The Almanac of American Politics, 2002 [Hardcover]

During my absence things have indeed improved. More facts and statistics have been added about states and congressional districts, political analysis Charlie Cook has added brief outlooks for every seat up for election in 2002, more information on redistricting is given, more extensive descriptions of states, districts, and backgrounds on office holders is provided and yes, Barone's editorial comments, while still present, have been drastically toned down and in some cases eliminated.

However, there are still obvious examples of his bias. Many pro NAFTA comments are made mentioning benefits states and districts have received since its passage while no mention is made at all of the jobs lost in those same areas (only to often be replaced by lower paying ones) and Barone regularly writes objectively about "cultural conservatives" while virtually anyone who isn't married, with 2.5 kids while living in the suburbs or a rural area (be it office holders or their constituents) is labeled, in a rather dismissive tone as part of the "feminist left," a term Barone does not seem to use in a neutral manner. Furthermore his recap of the Florida recount clearly takes a pro-Bush side, ignoring all his inconsistencies while maximizing Gore's despite blatant hypocrisy that was strong on both sides.

But overall this is a solid, if somewhat overpriced reference for political junkies elsewhere. If Barone can continue to scale back his editorializing in future editions, this series will has the potential to become one of the most important on the subject.

I first discovered the Almanac in 1992 and have purchased copies every two years since. My '92 edition is dogeared, with pages falling out, yet I still consult it regularly.

Barone's in-depth background information in each state and Congressional district is a feature hard to find anywhere else (certainly not all in one place). His invaluable biographical information on members of congress (and governors) is essential to understand where these people are coming from, when one sees them on CSPAN.

But the statistical information is what I treasure most. The Almanac is a quick and easy reference for finding out how vulnerable an incumbant is, who ran against them before, how their state or district leans at the presidential level, etc. These statistics are really essential for a deep understanding of congressional politics today.

In the last few years, Barone has also been providing more information about state governments. Recently, he's added the names of the leaders of every state legislature and given longer biographies of the governors. In this era of devolution, such information is greatly needed.

Another newer addition is the predictions of Charlie Cook. Cook's analysis is appreciated although I wish he would be a little more creative in his writing ("...belies the competitive nature of the district" over and over).

Barone and Cook have an excellent track record in predicting elections, but naturally they are wrong at times too. For instance, they both considered Gov. Jesse Ventura a good bet for re-election (and Barone even hinted at a Presidential bid in 2004). Of course Ventura is not seeking re-election due to low approval ratings. Since the Alamanc comes out a year before the election its focused on, it is fun to follow along and see how accurate its forecasting ends up

Granted, Barone is a conservative and his bias does occassionally surface. This can be distracting and poorly placed at times (especially for an angry leftist like me). But objective journalism is basically non-existent in this country and Barone should be applauded for staying focused and unbiased more than most.

All said, the "Almanac of American Politics" is absolutely crucial for anyone who wants more than a superficial understanding of national politics today. Read it and you'll watch "Face the Nation" and "Meet the Press" in a whole different light. Buy it; it's more than worth the price.

Whether it's Barone comparing Bush's "more choice" to Gore's "more government," or his characterization of "observant, tradition-minded, moralistic" Bush voters opposing Gore voters that are "unobservant, liberation-minded, relativist," he continually finds ways to slightly polish conservative views and give a little tarnish to the liberal side of the spectrum.

The clincher for me was in the Presidential Politics segment for Florida when Barone writes of the beyond reproach fact of a Bush victory, while elaborating upon all the apparent shifty, underhanded tactics of the Gore camp. Whether or not the tactics were sinister is up for debate, but it's clear he didn't want to concede any points for the liberals, whether on Florida or on free-market ideology. This slight, but consistent bias isn't dangerous in and of itself; it's objectionable because it's coming from such a supposedly authoritative source.