Potus Geeks Book Review: A Return to Normalcy?
A Return to Normalcy?: The 2020 Election that (Almost) Broke America is a compilation of essays performing a post mortem of 2020 United States Presidential Election as well as many of the other elections that followed in its wake, including those in the US Senate and House, Gubernatorial contests and even some of those in state houses. It is written by political scientists and journalists and it is both a technical analysis of the voting results that is heavily reliant on exit polling data, as well as editorial commentary on the results of the election.
This book is not an anecdotal account of the election timeline, and does not contain any insider accounts of the candidates' doings, and readers hoping to find this should look elsewhere. As the title suggests, the book is objective in its statistical recounting, but not necessarily in its analysis. As its title suggests, the analysis and opinions pull towards the Democratic poll, with one essay pitting the two sides as "good versus evil." (One can guess in which roles the article's author casts the two political parties.) While there is plenty of blame to apportion, the loss of objectivity is unhelpful in a time of intense political polarization, when the nation is in need of healing and unity. In an election where over 74 million people voted to the losing side, it is too superficial or short-sighted to simply write those voters off as evil or wrong-headed, without making an honest effort to understand the issues that drove them in that direction.
Objectivity concerns aside, the authors' selection of topics is superb, as they tackle a number of fascinating subjects the were a part of the most recent election. These include running primaries and caucuses in the midst of a pandemic, whether caucuses have become obsolete, examination of some of the new swing states, what the results in the Senate, the House, and in state elections mean for the future, and whether Joe Biden's victory was the result of good luck or good planning. They also examine campaign financing as it exists today, racial and other demographic voting, and whether or not it is worthwhile for Republicans to continue to hitch their wagon to Donald Trump's star or distance themselves from it.
It should not be lost however that this is a work of political science. It can make for very dry reading and is not a good selection for anyone looking for post-election story telling in the style of David Pietrusza or John Heilmann. It is however a good sourcebook for those interested in statistical analysis with a view for crystal ball gazing into what might happen in future elections to come.
This book is not an anecdotal account of the election timeline, and does not contain any insider accounts of the candidates' doings, and readers hoping to find this should look elsewhere. As the title suggests, the book is objective in its statistical recounting, but not necessarily in its analysis. As its title suggests, the analysis and opinions pull towards the Democratic poll, with one essay pitting the two sides as "good versus evil." (One can guess in which roles the article's author casts the two political parties.) While there is plenty of blame to apportion, the loss of objectivity is unhelpful in a time of intense political polarization, when the nation is in need of healing and unity. In an election where over 74 million people voted to the losing side, it is too superficial or short-sighted to simply write those voters off as evil or wrong-headed, without making an honest effort to understand the issues that drove them in that direction.
Objectivity concerns aside, the authors' selection of topics is superb, as they tackle a number of fascinating subjects the were a part of the most recent election. These include running primaries and caucuses in the midst of a pandemic, whether caucuses have become obsolete, examination of some of the new swing states, what the results in the Senate, the House, and in state elections mean for the future, and whether Joe Biden's victory was the result of good luck or good planning. They also examine campaign financing as it exists today, racial and other demographic voting, and whether or not it is worthwhile for Republicans to continue to hitch their wagon to Donald Trump's star or distance themselves from it.
It should not be lost however that this is a work of political science. It can make for very dry reading and is not a good selection for anyone looking for post-election story telling in the style of David Pietrusza or John Heilmann. It is however a good sourcebook for those interested in statistical analysis with a view for crystal ball gazing into what might happen in future elections to come.