As soon as I find a spare $50 bill, I'll be getting this -- the 2006 Alamanc of American Politics. Excerpt:

Where did Bush gain most (6 percent or more)? In districts that can be characterized by the following labels: Italians, Jacksonians, Latinos, and Asians.

Where did the Bush percentage decline most (3 percent or more)? In districts that can be characterized by the following labels: Universities, Episcopalians, Changing Neighborhoods.

I have no idea what "changing neighborhoods" means, but I do know what Universitites means, and I'm fairly certain that the Episcopalians (Anglicans in the U.K.) are the party of old Southern aristocracy and rich folk in general. Which is interesting, because it seems to hint that Bush didn't quite carry the "Plantation" vote as I would imagine. The fact that the author mentions "Jacksonians" -- which is to say, middle and lower class white Southern and Appalachian Protestants, seems to bear this out. And of course W's gains in Italians and Latinos means that he did better among coastal lower class folk than usual. Ah, 2004 looks stranger and stranger.

Anyway, all this "analysis" is basic extrapolation on my part, and I am a bit worried that if I get this book, much of its number-crunching will be invalidated come 2006, where I'm thinking that the Dems will pick up a handful of House seats, more state legislatures, and break even on the governorships (I actually think the GOP's going to gain 1 Senate seat).