The Boston Review just published an article by John Sides and myself on the 2008 election, along with discussions from several journalists, political scientists, and political activists. Here are the summaries:

Andrew Gelman and John Sides: American presidential elections always turn into stories. Because these stories capture the public imagination, they have real political importance. Unfortunately, they are often wrong. The narrative of Obama’s victory is no exception.

Rick Perlstein: Our media will not–cannot–explain the slow, steady work that produces election victories.

Michael C. Dawson:: In 2008, there were 2 million more African-American voters than in 2004.

Richard Johnston and Emily Thorson: Sarah Palin’s approval ratings moved John McCain’s support with unparalleled precision.

Mark Schmitt: We should not dismiss the idea that Obama created a new electoral map.

Andrew Gelman and John Sides respond: In elections, what is certain is almost never new; what is new is almost never certain.

The article that John and I wrote is based on some blogging we did right after the election (especially this, this, and this from me, and this, this, and this from John).

It’s always fun having an article with comments, to get views from different perspectives. We keep banging on about the importance of “the fundamentals,” but I think a lot of our ideas are brought out more clearly in the context of the detailed points made in the discussions.

It’s too bad they weren’t able to run our article with all its graphs. (Many of these graphs will appear in the forthcoming second edition of Red State, Blue State, however, with its extra chapter on the 2008 election.)