The Almanac of American Politics 2010

Purchased this almanac to learn more about the political leanings and motivations of present politicians in office. Very interesting information on who is running our country. Also general political analysis of districts and other political facts you won't find elsewhere very easily. Our country is undergoing major political upheaval and it is time for the average citizen to be informed rather than blindly picking candidates because they belong to a certain party. Highly recommended book for those who care ragardless of party affiliation.

Since 1972, when Michael Barone, Grant Ujifusa, and Douglas Matthews first published the Almanac, these biennial books have constituted a dynamic resource for anyone interested in the American political scene. The current volume, like its predecessors, is enjoyable simply to page through. It is of enormous value, however, to anyone who wants to evaluate or expand on political information gained from other sources, whether journalistic, scholarly, or personal.

Does the book have any faults? Yes. Data on backgrounds of legislators sometimes contained errors. In at least a couple of cases the authors supplied conflicting information in different segments of biographical data. Moreover, the definition of military service can be perplexing, omitting interpretation of reserve service (active or inactive?) and in one case including even ROTC service in college. (I mention military service here only because it does constitute one of the variables used in the authors' analysis of voting and demographic characteristics.) But problems are minor. The charge of Republican political bias has no validity. Michael Barone is a conservative but he and his co-author, Richard E. Cohen, longtime correspondent for the highly respected, nonpartisan National Journal, have scrupulously avoided unfair selection of information or unfair judgments. They provided a vast array of verifiable empirical data, and in their narrative an individual's political party affiliation played no part in the selection of examples of praiseworthy or embarrassing behavior.

It has become a cliché to describe a book as indispensable--no human would have time to read all books so designated--but for anyone interested in understanding American politics as observer, student, or participant, this book comes closest to deserving the label.

I have been reading this book for years- it is absolutely amazing. The negative review here about bias is off-base. This is a resource for people who READ. If you you are content with pre-digeted pablum from the pundits, watch Fox, The Daily Show, or MSNBC. Want to learn in-depth about the real power brokers in America? Get this book. If the price is too steep, borrow it at the reference section of your library.

This is it! This almanac continues the tradition of being THE definitive source when it comes to American politics. The sheer amount of history, statistics, and detail poured into this book is staggering. Since it first came out in 1970 this is the book that all true politicos look forward to reading when it comes out. I've loved this book for years. The only people that may find fault with it are staunch liberals that can not put their bias aside to give credit where it is due. Sure, Barone is a conservative columnist, but he and Richard Cohen, a liberal columnist, have once again put out an almanac that is about as factual and unbiased as you can find. I highly recommend it. The price may be a bit high, but that is because this book is huge and the effort to produce it is costly. Also, there is simply not enough demand by the general public for such a work and thus the cost is higher.

Michael Barone has been getting more and more open about his conservative biases. After the 2004 election, when the GOP was riding high, he really dropped any pretense of fairmindedness (if he ever had it), and hasn't let up since. On his blog he once referred to Democrats as a 5-letter word for a prostitute that starts with "w". Since the conservative US News & World Report went under, he's been writing for the Washington Examiner, which has scooped up lots of conservatives for itself. This is the sort of rag that writes articles about the "secret global conspiracy" of the Bilderberg Group. Needless to say, Barone has gone off the deep end to be associating with this ilk. It's a sign of how intellectually impoverished conservatives are.

So the latest edition of his Alamanac of American Politics is majorly flawed. Most people don't know much about, say, Michigan's 8th congressional district, so they may not realize how biased Barone's writing is when they start reading and end up woefully misled. This high-error rate is present in edition after edition. Barone sings the praises of some congressman, then has to explain that they got voted out of office in the next edition. According to him, if a Republican won an election, it is likely to remain that way for a long time; if a Democrat won, it was a lucky break that will get overturned soon. The 2006 edition, in a long piece, virtually wrote the obituary of the Democrats (which Barone would obviously love). Now in the newest edition he grudgingly admits in a much shorter article that they are ascendant "for now."

Flipping around randomly leads to a wealth of other examples. Deval Patrick gets described as "undoing Mitt Romney's legacy." Barone also points out he "refused to sign a bill honoring Reagan's birthday." How dare he! Barone bemoans poor Bob Ehrlich for not being appreciated by the voters of Maryland, even letting him get in an explanatory quote about why they wouldn't re-elect him. He laments how Jerry Kilgore lost out to Tim Kaine's "politically convenient" campaign in Virginia. He is obviously annoyed that voters had the effrontery not to choose his favored candidates. John Kerry's presidential campaign is taken to task over the Swift Boat Veterans allegations, but Barone never mentions all their glaring errors and inconsistencies, or Bush's similar errors, and Barone doesn't give Kerry an explanatory quote like Ehrlich gets. Maine's governor takes Hugo Chavez's oil "despite Chavez's criticisms of President Bush." Um, is that the real problem Barone has with Chavez? Reading over the last two editions, you'd never have guessed the Democrats would be sweeping into huge majorities across all regions. Many political junkies saw it coming, but the supposed expert Barone couldn't, and readers of this book wouldn't have either.

People who rely on this book will always get caught short come election time, because Barone's analysis is so biased and so wrong. Barone simply does not have an accurate grasp of American politics, due to his hyperpartisan wishful thinking. From his writing, it's clear he hates (and "hate" is not too strong a word) a majority of Americans: the ones who vote Democratic. He regularly excoriates them with an exactitude he never turns on Republicans. His co-author has no appreciable counterbalance. Until the editors do something about the bitter partisanship running through the entire book that throws off the whole endeavor of objective analysis, this will remain a shadow of what it could be.