20 replies to this topic

[TCUSA]

Anybody paying attention knows that the blue states curried far more favor with Obama's "stimulus package" than red states and received the lion's share of those funds.  But, as I decried with the car manufacturer and big bank bailouts, none of the fundamental, systemic problems that caused their issues in the first place have ever been addressed--in short, we merely subsidized their bad management for a short time and even that's proving inadequate:

Blue States Faring Worse than Red under Obama

[NewfoundlandFrog]

TCUSA, on 09 May 2012 - 10:39 AM, said:

Anybody paying attention knows that the blue states curried far more favor with Obama's "stimulus package" than red states and received the lion's share of those funds.  But, as I decried with the car manufacturer and big bank bailouts, none of the fundamental, systemic problems that caused their issues in the first place have ever been addressed--in short, we merely subsidized their bad management for a short time and even that's proving inadequate:

Blue States Faring Worse than Red under Obama

Re. "red" vs. "blue". Definition here: IBD compared average job growth, unemployment, changes in housing prices, per capita income and GDP growth, and gas prices for the 22 states that voted for John McCain in 2008 and the 28 states that voted for Obama .

Good Lord! Speaking of "paying attention"!!! Is it really your contention that Wisconsin, New Jersey (which you apparently have "forgotten" turned down stimulus funds!), Indiana, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida (which you also apparently have "forgotten" turned down stimulus funds!), New Mexico, Nevada and a couple of others like Pennsylvania and Minnesota are honestly classed as "blue" states? I guess so, but others might disagree with your characterization of a number of them. Or do you just blindly accept whatever some flack throws out to you that you agree with? "Blue" Wisconsin, I think I have read, for example leads the nation in lowest growth, though I stand to be corrected by accurate stats.

[gohornedfrogs]

Well, Mr. Canada, since I actually live in one of those states, I'll say you're wrong about PA.

It's an overwhelmingly blue state fiscally in terms of politics. It trends red socially, at least outside of Philly.

[NewfoundlandFrog]

gohornedfrogs, on 09 May 2012 - 11:20 AM, said:

Well, Mr. Canada, since I actually live in one of those states, I'll say you're wrong about PA.

It's an overwhelmingly blue state fiscally in terms of politics. It trends red socially, at least outside of Philly.

Isn't Corbett rep??? Aren't both houses rep (at least since 2010)? The house was dem but almost even balanced before that 102-101 before the 2010 election and 30-20 rep in the Senate. That would seem to dilute the "blue state" moniker a bit--call it royal purple or something.

Maybe it's a blue state. But I put it in with Minn for a reason, they just don't seem to merit the title "blue" to me exactly. Purplish seems somehow better.

[Duquesne Frog]

NewfoundlandFrog, on 09 May 2012 - 11:30 AM, said:

Isn't Corbett rep??? Aren't both houses rep (at least since 2010)? The house was dem but almost even balanced before that 102-101 before the 2010 election and 30-20 rep in the Senate. That would seem to dilute the "blue state" moniker a bit--call it royal purple or something.

But it's been pretty solidly Dem in presidential elections lately.  Last time a Rep won PA was Herbert Walker Bush and the only race since then that was even all that close was 2004 ...

[NewfoundlandFrog]

Duquesne Frog, on 09 May 2012 - 11:34 AM, said:

But it's been pretty solidly Dem in presidential elections lately.  Last time a Rep won PA was Herbert Walker Bush and the only race since then that was even all that close was 2004 ...

Agree. What I'm trying to get at is characterizing the state as "blue" is wrong. Take Wisconsin as a better example. Has Wisconsin acted "blue" in any way that you can specify???  According to this analysis, Wisconsin is "blue".

[Duquesne Frog]

NewfoundlandFrog, on 09 May 2012 - 11:37 AM, said:

Agree. What I'm trying to get at is characterizing the state as "blue" is wrong. Take Wisconsin as a better example. Has Wisconsin acted "blue" in any way that you can specify???  According to this analysis, Wisconsin is "blue".

Yes, I'd say PA is complicated politically.  It is still pretty vigorously pro-union and yet pretty socially conservative everywhere other than urban Philly and Pittsburgh.

Personally I like living in a state where there are two viable parties.

[RSF]

Duquesne Frog, on 09 May 2012 - 11:46 AM, said:

Yes, I'd say PA is complicated politically.  It is still pretty vigorously pro-union and yet pretty socially conservative everywhere other than urban Philly and Pittsburgh.

Personally I like living in a state where there are two viable parties.

Lot of states like that.  The dangers of the neat-and-tidy, one-size-fits-all label.  No matter how hard one tries to make things black-and-white, more often than not reality is much messier.

I'd like to mention at this point that mixing red and blue often gives you purple.

[pcf]

I'm not sure what the elections prove at times. They're usually pretty specific measures of anger and fear rather than of ideology.

Many places went overboard in 2010. One, old people always vote and they tend to be more conservative voters. Two, there was anger and fear that was expressed through anti-incumbent votes. Three, non presidential years tend to be more lightly participated in and this gives an advantage to the more motivated group.

I think Pennsylvania and Wisconsin will reject the Republican Tea Party idiots they elected and return to more moderate politics.

[pcf]

RSF, on 09 May 2012 - 11:50 AM, said:

Lot of states like that.  The dangers of the neat-and-tidy, one-size-fits-all label.  No matter how hard one tries to make things black-and-white, more often than not reality is much messier.

Not Texas, though. We're still waiting for the demographic shift to end the reign of idiocy.

[Duquesne Frog]

pcf, on 09 May 2012 - 11:51 AM, said:

I think Pennsylvania and Wisconsin will reject the Republican Tea Party idiots they elected and return to more moderate politics.

I don't think Corbett ran on a particularly Tea Party heavy platform, although his budget has been pretty draconian, I'd argue.  Toomey, however, campaigned more as a Tea Partier.  I voted for Corbett, but not Toomey, if that tells you anything ...

[RSF]

pcf, on 09 May 2012 - 11:52 AM, said:

Not Texas, though. We're still waiting for the demographic shift to end the reign of idiocy.

So who was talking about Texas?

[Duquesne Frog]

Look at the county map for the last Senate election in PA.  You'll see that Sestak, the Democrat, only won 8 counties.  But he won the counties with Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Erie, Scranton and Wilkes-Barre in them.  The only counties with decent sized cities in them that he didn't win were the counties with Harrisburg, Allentown-Bethlehem (a little surprising, lots of union-types there) and State College.

Toomey won all the other counties ... 59 total.  Yet, he only won the popular election 51-49.

[KillerFrog InD KitchenSink]

If you look at this article critically, at first blush the analysis leaves a lot to be desired.  Some basic questions in my mind immediately come up that are not mentioned at all- Are there intrinsic factors in place that explain the differences (industries hit harder in certain geographic regions, for example)?  Why did they use the time periods they used?  For example, they used three different time periods for different charts- June 2009 to March 2012 for one, 2010 to 2011 for another and a stagnant point of March 2012 for a third.  I'd beinterested if you use different start and endpoints how the data might look differently.  

They then throw out an hypothesis for the results- that red states are more business friendly.  Are they more friendly?  How do you define that?  And if so, how do we know that is the cause for the better nembers?  To me, this whole article seems like they actually started with that hypothesis and then massaged the numbers to "back" it up.  Kinda reminds me of a Goo message board post on the fff.

[pcf]

KillerFrog InD KitchenSink, on 09 May 2012 - 12:31 PM, said:

If you look at this article critically, at first blush the analysis leaves a lot to be desired.  Some basic questions in my mind immediately come up that are not mentioned at all- Are there intrinsic factors in place that explain the differences (industries hit harder in certain geographic regions, for example)?  Why did they use the time periods they used?  For example, they used three different time periods for different charts- June 2009 to March 2012 for one, 2010 to 2011 for another and a stagnant point of March 2012 for a third.  I'd beinterested if you use different start and endpoints how the data might look differently.  

They then throw out an hypothesis for the results- that red states are more business friendly.  Are they more friendly?  How do you define that?  And if so, how do we know that is the cause for the better nembers?  To me, this whole article seems like they actually started with that hypothesis and then massaged the numbers to "back" it up.  Kinda reminds me of a Goo message board post on the fff.

I define business friendly the same way Travolta defines a good massage.

When I see that phrase, it basically says the willingness to submit to whatever gets the corporation or CEO off.

[pcf]

RSF, on 09 May 2012 - 12:03 PM, said:

So who was talking about Texas?

It is called a segue. I segued from not talking about Texas to insulting the intelligence of Texas Republicans like Rick Perry.

[The Uniballer]

<p>

Duquesne Frog, on 09 May 2012 - 12:08 PM, said:

Look at the county map for the last Senate election in PA.  You'll see that Sestak, the Democrat, only won 8 counties.  But he won the counties with Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Erie, Scranton and Wilkes-Barre in them.  The only counties with decent sized cities in them that he didn't win were the counties with Harrisburg, Allentown-Bethlehem (a little surprising, lots of union-types there) and State College.

Toomey won all the other counties ... 59 total.  Yet, he only won the popular election 51-49.

I remember seeing a map from I think the 2008 election that showed results by county and it was very similair.  Even in the primaries, I think Hillary scored pretty well in the rural areas, but Obama kicked her but in the urban areas -- where the population is.

[The Uniballer]

<p>

The Uniballer, on 09 May 2012 - 02:17 PM, said:

<p>I remember seeing a map from I think the 2008 election that showed results by county and it was very similair.  Even in the primaries, I think Hillary scored pretty well in the rural areas, but Obama kicked her but in the urban areas -- where the population is.

Not exactly the map I was looking for but it will work  http://elections.nyt...sident/map.html

[The Uniballer]

<p>

The Uniballer, on 09 May 2012 - 02:19 PM, said:

<p>Not exactly the map I was looking for but it will work  http://elections.nyt...sident/map.html

Obama won Missouri in '08 by 3,632 votesHe won 8 of the 114 counties.

[NewfoundlandFrog]

RSF, on 09 May 2012 - 11:50 AM, said:

...

I'd like to mention at this point that mixing red and blue often gives you purple.

THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN POSTED!!!