Bartels...

Hmm. One of the main critiques is that he is not scientific enough in his writings. Bartels therefore counters Frank's "vauge history" with closer definitions and more numbers. Basically this scares me and makes me want to become a sociologist as opposed to a political scientist.

That's neither here nor there I suppose.

Income voting gap increased, but the gap between incomes has also increased. (Insert perfect statistics here). Bartels is basically saying you can't isolate a couple of stats, but in the sense that fewer low incomers are identifying with the Democratic Party- there derserves to be isolation. There has been less identification with the Democratic Party overall, I get it, but it still doesn't make sense for lower incomers to do so.

Aside: Abortion is obviously a big topic of discussion with really all people. Most would say it is strictly an economic issue. It's one of the most gutty issues. Bartels refers to some data that this has not gone up in crazy amounts like Frank kind of suggests. Well, here is another reason it doesn't make sense for lower incomers to be pro-life; abortion becomes and economic issue when you have to raise a kid. "Pro-life? Look at the Fruits"
Disallusionment for real. Economic struggels are for real as well. One can defiantely be pro-life but find themselves in a position where they can't afford to support a baby. Does life begin at conception and end a birth for (certain types of) religious poor people?

Maybe it's not about income as much as education (note overlap!)
See this link about IQ and 2004 election link