Brief diary this time:
Thomas Frank wrote a very interesting book a few years ago about the phenomenon of some voters, generally conservative, clearly voting against their own economic interests. In the case of Kansas, this was largely due to cultural issues -- according to his thesis, which seems sound.
But what to make of the Jersey vote for Christie? Liberals, women, Hispanics and all too many Dems voted for him in large numbers. Why? Christie is a conservative (not a moderate) with a terrible record on labor issues, unions, public servants and investment, the minimum wage and tax cuts for the rich, for example. And his stances on cultural issues line up very closely with the GOP platform. He's just much better at de-emphasizing hot-button social issues. His record, taken as a whole, should be anathema to everyone on the left -- on economic and cultural grounds, at least.
So, why did he receive so much support from Dems and people left of center?
To me, it's even worse to vote against your economic interests when you don't get anything in return. And when Kansan conservatives vote against their own best interests, they at least vote for other conservatives. All too many Jersey voters can't make that claim.
It's bizarre. Thomas Frank needs to write a sequel.