Election day is November 6, 2012. Amazon hopes this map provides you with a novel way to follow the political conversation this election season.
As Amazon notes, “books aren’t votes, so a map of book purchases may reflect curiosity as much as commitment.”
click for interactive map
Hat tip: Engadget
Category: Digital Media, Politics
Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.
Bad definitions: no one who absorbs the message of Howard Zinn’s People’s History of the United States (no. 3 blue book) would vote for a Repugnican OR a DemonRat.
But when the only intellectual tool you have is a rusty old two-party hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Like most corporations, Amazon probably pays off both sides.
Wow. What are some explanations for this?
Looks like the “blue” (i.e., left-leaning) states are more open-minded in their reading material than the “red” (i.e., right-leaning) states. Beyond that, I’m not sure what conclusion can be drawn from the map.
But if you go by the number of musicians who have insisted candidates stop using their tunes as theme songs, Dems should win handily.
This map has been spreading virally since I first saw it on Tyler Cowen’s blog. Many books on the two lists are double counted since the post both the Kindle and print editions so that there really are not 100 in either category. Furthermore to compare Beck, Coulter, and O’Reilly on one side with Caro on the other is pretty funny to me!!
egads. the books that Amazon labels as “blue” and “red” are laughable for both side of the political spectrum.
I’d use sales of “Origin of Species,” “The Jungle,” “The Fountainhead” or books by Rick Warren or Joel Osteen.
I would bet that people who are more confident in their electoral prospects are less likely to buy political books. They have other things to attend to.
I would bet that people who are less confident that their side is doing well are more likely to buy political books, looking for reassurance.
If you are “red”, but feel threatened by a barrage of unanswered arguments against your side, probably your purchases are more likely to reflect a reaching out to find *some* confirmation / validation of your beliefs.
Inane balderdash.
And who gives a flying #*@& about a corrupted and broken system that is effective only in representing the narrow interests of a small, rich minority while defrauding the rest and all the while, eroding the important aspects of human life on this planet – culture, relationships, knowledge and contentment – under a false guise of propaganda purporting to reinforce and build those aspects of our communities.
Politics and economics – inseparable in modern society – are the bane of mankind.
What a surprise….75% folks in DC read so-called “blue books”….say it ain’t so Joe
Don’t pay too much attention to the deep red for Mississippi – the totals were Red 1, Blue 0.
The election will be decided by people who don’t read books. Those people in the middle who barely pay attention. Hopefully they no longer watch NBC/CBS Evening News or similar propaganda of the Democratic Party either.
Americans like democracy, & they are fixing to get it good & hard.
The numbers are skewed.
A significant percentage of Americans can no longer afford to purchase books.
There is a distinction between purchasing a book and reading a book.
algernon Says:
“The election will be decided by people who don’t read books. Those people in the middle who barely pay attention. Hopefully they no longer watch NBC/CBS Evening News …”
Election will be decided by people who:
- Don’t read books
- Barely pay attention
- No longer watch NBC/CBS News
The “What’s the matter with Kansas?” demographic has been a GOP lock for decades.
Conservative books sell better than liberal books. Why?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/22/conservative-books-sell-better-than-liberal-books-why/
pretty simple the way I see it: OLD PEOPLE.
I hate to be crass but liberals are winning the war on recruiting young people, Hispanics and single women in higher and higher numbers. The right is stronger in the middle-aged white guy and older married woman — people who have more free time to waste watching Fox “News” and buying the latest retarded book by Anne Kookter or Lush Limbo. They love that red meat crap while books from sensible conservative Frum type authors are considered snoozers. Younger moderate/liberal types have less free time or simply choose to put books slathered in one-sided politics, as well as cable “news” way down on the must watch/purchase list. The older, mostly caucassian, voter/book purchaser is more likely to tune right to Fox “News” when coming home or make a B line for the right wing book section or right wing website hocking Malkin drivel. Moderates and liberals simply have more interests.
The answer is obvious and backed by actual evidence and data: right-leaning people are smarter and wish to fill out their intellectual toolbox with all kinds of thoughts. Left-leaning people have less curiosity and are happy to believe what they are told on the Facebook, Twitter, and propagada organs — the self-labelled objective news outlets.
;-)
Per BR’s link to WaPo, I think the right produces books that penetrate a wider portion of their potential readership. I’m fairly far to the left on most issues, but I don’t read the popular lefty books unless I find one that piques my interest in the dollar bin. I just don’t get off on that. Also, I’m amazed at how many of these books my conservative friends will read. It’s literally one after another. O’Reilly followed by Coulter followed by Savage followed by Beck and so on. Unreal.