Larry Bartels

Recent Articles

“Political Polling Has Reached Its End Point”

That’s according to Time magazine’s Michael Scherer, who cites a new survey from Public Policy Polling showing that one of Mitt Romney’s improvised campaign appeals is making big inroads into Barack Obama’s base in electoral-vote-rich Michigan.

The PPP robo-poll of 500 Michiganders asked, ”In Michigan, do you think the trees are the right height, or not?”

Morphing Zombies

One of the commenters on John’s “Zombie Politics” post notes that Jonathan Chait has a new piece applauding George Packer, doubting Sides (and Bartels), then transitioning to a discussion of Packer and others discussing Charles Murray’s new book, Coming Apart. Chait’s title: “Why Are Poor Whites Conservative? And Poor?”

Challenging Romney's Beliefs on the Very Poor

Mitt Romney’s focus is on “middle-income Americans” because “these are the people who’ve been most badly hurt during the Obama years”; they’re “the folks who are really struggling right now.”

Here is a rough test of Romney’s claim. Caveats follow the jump.

Calling for Evidence-Based Elections

That’s the message I take from a recent book by James Gilligan, a psychiatrist at New York University. In Why Some Politicians Are More Dangerous than Others, Gilligan documents a striking statistical connection between changing rates of violent death in the United States over the past century and the party of the president. He concludes that Republican administrations are “risk factors for lethal violence,” and that the only reason they have not produced “disastrously high epidemic levels” of suicides and homicides is that Democrats have repeatedly undone their damage. (I’ve added handsome hand-coloring to Gilligan’s key figure in order to highlight the partisan pattern.)

More on Romney’s Bain Bane

I suggested in a comment on John’s post this morning that Mitt Romney’s “wealth problem” probably has more to do with perceptions that he doesn’t really ”care about people like me” than with wealth per se. Here’s a different angle on the same issue—average ratings on a 100-point “feeling thermometer” for a variety of social groups. (A rating of 50 is supposed to reflect neutral feelings about a group, so numbers between 50 and 100 reflect varying degrees of net favorability. These ratings are from the 2004 National Election Study survey, extracted from Table 5.4 of my 2008 book, Unequal Democracy.)

Pages