[lbo-talk] jeffrey stonecash takes issue with frank's "what's the matter with kansas?"

[Seth Ackerman]

Doug Henwood wrote:

> 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