Offered without comment. Amazon
Not much at all.
Republicans use books as a sort of fund-raising. Sarah Palin’s PAC bought something like 20,000 copies of her book and gave them away to people who donated to her PAC.
Mitt Romney would waive his speaking fee if the hosting venue would buy an equivalent dollar amount of his books.
Some right-wing websites give away a copy of Anne Coulter’s latest screed if you purchase a subscription to their newsletter.
Democrats, for whatever reason, don’t do this.
I haven’t read “Killing Lincoln” and likely will not, but is it “Red” because of the content or solely because it’s by O’Reilly? The former would have to be a pervasive bias, too. If the latter, that is a poor reason to include it in that category.
I also notice that say, at least 5 of the books in the “Red” column are doubles, Kindle edition and such. I hope those aren’t double-counted. Also, I’m not going to do an analysis on the dates, but the conservative books seem newer, and therefore easier to sell. I mean, Zinn’s book is 32 years old and he died 2 years ago. And it’s the #5 seller? Lots of college kids buying textbooks, I guess.
The God Delusion? Yeah ok, most readers are atheists, and not conservative. But I don’t think the majority or even a good portion of Democrats are atheist.
Yeah, “The God Delusion” is not really a political book. And I don’t believe “Killing Lincoln” is either, although I haven’t read it.
I’m tempted to say that people on the right are more eager to be told what to think, or are less critical readers. The Roots of Obama’s Rage? Really?
I feel oddly out of balance, I don’t like Obama nearly so much as they hate him, and yet feel strangely obligated to try.
Isn’t it obvious what this poll indicates? Obama is leading in the election polls because more “red” books are being read by people, and they are terrified of the ideas found there! 
I think it is marketing genius by amazon since some people will feel compelled to buy books to help their side of the poll.
How about this: Whatever Party is in office, voters from the other party are angry. When you’re angry you’re more likely to seek out material that fuels or confirms your anger.
In the footnotes to my version of The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins claims explicitly to have voted for the “Socialist Party”. While Labour is a member of the Socialist International, I find it telling that he’d have no qualms describing them as such. I often find atheistic conservatism far more disturbing than religious conservatism. A Platonic worldview can lead into deontology as an opposition to Utilitarianism, but I can’t abide by “evolution take the hindmost” as a philosophy.
I find it tells me that he’s from the UK, a country where they don’t hide under the bed whenever someone mentions the “S” word.
Also, I doubt very much that by “Socialist Party” he means Labour. He probably means the Socialist Party
[/hijack]
Carry on!
I think we can safely say that he didn’t mean that Socialist Party. Dawkins is on record as saying that he has voted Liberal Democrat since the early 1980s and he endorsed them at the last election. So any vote by him for the ‘Socialist Party’ would date back to a time when the Labour Party was indisputably a Socialist party. The comment was presumably phrased in the way that it was with non-British readers in mind.
Reactionary lies sell.