@John We are usually on a knife’s edge, that’s the attractor of a two-party system. But the knife’s edge isn’t on a one dimensional continuum, left or right. The preferences and inclinations (on policy and other things) that drive voters are multidimensional. 1/

@John That we are 50/50 balanced does not tell you we are “where voters are”. The deep insight of “What’s the matter with Kansas” is that the knife’s edge is defined by the dimensions along which the parties choose to compete. What Frank pointed out is that, during the Clinton/Bush/Obama era, parties (there are only two!) chose not to compete on “economic populism”, so the balance was set by positions on social issues. 2/

@John We were not “right there” on economics during that era. That’s not to prejudge where were would have ended up, if parties had competed on that dimension (although yes, like the libertarians I suppose, I have a view). Both parties governed within a narrow consensus. Barack Obama appropriated the Mitt Romney / Federalist society health care plan. 3/

@John What Frank pointed out was that the “paradox” that downscale Kansans who pay almost no income tax voted for tax-cutting Republicans becomes easy to understand when neither party was offering much in economic terms that would affect them. (I’m not claiming that about Obamacare, he wrote earlier.) 4/

@John Sure, directionally and by (post-FDR) historical vibe, the Democrats better served their economic interests. But the difference was so minor, it was perfectly reasonable to vote values. Democrats could have shaken this equilibrium and potentially won votes, but both a 70s/Carter/Reagan hangover and how financial support gets allocated in an increasingly unequal society dissuaded them. 5/

@John The process of even trying to limn that 50/50 edge on economic issues was suppressed, until in 2016 both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump broke the tacit agreement between the parties not to compete aggressively along this dimension. Now, finally, we are groping our way towards something like the 50/50 point (although that has to be hedged, our system doesn’t find that point on any one dimension, but holistically across all issues). /fin

@John * (all issues the parties contest!)