class.
With laser like precision, he shows how and why the Democratic Party lost the white working class and the South. He delves into the 2008 Democratic primary fight between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and shows the deep fissures the threatened to split the party in two. What brought the party together and sealed Obama's election was the financial crisis of 2008.
Because of this book, I have come to rely on Sean Trende's frequent articles on American politics to cut through the spin and actually know what is going on and what is likely to happen. If you want to understand the forces which drive American politics, then you need to read this book.
November 30, 2012
If anyone is looking for a quick gift to get me, a hardcover copy of this would be nice. While I read a good deal of nonfiction, this may be the best, most indispensable book on electoral history and politics I've read in some time, and definitely the most important one in the last few years.
Sean Trende, a writer for Real Clear Politics and their chief political analyst, take a close, statistically-based look at the history of electoral partisan politics over the last few generations, and its applications to current trends and campaigns. For a short book (a little over 200 pages), it's incredibly exhaustive, relying on hard vote counts as well as pre-election and exit polling. It talks about a lot of the assumptions about electoral shifts, majorities, and why so many predictions ultimately fall flat.
Especially with the upheaval we've seen over the last few cycles, it provides a lot of insight into how the electorate works and what the trends might (and might not) mean. If elections and demographics are of any interest whatsoever, this needs to be at the top of your reading list, for certain.
Sean Trende, a writer for Real Clear Politics and their chief political analyst, take a close, statistically-based look at the history of electoral partisan politics over the last few generations, and its applications to current trends and campaigns. For a short book (a little over 200 pages), it's incredibly exhaustive, relying on hard vote counts as well as pre-election and exit polling. It talks about a lot of the assumptions about electoral shifts, majorities, and why so many predictions ultimately fall flat.
Especially with the upheaval we've seen over the last few cycles, it provides a lot of insight into how the electorate works and what the trends might (and might not) mean. If elections and demographics are of any interest whatsoever, this needs to be at the top of your reading list, for certain.
March 21, 2012
I remember when the GOP won both houses of Congress in the 1994 tsunami. We were crowing that President Clinton was a lame duck president. I remember when Bush/Cheney won re-election in 2004. Despite having everything and the kitchen sink thrown at us we pulled it out, and were patting ourselves on the back for the establishment of a GOP lock on the Presidency.
Two years is a lifetime in politics.
Trende is persuasive in explaining a truth in American politics; unlike in Europe, where every interest group can have its own party, our two party system requires each party to put together coalitions of voters who can seem very odd bed-fellows in order to win. Therefore, there can be no permanent majorities. Once you start governing, you will create winners and losers. And that will break apart the coalition as the losers seek their interests elsewhere.
It has happened all throughout our history. It will continue to happen.
Two years is a lifetime in politics.
Trende is persuasive in explaining a truth in American politics; unlike in Europe, where every interest group can have its own party, our two party system requires each party to put together coalitions of voters who can seem very odd bed-fellows in order to win. Therefore, there can be no permanent majorities. Once you start governing, you will create winners and losers. And that will break apart the coalition as the losers seek their interests elsewhere.
It has happened all throughout our history. It will continue to happen.
January 26, 2012
I expected this book to grab me a bit more than it did. The author seemed to be trying to strike a balance between telling a story and spouting off statistics, and maybe it would have been a more interesting read for someone with more of a political science background. I enjoyed his self awareness at the end as he acknowledged that historians will look at books like his and point out just how wrong he was. Not that I believe that his analysis was particularly flawed, but it is realistic to expect (as is his thesis) that these things are notoriously hard to properly model, and people find reasons to justify faulty predictions everywhere.
September 8, 2012
Trende is an RCP editor and makes the case that all the talk among political scientists about election cycles (first proposed either by VO Key or Walter Dean Burnam) or realignments (all sorts from Kevin Phillips to a raft of imitators on the right or left) - miss the point about how really fragile electoral coalitions are.
He makes a strong case for suggesting that the common bench marks on elections and major shifts are really off the mark.
There is a lot of data here but the arguments are clear and thoughtful.
He makes a strong case for suggesting that the common bench marks on elections and major shifts are really off the mark.
There is a lot of data here but the arguments are clear and thoughtful.
November 11, 2019
Super good book to understand the necessity of bounding up a coalition of disparate interest groups in order to win the presidency. The country is so diverse that a national politician must speak to and be supported by an array of different often opposing factions. This book is ESPECIALLY recommended for those of you who think that any candidate that you support can win. Already your view of the political landscape is fatally narrow.
December 13, 2014
Data-driven look at how majorities are never really permanent. Relentlessly rational.
January 20, 2015
This book connected the dots regarding questions I always had about the magic formula to who wins political elections and why. Absolutely fascinating!
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews