Andrew Gelman conjectures offhand that "For most of the TPM audience, I suspect that the main appeal of Red State, Blue State is the potential to better understand why some people vote Republican, and what positions the Democrats should take, or need to take, in order to win elections" whereas his readers at New Majority are looking for help in the reverse quest. I, personally, picked up <em>Red State, Blue State</em> months and months ago mostly hoping to achieve a smug sense of superiority vis-a-vis other pundits.

But I think he's basically right. Mostly people care about understanding voter behavior because they want to understand how to influence election outcomes. But unless I'm reading the book wrongly, his disappointing thesis is that you basically can't. That kind of nihilistic point of view is pretty common among political scientists, but it's disappointing to political activists who like to think that sharper arguments or exciting new facts are likely to swing things. But that's the way it is. Or do I have this wrong? Is there electoral advice for, say, the now-out-of-power Republicans lurking somewhere in this book?