doctorow at June 6th, 2014 10:00 — #1
william_holz at June 6th, 2014 10:03 — #2
It's a Liberul(tm) plot to turn them blue!
boundegar at June 6th, 2014 10:13 — #3
It's also really really old news. The study might be fresh, but it's been done again and again, and it never alters anybody's thinking about anything.
lamaranagram at June 6th, 2014 10:20 — #4
This isn't fair and balanced.
dobby at June 6th, 2014 10:29 — #5
Republicans, all for small government
The government takes from the makers who do nothing but take and gives to the takers who actually make stuff; unless it is a military or worse a prison contract which enriches a few maker takers and enslaves some taker makers.
boundegar at June 6th, 2014 10:33 — #6
I was skeptical until the pony.
dobby at June 6th, 2014 10:35 — #7
sorry, edited my post so badly the pony just sounded silly, so you don't even get that any more taker.
jmacdotorg at June 6th, 2014 10:41 — #8
Salient website that will celebrate its tenth anniversary this fall: http://fuckthesouth.com
othermichael at June 6th, 2014 10:45 — #9
But it's math, so there's that.
old at June 6th, 2014 10:55 — #10
I feel like Dr. Seuss just tried to do a stack overflow attack on my brain.
mister44 at June 6th, 2014 10:56 — #11
Except for the most part the concept of a Red state vs Blue state is baloney. 51% vs 49% means a state gets colored red or blue, when in reality it's purple. While you can find pockets where there is a very high percentage of one side vs the other, most of us live in more diverse areas.
nell_anvoid at June 6th, 2014 11:12 — #12
Exactly. The binary classification of Blue and Red states is an artifact of the ludicrous reluctance of the US to ditch its antiquated electoral college. Thus, if one looks closely, one will find that a significant region in Massachusetts (the South Shore and Cape Cod) are actually Republican strongholds...and similar stretches of Texas look ready to turn "blue." Now, it's quite true that a Republican in Massachusetts is quite different from a Republican in Texas (or South Carolina or...) but the Red/Blue nonsense only clouds the distinctions.
chickied at June 6th, 2014 12:04 — #13
I suppose you could say that in a state like, say, Alabama, where I grew up, it's possible that the people who aren't on the dole see a larger proportion of people who are not employed or marginally employed. Instead of looking to systemic issues, like lack of proper education, there is a blame the victim mentality of "Why don't these poor people want proper education? Why do they prefer to live on welfare? Why don't they help themselves instead of having babies?"
Anyway, I've observed since living in more affluent areas that you just don't see the poor when you live in a nice place in the North, whereas in the South, even in the nice areas you still have a lot of contact with poverty when you travel around the state or through service workers.
doctorow at June 6th, 2014 12:11 — #15
Except in this case they're really talking about the legislative climate in each state, which is binary, thanks to gerrymandering. Red states may be ~50% blue, but are usually legislatively dominated by the GOP. The question is: do GOP polices or Dem policies produce a greater reliance on federal subsidies.
uncascrooge at June 6th, 2014 12:20 — #17
To hell with nuance, we've got to stop these federal hand-outs: They're creating lazy, entitled Republican strongholds.
vonbobo at June 6th, 2014 12:35 — #18
The Republicans likely have long drawn out responses to this particular interpretation of the data, rebuttals ensue, confusion and a feeling of helplessness rise, and then everyone goes back to watching Dancing With the Stars.
One sided political rhetoric is useless, it's what has gotten us to this point in the first place.
malarkey at June 6th, 2014 12:51 — #19
Another reason to be a proud graduate of the University of Delaware! Go, Blue Hens!
drew_millecchia at June 6th, 2014 12:51 — #20
And low income families below the poverty line don't actually pay federal income tax (except SS) and EIC helps as well. But they do pay state income likely and state sales tax, which is flat and disproportionate to low income.
So, what is happening is they are giving their money to their state for no return and the state depends on the federal government to support their citizens. Then they enforce the republican rhetoric of small government and more state control. What are they spending the tax money on instead of helping their constituents who are in need?
nonentity at June 6th, 2014 12:52 — #21
Regardless of how "purple" the overall mix of a state is, what determines this sort of thing is who gets elected to be a representative of the state. If one side or the other has the political power of the state, then it's perfectly natural to classify the state as that showing that side's political values.
ereiamjh at June 6th, 2014 12:52 — #22
What you're commenting on is the rural/suburban vs. urban dynamic in this country, where the biggest differences in attitudes can be seen. STILL, some states are just way more red than others period, and you can easily see that by who they overwhelmingly voted for or against in the last POTUS election. Just because states like Arkansas or Mississippi have some pockets of progressive thinking doesn't mean that aren't seriously red states.
@Nell_AnvoidAs states like Texas become more urban they'll become less conservative. That's why conservatives/neoliberals/libertarians are so ready to try to undermine democracy via voter discrimination laws (Texas again) and to hold on to the completely undemocratic and antiquated 'electoral college' that you mentioned. Real democracy threatens the privilege of the white, conservative, wealthy minority.
next page →