I was trying to gather the energy to write a blog post about the foreign policy debate, but there really isn't anything terribly new to say.
They largely agreed with each other. They switched to a discussion of the economy and education whenever they could, because nobody in America gives a shit about world politics right now. I guess I could talk about the history of bringing in education policy into foreign policy debates, but I'm too lazy.
Instead, I'll just repost this graph that Kieran Healy made and put on Twitter.
Apt. 11d 
I don’t really doubt that Obama will lose the south, but on the other hand, Nate Silver has been very diplomatic about explaining what a crazy outlier the Gallup polls have been, so who knows if he’s really losing by that much in the South.
LikeLike
I think this graph will be interesting to look at after the election, though I still think that there’s too much diversity in each of those regions to make meaningful sense of the averages. The graph I liked, and haven’t found again (need to look) was a graph that showed the trends in each state (which is still pretty diverse, but not as bad as region maps). The graph looked like waves showing the proportion of vote in each state in each election (through the 50’s?).
Take, for example, the west. Presumably that includes the little states of Idaho, Montana, . . . . but they just don’t influence the overall averages much when you have the big huge weight of California in the average.
LikeLike
Oh, not surprisingly it’s linked in Nate Silver:
(in the political geography series, produced by Bostock & Carter).
LikeLike