1. Thomas Frank, What’s the Matter with Kansas (2004) and Andrew Gelman, Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State (2008) N. R. Miller POLI 423

2. Kansas is a relatively poor state. – Most of its population is hurt by conservative policies, would be helped by Democratic ones. Yet it is one of the most reliably Republican states in the nation. Republicans have won working class support by appealing to “cultural wedge issues like guns and abortion.” Moreover, the Kansas pattern has to some extent been replicated nationwide, creating a “dominant [Republican] political coalition”

5. What Is Going On? “Wal-Mart [or Sam’s Club] Republicans”? “Trust fund Democrats”? What’s The Matter With Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America? (Thomas Frank) Are we that far beyond the New Deal electoral alignment? Actually -- No

7. Frank is really referring to white working class voters. Definition of “working class”? – Occupation – Income – Education – Self Placement Bartels examines Frank’s thesis using ANES data First version of paper used Income, to which Frank objected Published version uses Education (no college degree)

11. Bartels (cont.) Moreover, in so far as “white working class support” for Democrats has declined, the effect is almost entirely confined to the formerly [Democratic] “Solid South” In so far as cultural issues have increased in importance relative to economic (class) issues, the effect has been much greater among (upper) middle class voters than working class voters. – Many middle/upper class voters in blue states are socially liberal and vote Democratic, many fewer in red states.

12. Uses 2000 and 2004 National and State Exit Polls – Plus ANES Andrew Gelman et al., “Rich State, Poor State, Red State, Blue State: What’s the Matter with Connecticut,” Quarterly Journal of Political Science (March 2007) The following charts are all from the 2000 National and State Exit Polls.

20. 2004: If Only Middle $ Voted

21. 2004: If Only Rich Voted

22. 2004: If Only Poor Voted

23. Rich vs. Poor States/ Rich vs. Poor Voters

40. 1960 vs. 2000: Red Gets Reder and Blue Gets Bluer Mean Winner’s Margin in Victory at State Level UnweightedWeighted by State’s Electoral Vote 1960200019602000 8.514.6 6.5 12.6 19602000 CANixon 0.5Gore11.7 FLNixon 3.0Bush 0.0 ILKennedy 0.2Gore12.0 MIKennedy 3.1Gore 5.2 NJKennedy 0.8Gore15.8 NYKennedy 5.2Gore25.0 OHNixon 6.6Bush 3.6 PAKennedy 2.4Gore 4.2 TXKennedy 2.0Bush21.7 Mean 2.611.0

41. 1960 vs. 2000 (cont.) Many of the most lopsided states in 1960 were even more lopsided in 2000. KSNixon21.4Bush20.8 MAKennedy 20.6Gore27.3 NENixon24.2Bush20.8 RIKennedy 27.2Gore29.1 UTNixon 9.6Bush40.5 WYNixon10.0Bush40.1 Mean18.330.0

42. 1960 vs. 2000 (cont.) Here is a more comprehensive overview. Kennedy vote in 1960 vs. Gore vote in 2000 Unweighted Weighted by State’s Electoral Vote 1960200019602000 Min37.928.337.928.3 Max63.865.763.865.7 Mean49.247.450.249.8 SD 5.7 9.1 5.0 8.0 All percentages are based on the two-party vote only, and DC [which did not vote in 1960] and MS [where a slate of unpledged electors won in 1960] are excluded from the statistics.

43. 1960 vs. 2000 (cont.)