> In any case, the paper makes arguments similar to Bartels' paper. Some
> highlights:
>
Stonecash definitely makes his case - as far as it goes. But the key
issue is his dividing of the white electorate into income thirds. He
doesn't show all the numbers, but presumably the voting pattern of the
middle third must have moved closer to that of the upper third, rather
than to that of the lower third. In other words, more whites in the
middle are interpreting their interests as resembling those of the top
more than of the bottom.
You could read that as a rational reaction to Democrats' rhetoric on the economy, which might be summarized: As we continue to make progress in the global economy, we're leaving too many people behind; we have to do something for the "losers" (a word they actually use!)
Seth