What do you think?
Rate this book
Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State: Why Americans Vote the Way They Do
On the night of the 2000 presidential election, Americans sat riveted in front of their televisions as polling results divided the nation's map into red and blue states. Since then the color divide has become a symbol of a culture war that thrives on stereotypes--pickup-driving red-state Republicans who vote based on God, guns, and gays; and elitist, latte-sipping blue-state Democrats who are woefully out of touch with heartland values. Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State debunks these and other political myths. With wit and prodigious number crunching, Andrew Gelman gets to the bottom of why Democrats win elections in wealthy states while Republicans get the votes of richer voters, how the two parties have become ideologically polarized, and other issues. Gelman uses eye-opening, easy-to-read graphics to unravel the mystifying patterns of recent voting, and in doing so paints a vivid portrait of the regional differences that drive American politics. He demonstrates in the plainest possible terms how the real culture war is being waged among affluent Democrats and Republicans, not between the haves and have-nots; how religion matters for higher-income voters; how the rich-poor divide is greater in red not blue states--and much more. Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State is a must-read for anyone seeking to make sense of today’s fractured American political landscape. Myths and facts about the red and the Myth : The rich vote based on economics, the poor vote "God, guns, and gays."
Fact : Church attendance predicts Republican voting much more among rich than poor. Myth : A political divide exists between working-class "red America" and rich "blue America."
Fact : Within any state, more rich people vote Republican. The real divide is between higher-income voters in red and blue states. Myth : Rich people vote for the Democrats.
Fact : George W. Bush won more than 60 percent of high-income voters. Myth : Religion is particularly divisive in American politics.
Fact : Religious and secular voters differ no more in America than in France, Germany, Sweden, and many other European countries.
Fact : Church attendance predicts Republican voting much more among rich than poor. Myth : A political divide exists between working-class "red America" and rich "blue America."
Fact : Within any state, more rich people vote Republican. The real divide is between higher-income voters in red and blue states. Myth : Rich people vote for the Democrats.
Fact : George W. Bush won more than 60 percent of high-income voters. Myth : Religion is particularly divisive in American politics.
Fact : Religious and secular voters differ no more in America than in France, Germany, Sweden, and many other European countries.
240 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2008
48 people are currently reading
988 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 - 30 of 49 reviews
March 27, 2016
This book reads somewhat like a scholarly paper expanded to book length - I mean, it's a good scholarly paper, but it suffers from some repetition as the results of the data analysis are graphed and reworded in different ways. The writing becomes too dry at times but for the most parts engaging enough to hold the reader's interest.
In the first five chapters, Gelman presents the apparent paradox that richer states (states with average higher incomes) tend to vote Democratic, but rich individual voters tend to vote Republican. The resolution, he tells us, is complicated. Maybe, but I would think that at least a partial explanation is simply that the poor in the richer states are less poor (almost by definition) and/or there aren't as many. Not everything can be explained by common sense logic, but maybe this is one of those things that can.
There are numerous interesting graphics, including a fascinating couple of "red/blue" maps with states and counties deformed to normalize their size by population. These maps make it clear that those large sections of red that show up in the less populated western states are misleading.
There's an interesting chapter comparing US politics to that of Mexico, and there's further discussion of other factors influencing US voters, including religion, economic inequality, and the overlapping topics of moral issues and social issues. But as indicated by the title, the primary focus of the book is economics, and other factors are mostly presented in light of or as moderated by voter income. This makes the analysis quite focused, but somewhat one dimensional - it's at least possible that some voting patterns are due primarily to moral issues, for example, and only secondarily to economics, and those possibilities seem a bit neglected here.
One notable finding from the analysis is that the two political parties have become increasingly ideologically polarized in recent years, even as voters themselves remain more moderate. In fact, there is some discussion of how in some cases it may benefit a candidate to "move left" or "move right" to capture more centrist voters - but the problem, as the author admits, is that the discussion assumes that candidates could simply do this, while in fact, it would not be trivially easy to convince voters that the move is "real" (p. 152).
Anyway, the reasons for the difference in ideology between candidates and voters are, again, complicated, and the conclusions reached here are less than satisfying, but that's not necessarily the authors' fault - it reflects the reality of a complex phenomenon, and this book at least contributes plenty of data to the discussion.
In the first five chapters, Gelman presents the apparent paradox that richer states (states with average higher incomes) tend to vote Democratic, but rich individual voters tend to vote Republican. The resolution, he tells us, is complicated. Maybe, but I would think that at least a partial explanation is simply that the poor in the richer states are less poor (almost by definition) and/or there aren't as many. Not everything can be explained by common sense logic, but maybe this is one of those things that can.
There are numerous interesting graphics, including a fascinating couple of "red/blue" maps with states and counties deformed to normalize their size by population. These maps make it clear that those large sections of red that show up in the less populated western states are misleading.
There's an interesting chapter comparing US politics to that of Mexico, and there's further discussion of other factors influencing US voters, including religion, economic inequality, and the overlapping topics of moral issues and social issues. But as indicated by the title, the primary focus of the book is economics, and other factors are mostly presented in light of or as moderated by voter income. This makes the analysis quite focused, but somewhat one dimensional - it's at least possible that some voting patterns are due primarily to moral issues, for example, and only secondarily to economics, and those possibilities seem a bit neglected here.
One notable finding from the analysis is that the two political parties have become increasingly ideologically polarized in recent years, even as voters themselves remain more moderate. In fact, there is some discussion of how in some cases it may benefit a candidate to "move left" or "move right" to capture more centrist voters - but the problem, as the author admits, is that the discussion assumes that candidates could simply do this, while in fact, it would not be trivially easy to convince voters that the move is "real" (p. 152).
Anyway, the reasons for the difference in ideology between candidates and voters are, again, complicated, and the conclusions reached here are less than satisfying, but that's not necessarily the authors' fault - it reflects the reality of a complex phenomenon, and this book at least contributes plenty of data to the discussion.
November 18, 2011
Gelman identifies some very interesting trends in voting behavior. He notes that rich states tend to vote Democrat and poor states tend to vote Republican--this isn't surprising. What is surprising is that rich people in each of those states tend to vote the other way; that is, rich people in Red States tend to vote Democrat, while rich people in Blue states tend to vote Republican. It's an incredibly potent observation. Gelman then looks at what impact this has on our politics, and speculates as to why it might be true, although that last part is easily the weakest element of the book.
June 29, 2011
Thank You Mr. Andrew Gelman.
This book smashes every voting stereotype out there and will truly enlighten any reader about how Americans actually vote. It makes the talking heads on television sound dumber. As elitist as it may sound I honestly wouldn't take anyone's opinion on why people vote for a certain party seriously if they have not read this book.
This book makes the reader ask more questions at its conclusion after answering millions. Simply amazing and amusing to read.
Backed up with thorough and concise research.
Makes you really understanding voting patterns that I would feel comfortable in predicting the presidential elections results of the next 20 years.
Amazing book and a must read.
Thank you Andrew Gelman
This book smashes every voting stereotype out there and will truly enlighten any reader about how Americans actually vote. It makes the talking heads on television sound dumber. As elitist as it may sound I honestly wouldn't take anyone's opinion on why people vote for a certain party seriously if they have not read this book.
This book makes the reader ask more questions at its conclusion after answering millions. Simply amazing and amusing to read.
Backed up with thorough and concise research.
Makes you really understanding voting patterns that I would feel comfortable in predicting the presidential elections results of the next 20 years.
Amazing book and a must read.
Thank you Andrew Gelman
February 14, 2013
I was familiar with the material because the author was a former professor of mine who used the raw data as an example in a stats modeling class. The title of the course lecture was "Whats the matter with Connecticut?". Having already read "Whats the matter with Kansas?" before taking this class / reading this book, I admit I felt a little silly for not having immediately thought about this.
The takeaway is simple, completely intuitive, and rock solid. Yet it is something that gets fucked up by professional political pundits so regularly that you wonder if they ever read any books at all.
The takeaway is simple, completely intuitive, and rock solid. Yet it is something that gets fucked up by professional political pundits so regularly that you wonder if they ever read any books at all.
Read
March 29, 2021The book has lots of charts to present data in support of the hypotheses. That can be good for most people. I'm visually impaired and have to listen to the book, so I can't make good use of the charts. So, I can't say that much about the data or alternate interpretations of his data.
Gelman gives data that more religious people (especially the affluent) are more likely to vote conservative. I tend to emphasize economic issues, but it's not breaking news that religion and economic interests don't always go together. Karl Marx's (paraphrased) "religion is the opiate of the masses" may not have been about voting, but it suggested followers of "the carpenter" may not act to help carpenters. Christian views on billionaires isn't strongly affected by, "It's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
He treats Democrats as liberal in recent decades and Republicans as conservative. Yes, on average, Democrats talk less conservatively, and (to a lesser degree) act less conservatively. Social / religious-type issues may be the points where Democrats and Republicans differ most today. This happened in the period that Winner-Take-All Politics by Jacob Hacker describes business forces making Pres. Carter and later-era legislation more business-friendly. It's the period that Affluence and influence by Martin Gilens, and Unequal Democracy by Larry Bartels , find Democrats paying little to no attention to the policy preferences of the poorest 1/3 of Americans. I hypothesize that "identify politics" lets Democrats look good to liberals even as their "women's rights" actions are disproportionately for affluent women.
Gelman says that the median political preferences of voters is similar to the median political preferences of members of Congress, although he describes Democratic Congress members as being more to the left and Republicans more to the right. (In Affluence and Influence, it shows the general public supports various policies that Congress is less likely to support unless the most affluent 10% support those policies.)
Gelman says, on both national economy and personal finance, voters are less willing to vote based on politicians' past performance and act more on partisan perceptions. He says considerable portions of major party voters don't describe themselves with the label "liberal" (Dems) or "conservative" (GOP), and many don't support positions on all the supposedly major party issues. He says it's more party loyalty / rivalry.
He speaks about how "rich" people vote and differences between those in red and blue states. He uses "rich" to mean in the top 33% of the population.
The book was written when backlash from blue collar workers losing jobs was not so great. The book's "new expanded" edition added info from the 2008 election. The first edition was before the Great Recession, and the newer edition was written at its beginning. In the 2016 election, we saw a number of white blue-collar workers who voted for Obama vote for Trump...
The book argues that during the last several decades the incomes of the poorest people in the poorer states has increased and have improved more than the poorest in richer states. It says the wealth of the rich in richer states have done better than the rich in poorer states. It argues that growing income inequality does not seem to explain the red state / blue state distinction. (That depends on how changes in income are calculated - if they reflect longer working hours, decreased benefits, more need for multiple family paychecks, job insecurity...)
The book says that Mississippi is the most Republican state among the "rich," but the poor are highly Democratic. (So, how do Republicans win? The poor prevented from voting? The poor don't bother to vote? Or they vote but somehow the Republicans win anyway?)
The book says religious matters explain change in voting, suggesting Bill Clinton's extramarital affairs was a factor. (But Clinton's affairs became public in the late 1990's.) It notes Democrats became more associated with abortion and gay rights, and the GOP became associated with religious conservatives. (Was it the parties acting on those issues or being less active in labor issues? Clinton angered many with free trade deals, the crime bill, a welfare restriction law, business deregulation, etc. Voters may act on the issues the parties do address.)
Gelman says there wasn't a clear correlation between religiousness and social / economic conservatism before the 1990's. (Roe v. Wade was 20 years before the '90s. Civil rights happened even earlier. Economic shifts beginning in the 1970's might have reached a level of impact in the '90s. Pres. Clinton's NAFTA, deregulation, crime bill and welfare limits may have changed views of the Democratic Party.)
Some clarifications might help me. (1) When discussing who votes for which candidates, does he only include registered voters who cast ballots? If so, are these statistics skewed by poor people excluded from voting or poor people being disillusioned with politicians or such? (2) What constitutes a "rich state" or "poor state?" Is it just total income divided by population? Is it the percentage of people below the poverty line? Is it the mean, mode or median income? Is local cost of living taken into account?
He notes that if the 51% poorest people voted on their economic interests, the election results would be different. (Well, once we take the Electoral College, two-Senators-per-state, gerrymandering, voter suppression, etc., the percentage would have to be more than 51%, but yes, not everyone votes by well-informed economic interest.)
In the afterword for the 2008 election, he says the economy helped increase Obama's vote, and he predicts the 2012 election will depend on how the economy develops.
Gelman gives data that more religious people (especially the affluent) are more likely to vote conservative. I tend to emphasize economic issues, but it's not breaking news that religion and economic interests don't always go together. Karl Marx's (paraphrased) "religion is the opiate of the masses" may not have been about voting, but it suggested followers of "the carpenter" may not act to help carpenters. Christian views on billionaires isn't strongly affected by, "It's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
He treats Democrats as liberal in recent decades and Republicans as conservative. Yes, on average, Democrats talk less conservatively, and (to a lesser degree) act less conservatively. Social / religious-type issues may be the points where Democrats and Republicans differ most today. This happened in the period that Winner-Take-All Politics by Jacob Hacker describes business forces making Pres. Carter and later-era legislation more business-friendly. It's the period that Affluence and influence by Martin Gilens, and Unequal Democracy by Larry Bartels , find Democrats paying little to no attention to the policy preferences of the poorest 1/3 of Americans. I hypothesize that "identify politics" lets Democrats look good to liberals even as their "women's rights" actions are disproportionately for affluent women.
Gelman says that the median political preferences of voters is similar to the median political preferences of members of Congress, although he describes Democratic Congress members as being more to the left and Republicans more to the right. (In Affluence and Influence, it shows the general public supports various policies that Congress is less likely to support unless the most affluent 10% support those policies.)
Gelman says, on both national economy and personal finance, voters are less willing to vote based on politicians' past performance and act more on partisan perceptions. He says considerable portions of major party voters don't describe themselves with the label "liberal" (Dems) or "conservative" (GOP), and many don't support positions on all the supposedly major party issues. He says it's more party loyalty / rivalry.
He speaks about how "rich" people vote and differences between those in red and blue states. He uses "rich" to mean in the top 33% of the population.
The book was written when backlash from blue collar workers losing jobs was not so great. The book's "new expanded" edition added info from the 2008 election. The first edition was before the Great Recession, and the newer edition was written at its beginning. In the 2016 election, we saw a number of white blue-collar workers who voted for Obama vote for Trump...
The book argues that during the last several decades the incomes of the poorest people in the poorer states has increased and have improved more than the poorest in richer states. It says the wealth of the rich in richer states have done better than the rich in poorer states. It argues that growing income inequality does not seem to explain the red state / blue state distinction. (That depends on how changes in income are calculated - if they reflect longer working hours, decreased benefits, more need for multiple family paychecks, job insecurity...)
The book says that Mississippi is the most Republican state among the "rich," but the poor are highly Democratic. (So, how do Republicans win? The poor prevented from voting? The poor don't bother to vote? Or they vote but somehow the Republicans win anyway?)
The book says religious matters explain change in voting, suggesting Bill Clinton's extramarital affairs was a factor. (But Clinton's affairs became public in the late 1990's.) It notes Democrats became more associated with abortion and gay rights, and the GOP became associated with religious conservatives. (Was it the parties acting on those issues or being less active in labor issues? Clinton angered many with free trade deals, the crime bill, a welfare restriction law, business deregulation, etc. Voters may act on the issues the parties do address.)
Gelman says there wasn't a clear correlation between religiousness and social / economic conservatism before the 1990's. (Roe v. Wade was 20 years before the '90s. Civil rights happened even earlier. Economic shifts beginning in the 1970's might have reached a level of impact in the '90s. Pres. Clinton's NAFTA, deregulation, crime bill and welfare limits may have changed views of the Democratic Party.)
Some clarifications might help me. (1) When discussing who votes for which candidates, does he only include registered voters who cast ballots? If so, are these statistics skewed by poor people excluded from voting or poor people being disillusioned with politicians or such? (2) What constitutes a "rich state" or "poor state?" Is it just total income divided by population? Is it the percentage of people below the poverty line? Is it the mean, mode or median income? Is local cost of living taken into account?
He notes that if the 51% poorest people voted on their economic interests, the election results would be different. (Well, once we take the Electoral College, two-Senators-per-state, gerrymandering, voter suppression, etc., the percentage would have to be more than 51%, but yes, not everyone votes by well-informed economic interest.)
In the afterword for the 2008 election, he says the economy helped increase Obama's vote, and he predicts the 2012 election will depend on how the economy develops.
September 27, 2016
This is an extremely wonky book. Copious amounts of data and charts. I skimmed it and it didn't really take an in depth reading to get the gist of what they were saying. I would only recommend this for people who are data AND political geeks. (I'm only the latter and not the former)
January 8, 2016
This particular book is a fascinating statistical analysis, with learned and technical endnotes that show the author’s conceptual debt to data visualizing pioneers like the great Edward Tufte [1] that views the recent polarization of America’s politics, dismantles plenty of punditry and conventional wisdom, and makes a rigorous and well-defended statistical argument for why Americans vote as they do and what that means from a comparative international perspective [2], with a particularly close analysis of Mexico’s politics as a case study alongside the American example. The results are highly intriguing, and can be summarized by the conclusion of the authors that America represents two distinct model cultures, one where expensive property and socially liberal, nonreligious voters proliferate in the coastal regions and the Upper Midwest where income inequality is most rapidly increasing while lower taxes, lower property costs, and greater economic opportunity for middle and upper income residents make the states of the Sunbelt and Mountain West more attractive for conservatives, and furthermore that the growing polarization of America’s society into hostile culture war combatants has been most serious among the wealthy and college educated who have become more internally consistent in their views through relocation and growing political awareness.
It is not only these conclusions but also the way that the author comes to them that is worthy of praise. The book, coming in at about 180 pages of core written material and more than 40 pages of excellent endnotes and an index, is written in a way that ought to appeal to those who are literate in the thoughtful and data-rich display of quantitative information, and moves well beyond a look at superficial apparent paradoxes to examine the cross-tabs and the deeper statistical picture underneath the surface. The first part of the book introduces a paradox, that rich people consistently vote Republican on average and that rich states consistently vote Democratic in the United States, which confuses the political commentators of our country. The author then breaks down what is going on in our contemporary political scene by looking at income and voting over time, the relationship between social inequality and voting patterns, the phenomenon of religious reds and secular blues that is particularly associated with upper income voters, and uses Mexico as a comparative example. Interestingly enough, in Mexico the pattern of voting is that wealthy people and wealthy states vote PAN, poor people and poor states vote PRD, and the PRI is the centrist party trying to prevent Mexico from becoming polarized, after having lost its political power due to Mexico’s growing democratization. The third part of the book shows what these various cross currents mean, showing how political parties have become more polarized, what constraints exist to keep parties from being able to move towards the center in order to build a majority coalition, and then a tidy conclusion to present the author’s arguments wrapped in a bow.
This book succeeds on a variety of levels. For one, it manages to connect social and economic factors of voting into a coherent package, demonstrates that it is the behavior of cultural and political elites that is shaping the widening division in our political culture [3], and examines the treacherous and shifting currents of voting and partisan and ideological identity with a vigorous use of data and a compelling grasp of data visualization, ranging from a skillful use of maps, time series charts, scatter plots, line graphs, and so on. The author uses a highly developed statistical literacy to back his rhetorical argumentation, in such a way that presents a compelling and coherent, if somewhat complicated, picture. Of interest is the fact that evidence demonstrates that the relative position of wealth between states has remained constant for more than a century, demonstrating that even if changes in political culture in recent decades will eventually change the position of rich states and poor states, that the penalties for making widespread mistakes in terms of which social system to support, like the antebellum South’s initial hostility to industrialization and small farms in preference for slavery and export-oriented plantations, is persistent and severe. Let that be a lesson for us today in the fact that our social conditions matter greatly in how our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will live in the future, an unexpected lesson for a worthwhile and well-written work of political analysis.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
[2] See also:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
[3] This is not a new phenomenon. See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
It is not only these conclusions but also the way that the author comes to them that is worthy of praise. The book, coming in at about 180 pages of core written material and more than 40 pages of excellent endnotes and an index, is written in a way that ought to appeal to those who are literate in the thoughtful and data-rich display of quantitative information, and moves well beyond a look at superficial apparent paradoxes to examine the cross-tabs and the deeper statistical picture underneath the surface. The first part of the book introduces a paradox, that rich people consistently vote Republican on average and that rich states consistently vote Democratic in the United States, which confuses the political commentators of our country. The author then breaks down what is going on in our contemporary political scene by looking at income and voting over time, the relationship between social inequality and voting patterns, the phenomenon of religious reds and secular blues that is particularly associated with upper income voters, and uses Mexico as a comparative example. Interestingly enough, in Mexico the pattern of voting is that wealthy people and wealthy states vote PAN, poor people and poor states vote PRD, and the PRI is the centrist party trying to prevent Mexico from becoming polarized, after having lost its political power due to Mexico’s growing democratization. The third part of the book shows what these various cross currents mean, showing how political parties have become more polarized, what constraints exist to keep parties from being able to move towards the center in order to build a majority coalition, and then a tidy conclusion to present the author’s arguments wrapped in a bow.
This book succeeds on a variety of levels. For one, it manages to connect social and economic factors of voting into a coherent package, demonstrates that it is the behavior of cultural and political elites that is shaping the widening division in our political culture [3], and examines the treacherous and shifting currents of voting and partisan and ideological identity with a vigorous use of data and a compelling grasp of data visualization, ranging from a skillful use of maps, time series charts, scatter plots, line graphs, and so on. The author uses a highly developed statistical literacy to back his rhetorical argumentation, in such a way that presents a compelling and coherent, if somewhat complicated, picture. Of interest is the fact that evidence demonstrates that the relative position of wealth between states has remained constant for more than a century, demonstrating that even if changes in political culture in recent decades will eventually change the position of rich states and poor states, that the penalties for making widespread mistakes in terms of which social system to support, like the antebellum South’s initial hostility to industrialization and small farms in preference for slavery and export-oriented plantations, is persistent and severe. Let that be a lesson for us today in the fact that our social conditions matter greatly in how our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will live in the future, an unexpected lesson for a worthwhile and well-written work of political analysis.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
[2] See also:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
[3] This is not a new phenomenon. See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...
April 17, 2009
Attempting to explain 'why Americans vote the way they do,' Gelman and a group of fellow political scientists crunch numbers and draw graphs, arriving at a picture that refutes the influential one drawn by Thomas Frank, in What's the Matter with Kansas?, of poor red-staters voting Republican against their economic interests. Instead, Gelman persuasively argues, the poor in both red states and blue still mostly vote Democratic, and the rich, nationally speaking, overwhelmingly vote Republican. -- Leo Carey The New Yorker The thesis of this topical book is that how Americans vote depends on where they live as well as who they are. Gelman makes this argument clearly and repeatedly in colloquial language, in black and white graphics and in maps coloured red and blue... A major strength of the book is that it shows the importance of changes in America in the past half century. Times Higher Education The most creative analyses in Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State use Gelman's multilevel methods. But the technical background is nearly invisible: Here there are no equations and few numbers--rather, one finds dozens of revealing graphics, all of which are very clear. The book is unusual in aiming to enlighten the general lay reader through a step-by-step analysis, not merely to engage in a debate with other political scientists. Through a clear and crisp writing style, it quotes and refutes many widespread views of journalists and political pundits, even as it builds on the political science literature ... this fun-to-read book may become a minor classic. -- Terry Nichols Clark and Christopher Graziul Science The aim of this book, Mr. Gelman tells us, is to debunk the media's oversimplified account of what happened in red and blue states in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections. Writing in the same spirit as Freakonomics authors Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner, Mr. Gelman sets out to 'correct' the received wisdom... This is the Freakonomics-style analysis that every candidate and campaign consultant should read. -- Robert Sommer New York Observer According to Gelman, much of the analysts' glib assessments is misguided and does little to advance our understanding of why Americans have voted as they have. He crunched U.S. survey and election data as far back as 1952 ... and discovered that the economic status of individuals and the economic conditions of each state as a whole lead to two different conclusions: on the one hand, the less wealthy a voter is, the more likely the voter is to cast a ballot for a Democrat; the better-off the voter, the more likely he or she is to vote Republican. Yet states with a higher average income are more likely to support a Democratic presidential candidate... This is a fascinating, well-written, and thoroughly researched work that deserves a wide audience. Highly recommended for all libraries. -- Thomas J. Baldino Library Journal Commentators on both the left (Thomas Frank) and the right (David Brooks) have theorized about why working-class Kansas farmers and latte-sipping Maryland suburbanites vote against their economic interests. Gelman says, 'Both sides on this argument are trying too hard to explain something that's simply not true.' The real paradox, he says, is that while rich states lean Democratic, rich people generally vote Republican; while poor states lean Republican, poor people generally vote Democratic. -- Alan Cooperman Washington Post Book World Looking at the numbers as far back as 1952, this book debunks much of what we think we know about voting trends. Buy one today! Amuse your friends! Annoy your enemies! Bring cocktail party conversations to a grinding halt. -- Susan Campbell The Hartford Courant Andrew Gelman's Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State can be summed up with extreme concision: Rich people vote Republican, but rich states vote Democratic. Poor people vote Democratic, but poor states vote Republican. That's pretty weird. But to Gelman, it's worse than weird. It's unknown... At the most basic level, this is an argument for complexity.
June 1, 2016
Given that the author of this book has a blog with the not-so-catchy title of 'Statistical Modelling, Causal Inference and Social Science' I was expecting this book to be enlightening if not particularly enjoyable. I actually enjoyed it immensely (although that might say more about me than the book). Although the blurb describes it as being Freakonomics-esque, Gelman doesn't use any stories to make his points, just data. There are plenty of graphs and figures but they're pretty simple to read and require very little understanding of statistical jargon. Having some understanding of American politics is probably a requirement but if you're thinking of reading this book then I think we can assume that that's the case.
I don't have the political science background necessary to review this book with a critical eye so I thought I'd give a brief summary of some of the points so that people might be able to judge if it sounds interesting. Also word of warning, the book focuses mainly on elections before 2008 with a separate chapter at the end dealing with '08. With that caveat in place, I'd highly recommend this book. It's only about 200 pages long if you leave out the notes at the end and it's a far better investment in time than reading the equivalent amount of pages in the latest opinion pieces.
____________________________
Anyone who follows American politics will recognise that the media often pushes two competing narratives. Some pundits describe how the Democrats are the party of the latte-loving elites while the Republics are salt of the earth, Joe the Plumber types. Other pundits swear that the Democrats are the party of the little guy while the Republicans are the party of the fat cats (Sanders' "millionaires and billionaires").
Which of these narratives is closer to the truth? Well, you wouldn't need Gelman's analysis to figure out that both have elements of truth to them. Each party depends on donations from the wealthy but each party depends on votes from the general public (there are only so many fat cats - although the wealthiest 10% do account for 15% of the vote).
What Gelman does show conclusively is that poor people tend to vote for the Democrats and richer people tend to vote for the Republicans. This sets up an interesting paradox: given that the above statement is true, how can it be that Democrats tend to control rich states while Republicans do better in poorer states?
It turns out that the relationship between income and vote choice is stronger in poor states.
Richer people within poor states are far more likely to vote Republican than poor people within poor states. In rich states, rich people are still more likely to vote Republican than poor people within the same state, but the gap isn't as large. This allows the Democrats to pick up more votes from middle-income voters.
Gelman goes on to explain why the correlation is weaker in rich states. Race accounts for half of the pattern: poor states have larger African American populations who are far more likely to vote for the Democrats. Religion also plays a role. The Republican base is made up of rich and middle income churchgoers whereas the Democratic base is made up of low income and secular voters.
Gelman also crushes that old chestnut that says that poor people vote against their economic interests because they are more swayed by social issues. In actuality, social matters are far more relevant to higher income voters. For example, rich white people who oppose abortion are 25% more likely to vote Republican than Democrat whereas poor white pro-lifers don't tend to vote differently to poor white pro-choicers. This supports the idea of postmaterialist politics: once people reach a certain degree of financial security, then they start voting on the basis of social issues.
I don't have the political science background necessary to review this book with a critical eye so I thought I'd give a brief summary of some of the points so that people might be able to judge if it sounds interesting. Also word of warning, the book focuses mainly on elections before 2008 with a separate chapter at the end dealing with '08. With that caveat in place, I'd highly recommend this book. It's only about 200 pages long if you leave out the notes at the end and it's a far better investment in time than reading the equivalent amount of pages in the latest opinion pieces.
____________________________
Anyone who follows American politics will recognise that the media often pushes two competing narratives. Some pundits describe how the Democrats are the party of the latte-loving elites while the Republics are salt of the earth, Joe the Plumber types. Other pundits swear that the Democrats are the party of the little guy while the Republicans are the party of the fat cats (Sanders' "millionaires and billionaires").
Which of these narratives is closer to the truth? Well, you wouldn't need Gelman's analysis to figure out that both have elements of truth to them. Each party depends on donations from the wealthy but each party depends on votes from the general public (there are only so many fat cats - although the wealthiest 10% do account for 15% of the vote).
What Gelman does show conclusively is that poor people tend to vote for the Democrats and richer people tend to vote for the Republicans. This sets up an interesting paradox: given that the above statement is true, how can it be that Democrats tend to control rich states while Republicans do better in poorer states?
It turns out that the relationship between income and vote choice is stronger in poor states.
Richer people within poor states are far more likely to vote Republican than poor people within poor states. In rich states, rich people are still more likely to vote Republican than poor people within the same state, but the gap isn't as large. This allows the Democrats to pick up more votes from middle-income voters.
Gelman goes on to explain why the correlation is weaker in rich states. Race accounts for half of the pattern: poor states have larger African American populations who are far more likely to vote for the Democrats. Religion also plays a role. The Republican base is made up of rich and middle income churchgoers whereas the Democratic base is made up of low income and secular voters.
Gelman also crushes that old chestnut that says that poor people vote against their economic interests because they are more swayed by social issues. In actuality, social matters are far more relevant to higher income voters. For example, rich white people who oppose abortion are 25% more likely to vote Republican than Democrat whereas poor white pro-lifers don't tend to vote differently to poor white pro-choicers. This supports the idea of postmaterialist politics: once people reach a certain degree of financial security, then they start voting on the basis of social issues.
December 6, 2008
Gelman, et. al., offer the political science version of pop-social science, in the Gladwell-Freakonomics vein. They do a fine job, though not quite reaching the captivating levels of Gladwell, etc.
Since the 2000 election and the near dead even split in the electorate, the "red-blue" divide has captivated politicos. The blue states voted for Gore and Kerry, and the red states put George W. Bush in the White House. What has amazed a few people is the fact that the poor states are the red states, which seemed to fly in the face of the storyline that the poor normally vote Democratic. Why do red-poor states - those states that actually take more money from the federal government than their inhabitants pay towards the federal government - vote Republican? Some, like Thomas Frank in "What's the Matter with Kansas?," suggested that poor folks were suckered into voting Republican because Party leaders hyped social issues (abortion, gay marriage) to get the poor on board, all the while ensuring tax cuts were passed for the benefit of the wealthy. It is intriguing to note that after the better part of 30 years of time in the White House, Republicans really haven't done a great job of passing conservative social legislation, but have done a fine job with tax cuts that have largely benefited the wealthy (the wealthy do, of course, pay most of the taxes). Well, Gelman and the rest rebut Frank by pointing out that the poor do indeed - in all states - vote more for the Democratic Party than do the wealthy. Again, that is the case even in red states. Granted, there is probably a higher proportion of poor folks in red states voting Republican than they do in blue states, but even in red states the poor are more likely to vote Democratic. It's the WEALTHY who are causing the red-blue divide. That is, the wealthy are more likely to defect from their financial interests, and they do so, obviously, in the blue states. Furthermore, it is the wealthy who are arguing over social policy, and the poor are sticking to their economic interests. Most importantly for the Democratic Party, Gelman and friends point out that, contrary to the arguments of the left, Democrats would not improve electoral outcomes by becoming more liberal. Doing so will only cause more moderates to leave the Democratic Party. Still, as any Democrat has should have learned, the winning strategy is not always the chosen strategy.
Regardless, "Red State, Blue State..." is an easy to read book with plenty of citations for any reader who wants to dig deeper into the theory, methodology, and articles of serious public opinion and voting behavior scholarship.
My biggest complaints about the book aren't too big. First, the early chapters were particularly choppy and almost read as cut-and-paste efforts. Thankfully the nuggets were interesting, but the overall themes were elusive. Second, for a short book, the price is a bit steep. Don't get me wrong: I love an easy to read short book, but don't charge me a big book price for it. Otherwise, a fine job on an important issue, which may be a little less relevant now with President-elect Obama's impressive 2008 victory. A few missteps by him, however, and we're right back to the 49-49 split with the increased likelihood of red state led Republican victories.
Since the 2000 election and the near dead even split in the electorate, the "red-blue" divide has captivated politicos. The blue states voted for Gore and Kerry, and the red states put George W. Bush in the White House. What has amazed a few people is the fact that the poor states are the red states, which seemed to fly in the face of the storyline that the poor normally vote Democratic. Why do red-poor states - those states that actually take more money from the federal government than their inhabitants pay towards the federal government - vote Republican? Some, like Thomas Frank in "What's the Matter with Kansas?," suggested that poor folks were suckered into voting Republican because Party leaders hyped social issues (abortion, gay marriage) to get the poor on board, all the while ensuring tax cuts were passed for the benefit of the wealthy. It is intriguing to note that after the better part of 30 years of time in the White House, Republicans really haven't done a great job of passing conservative social legislation, but have done a fine job with tax cuts that have largely benefited the wealthy (the wealthy do, of course, pay most of the taxes). Well, Gelman and the rest rebut Frank by pointing out that the poor do indeed - in all states - vote more for the Democratic Party than do the wealthy. Again, that is the case even in red states. Granted, there is probably a higher proportion of poor folks in red states voting Republican than they do in blue states, but even in red states the poor are more likely to vote Democratic. It's the WEALTHY who are causing the red-blue divide. That is, the wealthy are more likely to defect from their financial interests, and they do so, obviously, in the blue states. Furthermore, it is the wealthy who are arguing over social policy, and the poor are sticking to their economic interests. Most importantly for the Democratic Party, Gelman and friends point out that, contrary to the arguments of the left, Democrats would not improve electoral outcomes by becoming more liberal. Doing so will only cause more moderates to leave the Democratic Party. Still, as any Democrat has should have learned, the winning strategy is not always the chosen strategy.
Regardless, "Red State, Blue State..." is an easy to read book with plenty of citations for any reader who wants to dig deeper into the theory, methodology, and articles of serious public opinion and voting behavior scholarship.
My biggest complaints about the book aren't too big. First, the early chapters were particularly choppy and almost read as cut-and-paste efforts. Thankfully the nuggets were interesting, but the overall themes were elusive. Second, for a short book, the price is a bit steep. Don't get me wrong: I love an easy to read short book, but don't charge me a big book price for it. Otherwise, a fine job on an important issue, which may be a little less relevant now with President-elect Obama's impressive 2008 victory. A few missteps by him, however, and we're right back to the 49-49 split with the increased likelihood of red state led Republican victories.
December 17, 2010
Andrew Gelman and colleagues (Gelman, Park, Shor, Baumi, & Cortina, 2008) use a method of number crunching, to blast the political myths of the great divide. Gelman et al., examine another stereotype: that the rich vote Republican and the poor Democrat. In this vein, rich states should be Republican and poor states Democrats. But, these authors point out the paradox, that in both the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections, Democrats captured the richer Northeaster and West Coast States, while Republicans won the poorer states. Gelman et al. underscore that these first glance conclusions are shallow in nature. They argue that the Red/Blue divide and paradox may boil down to ideology rather than social class or economic demographics. Democrats and Republicans are divided on the issues of abortion, gun control, and the Iraq war, by their analysis. Americans are not viewed as becoming more dogmatic or extremist in their views, but more coherent in terms of party selection. This view argues that for the Democrat or Republican candidate to win there are certain litmus test issues that must be passed. Gelman et al. voice their frustration at the forwarding of a false polarization by journalists who should know how to interpret voting trends in more sophisticated ways than sound bite media flashes. They show that there are demographic trends present, that these seems to be most apparent at the higher income level, with educated professionals moving towards the Democrats and business owners moving in the Republican direction; it is not, in their view, a simple class contrast. Gelman et al. acknowledge that polarization serves a useful function that is in terms of “branding” a political party. They argue that polarization is not one phenomenon, but three distinct, though overlapping constructs.
A very good and a must read if you are into this sort of stuff like I am.
Dan Smee
Author “Totally American”
A very good and a must read if you are into this sort of stuff like I am.
Dan Smee
Author “Totally American”
June 7, 2016
This is an interesting, analytical book that debunks the "What's the Matter with Kansas?" myth, among others. Using lots of graphs that are easy to understand but also convey a lot of information, the author shows how household income, state income levels, religion, and voting habits interact.
Despite much political writing about latte-sipping Democrats, the data shows that high-income people (the author does not distinguish between income and wealth, which is a personal pet peeve of mine but nonetheless a small problem in an otherwise interesting book) in all states are more likely to vote Republican than are low- or middle-income people in the same state. What differs between states is to some extent a) the intercept (how likely low-income people are to vote Republican) and especially b) the slope of the line--how differently high-income people vote relative to low-income people in that state. Turns out, the slope is much higher in poorer states.
The evidence also suggests that the popular perception of the political differences between states--and especially, the salience of so-called "culture war" issues--mostly reflects how high-income people vote, rather than all people (unsurprising given that journalists' social circle is pretty exclusively comprised of high-income people). Also, interestingly, in low-income states, high-income people are more religious, whereas the opposite is true in higher-income states.
...all in all, this book validated what I have experienced living in Texas--which is that among our high-income colleagues and acquaintances (and the author defines this based on thirds, so a household with income of more than $75,000 is high income), our lack of religious belief, and liberalism on social issues, is very idiosyncratic.
I was familiar with some of this analysis based on reading the author's blog for a few months, but unlike some other books I have read, the book contains enough detail to make it worth reading even if you are a regular reader of his blog.
Despite much political writing about latte-sipping Democrats, the data shows that high-income people (the author does not distinguish between income and wealth, which is a personal pet peeve of mine but nonetheless a small problem in an otherwise interesting book) in all states are more likely to vote Republican than are low- or middle-income people in the same state. What differs between states is to some extent a) the intercept (how likely low-income people are to vote Republican) and especially b) the slope of the line--how differently high-income people vote relative to low-income people in that state. Turns out, the slope is much higher in poorer states.
The evidence also suggests that the popular perception of the political differences between states--and especially, the salience of so-called "culture war" issues--mostly reflects how high-income people vote, rather than all people (unsurprising given that journalists' social circle is pretty exclusively comprised of high-income people). Also, interestingly, in low-income states, high-income people are more religious, whereas the opposite is true in higher-income states.
...all in all, this book validated what I have experienced living in Texas--which is that among our high-income colleagues and acquaintances (and the author defines this based on thirds, so a household with income of more than $75,000 is high income), our lack of religious belief, and liberalism on social issues, is very idiosyncratic.
I was familiar with some of this analysis based on reading the author's blog for a few months, but unlike some other books I have read, the book contains enough detail to make it worth reading even if you are a regular reader of his blog.
December 9, 2008
The first thing that comes to mind when I try to review this book is an analogy: Gelman's book is to Thomas Frank's Whats The Matter With Kansas as Baseball Prospectus is to the writings of Buzz Bissinger.
For those of you not geeky in all the same ways that I am, this basically just means that Gelman has decided to ignore much of the conventional wisdom of political and demographic thinking and instead look at hard cold facts and statistics about how people actually vote and try to construct a compelling narrative from this data, whether or not it goes along with what the experts say. In other words, for those of you who were, like me, addicted to fivethirtyeight.com through the election, this is the book for you!
The main question that Gelman looks at is correlations between income and party affiliation -- it turns out that the core of the democratic party is not in fact rich latte drinkers but instead is the lower income people. In fact, if only people in the lower third of income brackets got to vote, then Kerry would have beat Bush in all but a handful of states.
The book is not the best written book on politics you'll see -- Gelman tends to fall into the trap of repeating himself rather than just saying something clearly once and moving on -- but for a book by a professional statistician it is very accessible. And the conclusions that Gelman draws and the data he uses to support them are fascinating and should (but alas probably wont) change the way that all of us think and talk about the political landscape.
For those of you not geeky in all the same ways that I am, this basically just means that Gelman has decided to ignore much of the conventional wisdom of political and demographic thinking and instead look at hard cold facts and statistics about how people actually vote and try to construct a compelling narrative from this data, whether or not it goes along with what the experts say. In other words, for those of you who were, like me, addicted to fivethirtyeight.com through the election, this is the book for you!
The main question that Gelman looks at is correlations between income and party affiliation -- it turns out that the core of the democratic party is not in fact rich latte drinkers but instead is the lower income people. In fact, if only people in the lower third of income brackets got to vote, then Kerry would have beat Bush in all but a handful of states.
The book is not the best written book on politics you'll see -- Gelman tends to fall into the trap of repeating himself rather than just saying something clearly once and moving on -- but for a book by a professional statistician it is very accessible. And the conclusions that Gelman draws and the data he uses to support them are fascinating and should (but alas probably wont) change the way that all of us think and talk about the political landscape.
November 18, 2012
Note: this is review of how the book fared as a pedagogical tool for one class.
I assigned this book to an undergraduate Political Science Research Methods class as a) a supplement to the material covered in the textbook; and b) an ongoing example to which we could refer back to, and a salient one at that, given the class's coincidence with the 2012 Presidential election.
When we had finished the book I asked my students what they thought of the book. They by and large liked the book but thought that it was far too repetitive, and I agree. We went through about a chapter a week, and I was often hard pressed to find new material or insights that were worth discussing.
The book’s thesis is compelling and the analyses are well done, but as one student remarked, “I liked discussing the book a lot more than I did reading it.” Ultimately, if I were to use the book again I would only assign selected chapters. I hope Gelman et al. recognize some of the book’s shortcomings—repetitiveness, uneven chapters—and release a new edition that properly synthesizes the 2012 (and 2008, in more than an Afterword) elections. Their argument and evidence are well worth a bit of tidying up.
I assigned this book to an undergraduate Political Science Research Methods class as a) a supplement to the material covered in the textbook; and b) an ongoing example to which we could refer back to, and a salient one at that, given the class's coincidence with the 2012 Presidential election.
When we had finished the book I asked my students what they thought of the book. They by and large liked the book but thought that it was far too repetitive, and I agree. We went through about a chapter a week, and I was often hard pressed to find new material or insights that were worth discussing.
The book’s thesis is compelling and the analyses are well done, but as one student remarked, “I liked discussing the book a lot more than I did reading it.” Ultimately, if I were to use the book again I would only assign selected chapters. I hope Gelman et al. recognize some of the book’s shortcomings—repetitiveness, uneven chapters—and release a new edition that properly synthesizes the 2012 (and 2008, in more than an Afterword) elections. Their argument and evidence are well worth a bit of tidying up.
October 20, 2011
Incredibly boring. Reading this was a struggle. I didn't even finish the thing because it was torturous. Halfway through it's already clear that while Americans like to label everything (and everyone) and assume they know what it's all about based on stereotypes, those assumptions are not always true. After propping my eyelids open a la A Clockwork Orange to read the meandering and pointless graphs and charts and numbers, the bottom line is: We'd like to be able to predict how rich people, poor people, liberal people, waffle people, pancake people--whatever--are going to vote but there are simply too many variables. We can't pigeonhole types of voters and think we know everything they think about all types of issues. What a ridiculous waste of time buying this book, reading (half) of this book and writing this review has been. If you're looking for any actual hypotheses or helpful insights about "Why Americans vote the way they do," ignore that part of the title and save yourself the time and energy.
February 14, 2013
The big criticism I have of this book is something that is not really its fault at all. This book was written in 2008, in the midst of the campaign, as there is a reference to the Jeremiah Wright controversy, but none to the election results. Two election cycles have passed since then, two election cycles that are historically consequential because they involve the first black President. I wonder if the conclusions the authors reach are in need of revision based on the outcomes of these two elections. At the very least, I felt like I was reading a snapshot of the past.
I would welcome and read a revised edition of this book, updated to reflect the new information gathered from the 2008 and 2012 election cycles. But I cannot recommend this for anyone interested in the current state of the electorate - the Great Recession and the first black President may have shaken things up.
I would welcome and read a revised edition of this book, updated to reflect the new information gathered from the 2008 and 2012 election cycles. But I cannot recommend this for anyone interested in the current state of the electorate - the Great Recession and the first black President may have shaken things up.
April 16, 2013
Andrew Gelman's thesis shouldn't surprise anyone who critically follows the news. He begins with the oft repeated media phrase, "limosine liberal", and goes on to demonstrate how reliably those with high incomes and those with low incomes vote Republican and Democratic respectively. The same correlation holds for religion.
There is some interesting material on how the correlations are different in other countries and in Mexico how quickly things can change.
The value of this book is that it provides a good number of ready reference charts, and a cogent analysis of how voting correlates with income and religious participation. Poor states may vote Republican, but poor people generally do not. Rich states may vote Democratic, but rich people generally do not.
There is some interesting material on how the correlations are different in other countries and in Mexico how quickly things can change.
The value of this book is that it provides a good number of ready reference charts, and a cogent analysis of how voting correlates with income and religious participation. Poor states may vote Republican, but poor people generally do not. Rich states may vote Democratic, but rich people generally do not.
February 4, 2015
Although it is somewhat difficult to follow, it presents a very interesting and important take on a modern issue. As he breaks apart and escapes from common effects of ecological inference, Gelman is able to present an argument that gives evidence to the fact that region influences the manner in which economic issues affect voting. However, he is not always able to make it clear that this is what he is doing, making the book a somewhat difficult read. Additionally, while providing much in the way of visual aids, the number of graphs may be too much and can sometime lead the reader to be flipping back and forth between pages. Overall though, Gelman's argument is very interesting and relevant to today's political landscape.
November 5, 2012
Very exciting, data oriented look at American politics. It's amazing how some solid data can completely undermine perfectly good characterizations. Read this before you tell me "what's the matter with Kansas." I don't necessarily recommend the whole book, but the first few and the final chapter on the 2008 election are seminal.
I do wish there was more discussion of the underlying data sources (exit polls) and the limitations. It seems Gelman, who is usually great about discussing uncertainty, really leaves that aside. Perhaps it is because this is for a more general audience, but I think it's probably even more important for that audience.
I do wish there was more discussion of the underlying data sources (exit polls) and the limitations. It seems Gelman, who is usually great about discussing uncertainty, really leaves that aside. Perhaps it is because this is for a more general audience, but I think it's probably even more important for that audience.
January 2, 2009
The book had lots of detailed data, but it was a little too dry for reading on the bus. A little too much review of the raw data and not enough analysis to satisfy me. The basic argument about how pundits misunderstood red state vs. blue state was easy to make, but the book pursued it at length. Some of the key observations seemed a little obvious.
Want to read
November 10, 2008I know, this is probably going to be out of date given what happened on Tuesday. But it was on a list of books that are examples of graphical excellence, so I'm really just interested in looking at the pictures.
April 7, 2013
This book frustrated me because I feel like at this point, the data is out of date (it was published in 2007 with an Afterword about the 2008 election). It's great for true "political science" buffs who love the graphs and numbers of all Gelman's research. As a mere politics buff, I was more interested in the analysis, but this book definitely emphasized the numbers.
January 10, 2009
Not as readable or "enlightening" as I was hoping it would be. Lots of charts and figures repeated and the same general conclusion that people really don't vote just by wealth or education as some claim, but no real attempt at explanation of why this might be.
March 7, 2009
Some nice analysis of voting patterns in the U.S. over the past several decades, finding the relationship between income, religion, geography, etc. and election results. Should squash the silly notion that the Democrats are the rich "elites."
May 6, 2009
All books with a plethora of graphs and tables score high in my world. I think of note is the little celebrated fact that the book demonstrates that despite our problems our system of government has a process that works to represent the will of the people.
July 12, 2009
I was disappointed into this book. After a couple hundred pages of stats, the conclusion is that you can't trust stereotypes of states to predict individual voting choices. Seems like a whole lot of analysis for very little new insight.
January 4, 2014
Why do poor voters vote against their economic interests?
- Aspiration: I might be rich someday
- Fairness and admiration: Rich people worked hard and deserve more
- Skepticism: Don't trust the government
- Republicans support conservative views
- Aspiration: I might be rich someday
- Fairness and admiration: Rich people worked hard and deserve more
- Skepticism: Don't trust the government
- Republicans support conservative views
November 12, 2015
Easy read. A bit repetitive but it is necessary to rule out all the holes you might try to poke in the theory that rich states vote for Dems and poor states vote for republicans, but rich people vote republican and poor people vote for democrats. Weird I know... So read it!
September 27, 2016
I was really excited to read this book, but I found the writing style and format difficult to read. Also, I was a bit skeptical of some of the author's analysis of the voting behavior statistics. I must confess, I only made it half way through the book which is unusual for me.
Currently reading
February 23, 2009Gelman is using open-source software (Project R) for all his analyses and graphs, which are quite interesting.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 49 reviews