Wednesday, November 7, 2012

How The Red Pays For The Blue



Res Ipsa Loquitur

52 comments:

Eric Dondero said...

If anyone is listening to Rush today, he is saying precisely what I was saying in my editorial today, just using a different term - you can't beat Santa Claus.

Charlie said...

A little misleading Jim... Most of the high income earners and corporations are in those blue areas you highlighted.

The Right Guy said...

Those are called idiots...

Charlie said...

PS Jim. Apologies if my disappearing from the forums some time ago was seen as a slight. Was busy with other things at the time and Chuck was busting my balls pretty regularly, though I know he didn't mean anything by it :-)

The Right Guy said...

I've had a lot going on too. I moved to AZ.

Charlie said...

Moved to Arizona during the heatwave we've had in the CA and the Southwest? That's a man's task :-)

Anyway... Remember how shitty the Dems felt in 2004??? Look where they ended up 2/4 years later. The electorate as a whole are fickle sheep. Obammy is gonna be a lot greyer in 2 years. The FED is keeping the economy together with scotch tape and bubble gum. The fact that they are buying $40 BILLION DOLLARS of mortgage backed securities a month tells you they are in panic mode! This is going to be just as bad as the 2007-08 crash. We never really recovered from in the first place. Are you not looking forward to Obama squirming under all that pressure??? :-)

Charlie said...

And Jim please lighten everyone's mood by posting that Washington and Colorado gave the finger to "Obama the Drug Warrior" by legalizing pot yesterday.

Biggest libertarian victory in like, forever.

Will said...

This map looks accurate to me. What we see is the majority of population in this country is centered around urban areas. Who lives in urban areas? Mostly black, hispanic, jews, and asians; all who turned out in droves to vote for Obama. Why? Because the GOP does not speak to these people. The GOP can not get past the fact that America is not socially conservative, but more libertarian. Since most people do not understand anything about libertarians, they fall back to terms like "socially liberal." And since the majority have been dumbed down by government schools, and private schools that follow the same model, economic illiteracy is ubiquitous.

I'm still hopeful though. After another four more years, Obama will not be able to hide behind blaming the previous administration. But a turnaround can only happen if the GOP abandons their "moral values," and becomes at least, more socially moderate. Also, the liberty movement among young people is growing exponentially, and I only see more from kids who aren't yet eligible to vote having a strong voice in the near future. Once people see more social issues that are addressed to their liking, and realize starting a business, or simply finding a job because of oppressive regulations, knowledge of free market economics will inevitably fall into place.

Will said...

Charlie, we all disappeared from the forums. I believe it is called spontaneous action. Good to see you, kid! :)

Charlie said...

Your avatar is soothing Will... Snorkeling with friendly sea mammals :-)

In the end Romney losing will be a net plus. Rubio is a winner in 2016. As I pointed out before only once since FDR has the same party held the WH for 12 years straight. Not to mention that a shitty candidate (which Mittens was) got 49.7% of the vote.

Johnson's million plus is ideologically encouraging...

I can't understand all the sissy "take my ball and go home" sentiment. The economy is going of a cliff no matter what. Did anyone REALLY want a GOPer in the WH when it happens???

The FED is desperately trying to keep the shell game going but time is almost up. The sheeple will turn on Obama quick once he DOES run out of other peoples money.

Yesterday was a win for liberty. It just has to get a little worse before it gets better :-)

Charlie said...

PS damn the GOP REALLY screwed the pooch in the senate. Those twits in Indiana and Missouri represent the worst of your pointed out problems with "social conservatism"

The Right Guy said...

It was hot this past summer. I'll have to see if I can get used to it.

The Right Guy said...

The biggest libertarian victory was kicking the british out. The second was repealing prohibition.

John Denver said...

You're an idiot. Those blue areas are where all the wealth is. The red areas of this country are backward, poor and mooching off the blue areas.

Charlie said...

Throwing the troll a bone...

How many of the job producers and upper income earners in the so called blue areas break for the GOP? Unfortunately they are surrounded by the "moochers" you speak of. Representative democracy indeed :-)

Eric Dondero said...

Yeah, wealth from high paid government bureaucrats like in northern Virginia living off of working Americans who live in the Red areas.

Recent stats show public employees now make far more than one makes in the private sector.

Eric Dondero said...

Charlie, I disagree strongly. Mitt was the perfect candidate. He was the greatest Republican candidate in my lifetime. Better than Reagan. Much, much better than Reagan.

Mitt was from central casting, perfect in every way. Handsome, good looking wife, well-spoken, nice family, gentle manner, looked presidential, a fiscal conservative, didn't delve into controversial social issues.

If we cannot win with Mitt Romney, we will never win.

I honestly see this as the end Charlie. I'm not sure the Republican Party can ever come back from this defeat. It's over.

And quite frankly, I'm getting a little annoyed by the attitude of some that "Oh, golly geez, it's just one election... we can bounce back..."

John Denver said...

The 'working americans' you talk about are poor, uneducated whites, who are on welfare and food stamps and vote republican because they think Jesus wrote the constitution.

The Right Guy said...

And I though Bill Maher already had the job.

Eric Dondero said...

And John, what about those of us who are white working Americans and poor who don't take any welfare, or anything from the government.

Where do we fit in your grand scheme.

I make about $16,000 a year. I'm a Veteran. I could walk into any benefits office and get unemployment, or disability, whatever. I choose not too. Never have.

Why do you assume that all poor whites live off the government?

Eric Dondero said...

Oh, and I'm a Deist. Not particularly religious, and most certainly NOT a social conservative.

The Right Guy said...

He assumes all poor live off the government.

John Denver said...

Eric, maybe you should think about walking into one of those offices....your writing obviously isn't working for you.

John Denver said...

Also, I'm happy for your liberal friends and family that they never have to see or hear from you again. Must be a wonderful time in their lives.

ajnock1976 said...

Interesting map, Eric.

Two points you should think thru:

1. In 1976 when Carter beat Ford the map looked similar. The majority of states had voted for Pres. Ford over Gov. Carter. The country, territorially, went for Ford. The problem for him [and us now] is that this was the part of the county that is empty. Where PEOPLE lived they voted for Obama [Carter then].

2. 1976 was a long time ago. I was in grade school & working for MacBride as a petitioner. But the USA of 2010 was not of the distant past. And THAT USA ousted Pelosi [I believe her party w/also oust her from leadership now] & can achingly close to undoing the effects of the 2006 & 2008 elections in the Senate.

Yes we have a larger welfare population, but it was the failure of the GOP's leadership, here. Nothing more.

Remember recent GOP leadership gaffes: 1. FL, the Senate GOP group endorsed & tried to marginalize, Marco Rubio to support Charlie Crist. Crist's name is mud among FL Republicans now. Did anyone at the GOP Senate office get ousted for this?

2. Miller won the GOP nomination in AK. The incumbent Senator ran as an independent & now she caucuses w/the GOP. If Miller had bolted & refused to accept the voters verdict, we'd never have heard the end of it.

3. The GOP retroactively changed the rules to prevent Cong. Ron Paul's name to be introduced in Tampa. Then the bastards who did this were whining about helping the GOP defeat Obama. Bastards.

This wasn't about the changing electorate as much as it was about the GOP establishment being out of touch.

yours for sanity

Alan Turin

The Right Guy said...

I agree with Alan about Ron Paul. They should have never done that.

Eric Dondero said...

No Alan. The GOP deserves no condemnation here. They deserve nothing but praise for this election.

The people who should be condemned are Obama, Democrats, and anyone who supported the Nazi Democrat Party.

We should all spit in their faces today. Have nothing but sheer and utter contempt for anyone we know who is a Democrat.

Those of us on the Right are now in the minority against the modern day Nazi Party i.e. Democrats. There's no time for bitchin' at each other - Ron Paulists, religious right, libertarians, moderate conservatives. I could care less now! We are all now united against the Nazi/Communist State of Obama.

Stop the stupid-ass internal bickering!

Chuck said...

"Yes we have a larger welfare population, but it was the failure of the GOP's leadership, here. Nothing more."

Yeah. The democrat party just sat back and watched as republicans built a welfare state. Do you ever get tired of being a stupid piece of shit, dickjerk1976?

The Right Guy said...

I think he's equivocating republicans and dems as one party. Just a guess.

ajnock1976 said...

Chuck, hold your remarks for now: the grown ups are talking.

Alan Turin

Tom said...

HEre's what Dems figured out: it's easier and cheaper to organize dense urban populations for the polls than it is the spread-out rural areas. If the GOP wants to compete they have to do 1 or both of:

-Increase turnout among already red-areas. This means better ground-games in those areas, better organizing and get-out the vote campaigns, and more money. The difficulty with this is, it's not like Romney didn't try that this time around. It's just tough to organize that many people spread out across that much space.

-Start competing for the urban votes. That means appealing to urban constituents. Hispanics, gays, young people. Personally, I think this is the better route to take because a) the future is in urban growth and these demographics, b) it's cheaper/easier to organize in dense areas, and c) it takes away votes from the Dems. Would the GOP lose some of their rural support if they came out favoring gay marriage, for example? Maybe, but not to any extent that I think Dems would overtake them in those areas. Rather, it would be a net+ for the GOP because they'd pick up alot of urban votes which would substantially cut into the dem vote in those areas.

Tom said...

The GOP also needs consistency in its messaging. I think that's where libertarian ideals can play a huge role. Unfortunately, so long as the party thinks the SoCons should control the party, they are doomed. For example, Condi Rice would've been an awesome VP. Black, female, sky high favorable, forewign policy gravitas (which Obama beat Romney on handily according to exit polls). Why wasn't she picked? Bc the SoCons threw a fit as soon as her name was even mentioned just because she wasn't 100% pro-life on every front. If the Gop wants to win, it needs to be respectful of SoCons in allowing them to practice their beliefs, but also not controlled by them in preventing the best candidates from running.

KN@PPSTER said...

"Why wasn't she picked?"

It might have something to do with the fact that she said "not only no, but fuck no" multiple times when her name was thrown out.

One way in which Hurricane Sandy probably HELPED the Romney ticket was that it dominated the news during the cycle when she came out and said the GOP line on Benghazi was pure unadulterated horseshit.

Chuck said...

"the grown ups are talking"

Not if you are, cunt. Why is a shit eating nihilist like you posting here anyway, dickjerk1976? Your side won. The leftists won. Enjoy your victory, you little faggot. You'll reap what you've sown.

Savor it, fuckface.

Chuck said...

Find a Paultard and hurt them. There is justice in that. As much as any other factor, those pieces of shit muddied the otherwise clear water between Mitt Romney and a filthy fucking Communist.

Find one and make your country a better place. They did this and the sick fucks are proud of it.

The Right Guy said...

You are targeting the wrong people Chuck. Even if Johnson didn't run, we wouldn't have won. Even if Ron Paul never ran in the primary, we would have lost. Romney didn't do it and that is that.

Chuck said...

Te vermin who perpetuate the lie that democrats and republicans are the same are the scum who elect democrats. Ron Fucking Paul elected more democrats than any republican in history because he made his bones peddling that bullshit line.

It's on.

I'm on fire. Bill Clinton was bad enough. This is unforgivable.

Fear ME, motherfuckers.

Chuck said...

" Even if Johnson didn't run"

Johnson? Give me a fucking break. They didn't give a fuck about Johnson winning. They wanted to muddy the water. The fucking lunatics at "Reason" all endorsed a guy who wasn't in the race. The whole enterprise was about increasing their credibility by equating their opponents.

Nick Gillespie should hope he and I never meet. He had a chance. He jerked off.

I'm done. I gave it a long, drawn out shot. Now I do interviews...every day.

I pray I run into dickjerk1976.

Voting is NOT the best revenge. Something entirely different is.

Sofia said...

Holy fuck the analysis regarding this map is fucking stupid. Did you ever learn the maths?

TheTracker said...

"Fear ME, motherfuckers."

Why? You're a pathetic little whiny bitch. That's not scary.

What's the worst-case scenario? The Southern bigots have another run at secession. Real Americans beat down those traitors once, and would again. And the second Reconstruction would rock!

TheTracker said...

"I pray I run into dickjerk1976."

Perhaps he'd give you a new outlook on life, DickSuckChuck.

The Right Guy said...

TheBackTracker:
Ummm...I highly doubt it. In fact the reverse is true. Just saying because I know the facts...

Diogenes said...

Wow. I have not witnessed such a large group of whiny, bitchy sore losers since playing kick ball in elementary school.

I am really confused as to how you emotionally stunted humans can be so angry. The US Constitution outlines how power should be transferred in a friendly and organized manner based on a representative vote of the people. That is what happened--get over it.

And to all you idiots out there saying violent shit: I hope you spit in the wrong Democrats face and he (or she) kicks your fucking teeth down your throat. I promise to help you up afterward, because the fact that you disagree with my political leanings does not remove my compassion for you.

I sincerely wish you all the best and thanks for making me laugh so hard today.

ajnock1976 said...

"Blogger Chuck said...

Te [sic] vermin..."

Chuck you misspelled "The."

Keep up discrediting the war party.

Alan Turin



The Right Guy said...

Dioxin:
Of course you've seen worse whining. Remember the 2000 elections?

Diogenes said...

Right Guy:

You are correct, there were a bunch of whiny ass Democrats in 2000. They disgust me too.

But hey, at least Obama won the popular vote. Ouch. Low blow, sorry.

The Right Guy said...

Low Blow? That would be Larry Sinclair.

This election should serve as an education to those on the right. No finger pointing necessary.

Jake said...

The Right Guy: Repealing prohibition was definitely a big libertarian victory, but I think ending slavery and granting suffrage to minorities and women probably beat it out in terms of importance :)

(Amendments 13, 15 and 19)

The Right Guy said...

All good things and remember which party was responsible for getting that done: The republican party.

Matt from Denver said...

You know what that map shows? Lots and lots and lots of empty, wide open spaces with few people (colored red), together with densely populated cities (colored blue).

Sorry, folks, but wide empty spaces don't vote. People do.

Anyway, it's been proven that rural places consume more in federal tax than they pay. It's actually the blue that pays for the red. Don't believe me? Check out that liberal rag, The Economist on the matter.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/americas-fiscal-union

Chuckorama said...

8 of the 10 wealthiest counties in America voted for Obama. And, no, the Red does not pay for the blue, quite the opposite.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/obama-wins-8-of-the-nations-10-wealthiest-counties?f=must_reads

hapagirl said...

Geographic maps are misleading at best when representing population-based voting patterns. Likewise, strict red/blue divisions are rare. A map that is adjusted both for population density and allows a scale of red-purple-blue provides a much more nuanced representation of 2012 voting patterns. See http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2012/countycartpurple1024.png, drawn from http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/, for more.