Red states often exhibit an inverse pattern; the wealthiest counties are the most Republican! It stands to reason that David Brooks could easily confirm elite media perceptions that downscale locales tend to be more Republican and conservative than more affluent ones; the D. metropolitan area is a classic exemplar of the dynamics operative in blue America. are too gentle for my taste in criticizing the tendency of mainstream pundits, who no doubt fancy themselves cosmopolitans, generalizing from their own parochial existence, but on the merits they wipe the floor with them.Though wealth gets mention in the title, I think it is important to highlight the fact that there is another independent variable which gets extensive treatment in Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State: religion.This blog is about evolution, genetics, genomics and their interstices.Please beware that comments are aggressively moderated.While the core of Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State is an analysis of the American political scene, their data sets suggest possible reasons that the pundits themselves come to the conclusions which they do.You not might agree with all the inferences made by Gelman et al.But despite the modest N, I’m rather confident that anyone who picks up Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State will not be disappointed.To a great extent the collective of Andrew Gelman, David Park, Boris Shor, Joseph Bafumi and Jeronimo Cortina have produced a work which is a response in substance, if not style, to pundit productions by the likes of David Brooks and Thomas Frank.
In red states elites have no such conundrum, their social and economic interests are naturally served by the Republican party, while the poor who may be socially conservative have powerful economic interests in the Democratic party.In contrast, the rich in Mississippi, the poorest state, are much more Republican than the poor.Ohio, a middle income state, is somewhere in the middle. are showing here is that looking just at states removes critical information; class is a much better predictor of political orientation in poor states than it is in rich states.It isn’t that rich states are blue because they are rich, it is that in rich states income doesn’t matter much in relation to politics.
You might wonder about the effect of race here; after all in Mississippi class and race are entangled and the political parties to a great extent are polarized along racial lines. report that half of the effect is removed when controlling for race, but the general pattern of class based voting in poor states and not in rich states holds even for whites only.
In red states the wealthy are at least, or more, socially conservative, and much more economically conservative.