I like Ross Douthat, the New York Times's newest regular columnist, but the case he presents today on economic conditions in blue states and red states is misleading. Typical of the piece are claims like these:
Meanwhile, California, long a paradise for regulators and public-sector unions, has become a fiscal disaster area. And it isn’t the only dark blue basket case. Eight states had unemployment over 11 percent in June; seven went for Barack Obama last November.This is true -- states which voted for Barack Obama have higher unemployment rates than those that don't. In fact, the difference is statistically significant: Obama states have an average of 9.3 percent of their population unemployed at the moment, versus 7.9 percent for McCain states.
The problem is that Douthat is confusing cause and effect. Those states may very well have voted for Barack Obama because they had higher unemployment. Obama blew out McCain in high-unemployment states like Michigan, Oregon and Nevada -- states which are normally much more competitive. He won, to much surprise, Indiana and North Carolina, two states with unemployment rates well above the national norms. Indeed, although the Obama states have higher unemployment now, they also did so by a statistically significant margin in November, when Obama was elected.
The other, probably more obvious flaw with Douthat's logic is that Barack Obama has no more authority to govern Vermont than he does Wyoming. Instead, the voters in each state elect governors and legislatures to represent them. And sometimes, these decisions do not match their Presidential preferences: Vermont has a Republican governor, for instance, while Wyoming has a Democratic one.
If we look at who was in charge of each state as of Demcember, 2007, when the recession began, we see no difference in unemployment rates between states with Republican governors and states with Democratic ones.
We can also look at the composition of each state's legislature. States that had Democrats in charge of both chambers of their legislature as of December 2007 have somewhat higher unemployment rates than those with Republicans in charge. However, the difference is not statistically significant. States with mixed legislatures -- where the higher and lower chambers are split between the parties, or where one or both chambers is subject to a tie or coalation government -- have higher unemployment rates than either Democratic or Republican states, perhaps suggesting that the real enemy in tackling the unemployment crisis is not partisanship but gridlock.
Nor do states with Democratic governors have larger budget gaps, although states with Democratic legislatures do:
We're going to have something of a natural experiment taking place over next 12-18 months; the states have adopted a variety of strategies in response to the economic crisis, and we'll get to see which ones recover more quickly than others. But so far the evidence, contra Douthat, is rather mixed.
51 comments
Way to Cheerlead there Nate. Good news its all Obama bad news Obama can't control it. How them partisan glasses fitting lately
Yes, but I wonder if that blue unemployment will trend Republican if things don't recover in, say, Mich, Ind,? Could Dems lose the midwest in 2010?
I've noticed the stimulus has been getting some decent reviews as of late, even on CNBC. It's hard to argue that expanding unemployment, COBRA, food stamps, the extra tax relief to those getting hammered right now weren't needed from both a moral perspective and a macro economic perspective.
Soon, the job creation portion of the stimulus is going to really kick in. Hopefully by September we start to see just a bit of positive job growth.
It's going to take some time though to really make a dent in the high % of unemployment though. If I'm not mistaken, I think I heard somewhere around the end of 2010 is when the unemployment numbers will be closer to where they should be.
I think Summers did a good job of explaining how the stimulus worked and how the rise in unemployment had nothing to do with the stimulus being a failure, but rather a mis-diagnosis of just how bad things were.
...As a side note, I can't remember who it was on CNBC but they stated they, meaning investors, don't care how well the economy is doing. They only care how well the markets are doing. That's a pretty bold statement.
This is a very good analysis, and the most important part is the higher blue state unemployment BEFORE the election.
Gallup states the country is getting bluer since the election - remember this about STATES numbers not national ones (the electoral college and all): http://www.gallup.com/poll/122003/Political-Party-Affiliation-States-Blue-Red-Far.aspx
Obama approval numbers edge back up: http://www.gallup.com/poll/122012/Obama-Job-Approval-Edges-Up-56.aspx
Nate-
To my point two above - can you run some type of state-by-state analysis in real time from now until the election so we can shpw how GOSH DARN BLUE the country still is?
Some good work.
Been a while.
Thanks
Here's another piece for your analysis:
Bush '04 states average 8.3% as of 6/09
Kerry '04 states average 9.4% as of 6/09
Bush '00 states average 8.4% as of 6/09
Gore '00 states average 9.2% as of 6/09
There's clearly some truth in your point, but there's also something to Douthat's.
So, are the folks that voted for Obama more likely to vote for state leaders that will enact legislation that increases unemployment in their state?
Sometimes an in-depth analysis, like the one above or any other re: the why's and wherefore's of the 2008 election can't see the forest for the trees ie bogged down in ad nauseam minitia.
I'm speaking generally and don't know how much of this applies to this discussion ie my analysis is pretty basic: The fact Obama won IN, VA, NC tell you the 2008 election was all about the economy, the motivation of the Dem party to get out the vote and register new voters which was very, very easy after (8) years of cheney/bush incompetence/corruption, and ignoring the the U.S. Constitution re: privacy, prisoners, due process ignoring habeas corpus etc.
This is my cause and effect, pretty basic.
The only remaining question is (((if))) the economy remains weak, who will get blamed in 2010/2012. If the economy recovers the Reps are toast! And Rep party, in its current form, lacking any rational leadership, could make it easy for Obama as he gets re-elected by default.
btw, one of my fav racists ;) buchanan just said on Tweety that the Reps will win back (30) house seats in 2010. Again I ask, how did buchanan remain out of jail when almost all of Nixon's cronies got convicted during Watergate, I digress.
Speaking of 2010/2012 re: the current Rep fringe of birthers and the many whackos who still support palin despite her being a complete and total loon and their flat out hatred of Obama because he is an African-American. With these fringe groups completely taking over the party of No! which limbaugh, hannity, malkin, coultergeist, beck, dobbs, etc. now leads most rational voters ie independents will just ignore them, imo
I relate this to the late 60s when the Dem party had many fringe groups, war protesters, etc. that threatened the core group of American voters who were generally conservative, hence, ergo, therefore Nixon elected in '68 and a landslide in '72.
The Reps don't seem to grasp how the current electorate has totally changed from their winning political meme of the past 30/40 years. In a nutshell, Reps are out of touch!
Digressing again re: Tweety who just said: yes Virginia, another poll lol which shows there are currently (30) solid Dem states and only (4) solid Rep states. Bringing my post back to cause and effect after (8) years of cheney/bush the party of No! is totally discombobuted barely staying afloat.
What buchanan really, really wanted to say was he is hoping/praying the Reps will pick up 30 seats in 2010, but he doesn't believe it will happen.
My cause and effect is the Rep party imploded and the Dem party took over, very basic and w/the trends all in the progressives favor, it is what it is.
ciao
p.s. sometimes one can get too bogged down in statistics/polls and not see the forest for the trees ~ politics ain't rocket science!
carry on
I think that what Douthat might be suggesting is not that Obama (or his administration) have somehow adversely affected blue states in the six-plus months he has been in office.
Instead, the suggestion is that Obama states are more likely to have local Democratic governance; and that said governance is more likely to produce undesirable economic outcomes.
I'm not agreeing to either of those premises; many of the "poor" states which went for Obama this time around have been red states in the past; several others, such as Oregon, until recently have had divided government. The second premise is a bit more likely; there is some evidence to suggest that a "race to the bottom" might be in effect, and that capital might well be fleeing states with stronger social safety nets, consumer protections, and/or environmental regulations, for those with less of these things, which businessmen may consider to be a hindrance or unneeded expense. (By the same token, many jobs have left the US for other countries).
Whether the existence of a "race to the bottom" serves to endorse GOP policies ("it's inevitable; give the rich what they want or the economy will tank") or instead should bring about a call for stronger barriers to capital flight--protectionist measures of various sorts--is another question altogether.
Nice takedown, Nate. I agree that Douthan isn't a bad person but he's bad at causal thinking.
I have been reading the expository and opinion pieces on this site for the past year, and I just wanted to say that I love reading every posting. Thanks for doing what you do.
Unemployment is a lagging indicator. By now, everybody not in a coma understands this. Nobody except the rightwing tantrum-o-verse will be crying over the fact that unemployment is still high while all other signs point to recovery. Sure, being out of a job is hard on the individual, but I can’t see anyone with any sense blaming his particular joblessness on Obama.
I don't like the idea of using the governor metric. Douthat seems to explain a discrepancy between states (and state governments) with liberal and conservative cultures (ie CA vs TX), and few will argue that Wyoming is a more liberal state than Vermont. You often see those Vermont Republicans much more liberal than Wyoming Democrats.
I do like the legislature metric; it seems to be a pretty good judge of political "culture". The states I'm most familiar with (several liberal states) have always had very Democratic legislatures. There you do see correlation that Douthat suggests.
I do think the correlation argument is valid, and it is interesting to ask where this correlation comes from. However, Douthat does seem to assume causation without much basis, though, suggesting liberal policies are the demise of these states. I'm not convinced, but the correlation ought to be looked at more closely.
I really don't think that this is a red/blue regulation/deregulation issue. Rather it is an urban/rural issue as well as a matter of economic sectors.
For the most part red states have predominately rural populations, and very little economic output outside of the agricultural sector. Commodity prices remain strong, and people continue to eat, so it is no surprise that these states have not suffered as much as states that are dependent on manufacturing, finance, information technology, research and development, etc..
Does anyone think that Michigan has a high unemployment rate because it leans blue or because it voted for Obama in the last election? What about the fact that their economy was/is highly dependent on automobile manufacturing, which everyone knows has been struggling of late.
It always irks me when a state is classified as blue or red based just on how it voted in the last election. I can't in good conscience call Indiana a blue state when it was voting 60-40 for Bush just five years ago.
If you take the average margin of victory for the last five presidential elections (1992-2008) and classify any state that favored Democrats by 5 points or more as Blue, any state that favored Republicans by 5 points or more as Red, and any state in the middle as Purple, you get the following results:
Blue - 9.2
Red - 8.1
Purple - 8.8
@Nova,
If you think Nate is being overly partisan, perhaps you would care to explain why YOU think Obama is remotely to blame for the high unemployment the country is facing right now.
Perhaps it is you who needs to check the prescription of his partisan glasses. No matter the objective evidence, you seem to always look for a way to carp about Obama. Now that we have avoided the second great depression, how fast were you expecting everything to return to normal? 3 months? After all even though the recession is winding down, it hasn't even officially ended, and here you are whining that employment hasn't taken off yet.
You are either an idiot, or a partisan hack. Although clearly the two are not mutually exclusive.
Or, if you insist on classifying every state as Democratic or Republican, why not take the average partisan index from the same period?
Democratic (21 states + DC) - 9.1
Republican (29 states) - 8.4
Douthat was very clear about the limits of his point, and that much of what he was describing were damaging perceptions (for liberals). But I think he is really on to something, particularly as regards NY and CA. These are the liberal bastions - they must represent something like a third of American liberal voters, no? They could not possibly be goverened worse. The overspending and taxation are catastrophic, and may trigger serious population flight. The cowtowing to unions (check out NY public sector pensions, or health benefits in cities like San Jose), the gross corruptions. It starts to add up as a meme. Throw MA and IL in for good measure. There simply isn't a good GOP counter example (Alaska is certainly corrupt, but its a very small state). For all of the prater about the Senate on this site, it seems to be that the GOP is really poised for a comeback as the party of good governance on the state level. Not a bad start for a comeback.
By the way, Nate's riposte was surprisingly uneffective. I, for one, was amazed as to how right Douath actually was. State budget deficits are the main problem - and legislatures do the spending. Thus, it is very significant that there is such a large gap between red and blue states on deficits. When the services get axed and the taxes fly higher, the blue state legislators will take most of the heat.
Thank you for exposing Douhat to a bit of sunlight. I like him too (having seen him on BloggingHeads.tv, but he's really not very bright.
As long as we are going to paint this as a red/blue regulation/deregulation issue:
It would be interesting to tabulate what percentage of the national GDP is produced in red states vs. blue states. Which states have the highest quality educational institutions? Which are responsible for the most innovation and the greatest number of patents? Which states have the highest quality of healthcare? Which states have the highest populations because people choose to live there?
If it is true that people move to blue states because that is where the jobs are, would it be surprising that those same states would be hardest hit when the economy started shedding jobs?
On second thought, it wouldn't be that interesting. We all know the answer to those questions.
Jeff:
New York's unemployment rate for June was 8.7%. The national figure was 9.5%. You can throw that one out. MA's was 8.6%. Throw that one out too.
Meanwhile, South Carolina - with Tea Bag Sanford at the helm - posted an unemployment rate of 12.1%. That may be the exception that proves the rule, but it's a hell of an exception.
How do we know if a difference is statistically significant or not, if you don't post your uncertainties?
"Perhaps it is you who needs to check the prescription of his partisan glasses. No matter the objective evidence, you seem to always look for a way to carp about Obama."
Every single time I read a post from some crybaby whining about somebody criticizing Obama, I move on to the next post. Why? Because the hypocrisy renders any argument which follows absolutely pointless and worthless. We lived through eight years of George Bush being blamed for absolutely everything that went wrong on the face of the earth, anywhere. For crying out loud, the left even blamed Bush for the increase in hurricanes during a given year because they claimed he hadn't done enough to combat global warming. It was his fault that September 11th occurred, even though those attacks took place after years of planning and he had only a been in office 7 months. According to numerous polls up to 35% of Democrats believe he orchestrated the murder of 3000 American citizens, and I am supposed to get bent out of shape because some Republicans believe he was born in Kenya? Yeah, I don't think so.
Bush was blamed for the poor economic situation that he inherited. I even remember Terry McAuliffe blaming Bush, during a Fox News Sunday interview in March 2001, for layoffs that occurred 6 weeks after he was inaugurated. He even had eggs thrown at his motorcade by protesters on the day of his inaugural for his first term, before he had done anything. And now the very same people who never gave the previous president a benefit of the doubt for anything, at all, for eight years, are crying because someone criticizes Obama when unemployment is the highest it has been in decades? Too bad. After the vitriol the left spewed at Bush for eight years, I am less than sympathetic to the thin-skinned whiners who don't like it when their guy gets the same treatment.
@Jeff
Your points considering the political optics of the situation are well founded.
However, your assertion that the large deficits of the blue states is in someway illustrative of the wisdom of the red states misses the mark entirely.
Blue states have large government expenditures because they have large economies, and large populations. They do not constantly run large deficits, and their economies are normally hugely productive. But during an economic downturn it can be difficult, and in many ways undesirable, to curtail government spending proportionable to degree of economic contraction. Hence the large deficits.
Forget the states for a minute and compare the U.S. economy to that of Germany's. Which produces more when the economy is working (even when it is not), and which do you expect to have a larger deficit if there is a significant contraction?
Comparing California to Wyoming is like comparing the U.S. to Hati. How big of a deficit do you think Hati is running these days?
Douthat classifies California as "liberal" but he didn't go into any real analysis as to *why* California has such high unemployment and such a large budget gap. The cause of both is conservative political activism.
The reason for the high unemployment rate is obvious- the housing crisis. Few would now dispute that this largely resulted from lax regulation of financial markets, which was championed by laissez faire Republicans in Congress. (It's worth noting that during the housing boom, some conservatives blamed onerous environmental regulation for artificially driving up housing prices. That notion has been thoroughly discredited, as the areas in the West with the least regulation of development have seen the sharpest drops in prices).
As for the budget deficit, it has been a growing problem in California since conservative activists pushed through prop 13 30 years ago. Prop 13 is finally reaping what it has sewn- driving away younger, educated workers in favor of unproductive pensioners, and favoring decay and blight over new business and development.
Furthermore, anyone who lives in California will tell you that much more conservative inland areas are much worse off than the urban, liberal coastal areas. The worst off areas of California, like the Inland Empire and the Central Valley, bear a strong resemblance- economically, socially & politically- to Texas.
"New York's unemployment rate for June was 8.7%. The national figure was 9.5%. You can throw that one out. MA's was 8.6%. Throw that one out too."
Yeah throw those out. Let us just ignore the fact that those two states are deeper in the hole financially than any state in the union, excepting California.
And while we are at it, let's gleefully claim that what is going in in CA is the fault of the Republican party because the governor is a RINO. Let us forget the fact the Republican caucus in the government there could fit in a taxicab, all the major cities are run by Democrats and the previous governors were all Democrats.
"The worst off areas of California, like the Inland Empire and the Central Valley, bear a strong resemblance- economically, socially & politically- to Texas."
Yeah, you mean the Texas that is one of the few states in the union that is actually not in huge debt. Nice try there, but there are few states in the union that are doing better than Texas.
@masnf,
While I think history will be far from kind to Bush, I never engaged in the crazy talk you accuse me of.
I am not a "thin skinned whiner" as you put it. The "whiners" are those that perpetually find fault when there is no basis for it. The "thin skinned whiners" are those that find fault simply because they felt their guy didn't get a "fair" shake last time around.
You my friend, are a classic "thin skinned whiner".
However, you should consider that one of the reasons that liberals were so immediately antagonistic to Bush was because of the way in which conservatives treated Clinton, and every other liberal in the public sphere for the last 30 plus years.
If you are merely carrying on the "tradition", so be it. But you should probably pause to think if your perpetuation of hate is all that productive, or if it is likely to end with you getting the last word.
"Douthat classifies California as "liberal" but he didn't go into any real analysis as to *why* California has such high unemployment and such a large budget gap. The cause of both is conservative political activism."
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahah, the above quote is the stupidest thing I have ever read on this site, and man is that saying a lot. The legislature is totally dominated by the Democratic Party and it is the fault of a bunch of people waving signs? Give me a huge break. I guess the huge pension liabilities, the public service unions that are bankrupting the state, the sixth highest taxes in the US that have caused millions to leave, the onerous environmental regulations that drive up the price of business and real estate and the restrictions on businesses, so severe that a survey of over 500 CEOs indicated CA was the worst state in the US to do business has nothing to do with it does it? Anyone trying to blame the situation in CA, one of the most liberal states in the US, on conservative activists, is, and excuse my word choice, retarded.
PS Putting quotes around liberal when referring to CA is like putting quotes around conservative when describing Ann Coulter.
"Prop 13 is finally reaping what it has sewn- driving away younger, educated workers in favor of unproductive pensioners, and favoring decay and blight over new business and development."
Yeah, because the young love higher taxes. When Prop. 13 passed, they said to themselves "You know what, the taxes here are just gonna be too low. Let's move". Again, that is the stupidest argument I have yet read about the subject.
And for the love of God, quit trying to blame that tax cut for a budget crisis caused by spending that has outpaced inflation and population growth many times over. California has higher taxes than all but five states in the entire country. The notion that their taxes aren't high enough just does not withstand any sort of serious scrutiny.
"Soon, the job creation portion of the stimulus is going to really kick in. Hopefully by September we start to see just a bit of positive job growth"
Yeah, sure it will. Hey, that would mean it would be a success. Because kicking in once unemployment hits ten percent means the stimulus is doing a really great job of keeping unemployment down.
Do you really think anyone is falling for that argument? Seriously, we were told the stimulus had to be passed immmediately. Well, here it is, 6 months later, and only a fraction of the money has been spent. And here we are, on our way to double-digit unemployment, after we were promised it would only be 8% if the stimulus passed. Sorry, but no one on earth has the rhetorical skills to transform that into some kind of success, no matter how hard this administration may be trying in order to avoid the obvious political ramifications of the all-but-inevitable double digit unemployment.
"Unemployment is a lagging indicator. By now, everybody not in a coma understands this. Nobody except the rightwing tantrum-o-verse will be crying over the fact that unemployment is still high while all other signs point to recovery."
Hahahahahahaha, I just love the smell of desperation that emanates from the "unemployment is a lagging indicator" bullcrap. Yeah, because double digit unemployment is a sure sign of a healthy economy. It must be exasperating knowing that the Democrats are gonna take a huge hit when unemployment hits double figures. Voters couldn't care less if their has been a technical end to the recession or what the GDP numbers are. The only economic indicator the majority of Americans care about is unemployment. And you can cry all you want about it being someone else's fault. When November rolls around and unemployment is still close to or over 10%, which it will be, the Dems will suffer for it at the ballot box.
And I have a feeling the actual people that will be out of a job will probably care too.
Kind of hard to blame Bush for the high unemployment rate when it peaks over a year after he has left office. Amazing how the left wants Obama to be given a benefit of the doubt that has not been afforded any other president in history. Sorry, not gonna happen, no matter how much you, or any of the other anti-semites at The Daily Kos, whine about it.
"Nobody except the rightwing tantrum-o-verse will be crying over the fact that unemployment is still high while all other signs point to recovery."
Sorry, but nobody, not even you, actually believes this.
"Over a year after he left office"? He's been out of office for six months. Your math skills are about as good as Ross Douhat's, since he doesn't take into account the Federal transfers of tax revenue from those evil, socialistic blue states to those supposed bastions of free enterprise, like Texas. If Texas tomorrow had to give up the net surplus of Federal dollars it receives, the Lone Star State would burn to the ground in a month.
Of course unemployment in blue states is higher. Here's a clue: THAT'S WHERE PEOPLE LIVE! There's a reason for that, masanf. Too bad that, like most of reality, it's beyond your comprehension.
mansanf --- California is broke for two reasons: Because of Enron, which cheated us out of huge amounts of money, which, to my great shock, we still had to pay even when it was proven to be fraud. and two: Prop 13, the one that severely limited property taxes. That's a pretty conservative measure. (I hear the high property prices are because of the low taxes....)
And you are wrong about us having a series of Democratic governors: we've had our share of Repubs. Ron Reagan is ultimately responsible for the current depression. He ruined our schools and other things when he was governor.
by the way, there is more evidence that Bushites had something to do with 9/11 than there is that Obama was born other than in Hawaii.
Nate:
Legislatures set spending, regulation and tax policy for states and are thus partisan control of the legislature fair, but not perfect, proxies for the state's governing ideology.
A Dem legislature in a purple or red state is likely to be far more conservative than a nominally Republican legislature in a blue state.
Moreover, blue to purple states with red constitutional limits on spending and taxes (like my Colorado) might as well have a GOP as a Dem legislature. A Dem without money to spend is not that much different from a Republican. Thank heaven.
Finally, are your unemployment rates per capita or are you simply averaging in all the states as if they were equal?
A more accurate measurement is the state's ranking of economic freedom and/or how friendly it is to business. With few exceptions caused primarily by the mortgage mess, the freer the state's economy, the better off its economic prospects. The partisan makeup of the states' legislatures is only an imperfect proxy of this reality.
@Bart DePalma,
". . , the freer the state's economy, the better off its economic prospects."
Which of course is why red states are such beacons of economic activity (snark!).
Just for the sake of clarity, because Mansanf said that California had mostly Democratic governors, here is the list of governors of California in my lifetime:
Earl Warren January 4, 1943 October 5, 1953 Republican
Goodwin Jess Knight October 5, 1953 January 5, 1959 Republican
Edmund Gerald "Pat" Brown, Sr. January 5, 1959 January 3, 1967 Democratic
Ronald Reagan January 3, 1967 January 6, 1975 Republican
Edmund Gerald "Jerry" Brown, Jr. January 6, 1975 January 3, 1983 Democratic
George Deukmejian January 3, 1983 January 7, 1991 Republican
Pete Wilson January 7, 1991 January 4, 1999 Republican
Joseph Graham "Gray" Davis January 4, 1999 November 17, 2003 Democratic
Arnold Schwarzenegger November 17, 2003 incumbent Republican
Sambuca and St Dude,
Wyoming? Try Texas, or Florida. Those are big "red" states, in much better shape fiscally than CA, IL, MA, NY.
The unemployment rate isn't on point. That is likely to be blamed on Obama, not matter the color of the state. The Govs and state reps are held responsible for the admin and finances of the state. This is why the deficit question is so deadly for Dems. Deficits = service cuts and tax increases. Long lines, big classes, closed offices, tuition hikes, tax hikes. Dems will by and large pay more than the GOP for this kind of thing. The dynamics of local races on these issues will help solidify the over spend and over tax message of the national GOP.
I also think the corruption issue will hurt Dems. On a state and local level, this is largely their problem at the moment, with some very highprofile corruption scandals. Blago, Spitzer-Patterson, the MA House scandals, the NJ arrests, Murtha. All Dem, and a hell of a lot more serious than one or two affairs. I know Corzine has tried, hilariously, to lash Chris Christie to Sanford - but that dog won't hunt.
masanf said...
"Perhaps it is you who needs to check the prescription of his partisan glasses. No matter the objective evidence, you seem to always look for a way to carp about Obama."
Every single time I read a post from some crybaby whining about somebody criticizing Obama, I move on to the next post.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
hmm, like you did w/the above post lol you just moved on, eh.
God you're an idiot as you go on w/post after post erroneously rationalizing why everything wrong in America is the Dems fault and not Reps. ie Cry me a river! you are already the biggest whiner here, PK and Mule are jealous!
Then you offer these words of wisdom! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahah, the above quote is the stupidest thing I have ever read on this site, and man is that saying a lot.
Yea, nice job skipping over that post also.
As "we" told you a couple days ago. Chill and watch your blood pressure as your Rep party continues to go off a cliff ...
And speaking of trends, here's my fav ;)
1984:
Reagan ~ 54.5 million
Mondale ~ 37.5 million
2008:
Obama ~ 69.5 million
McCain ~ 60 million
So, McCain got 4.5 million more votes than Reagan, whereas Obama got (((32 million))) more votes than Mondale.
Quite the sea change!
Trend or anomaly as the part of Lincoln continues to implode!
p.s. and masanf, always look forward to your in-depth analysis ie Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahah
Priceless!
take care, blessings
Jeff, just in case you didn't notice, your beloved GOP is responsible for more deficit spending than all of the blue states COMBINED. Guess you must think Dick Cheney is the ultimate Democrat: "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." And the idea that the GOP sex scandals won't hurt them is laughable whistling past the graveyard. Ensign bought people's silence? Sanford left his state without a governor? That dog won't just hunt, it will KILL.
Also, unemployment in red states such as South Carolina is always higher than the national average. It has to do with the poor quality of education, not something the gummint down there thinks worth investing in. All through the old Gulf Squadron there is a large static class of unemployed, which drags on statewide figures even when elsewhere in the nation times are good.
Massa-nf—you’re like the cranky old man everybody knew when they were kids. He lived down the block and yelled at everything. The entire base of the GOP is composed of cranks just like you, and yet their leadership can’t understand why everyone is deserting them.
I say, keep it up! Complain, whine, sneer, disparage, hate, fume. Every time you post here you drive one more person permanently away from the GOP. Eventually it will go from the Party of No to the Party of None, and they will have people just like you to thank.
Pragmatus said...
I say, keep it up! Complain, whine, sneer, disparage, hate, fume. Every time you post here you drive one more person permanently away from the GOP. Eventually it will go from the Party of No to the Party of None, and they will have people just like you to thank.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yea, as I've been saying for the past 2/3 years, the best thing that ever happened to the Dem party was talk radio's total domination by wing nut evangelical conservatives! which is all the Reps have left ie their extreme fringe base.
ciao
masanf said...
the previous governors [of California prior to Schwarzenegger] were all Democrats.
A tad loose on your recounting of political affiliations, there, 'masanf'?
How far back should we go?
Let's go back to 1967:
1967 to 1975 - Ronnie Ray-Gun - Republican
1975 to 1983 - Edmund Gerald "Jerry" Brown, Jr. - Democratic
1983 to 1991 - George Deukmejian - Republican
1991 to 1999 - Pete Wilson - Republican
1999 to November 17, 2003 - Joseph Graham "Gray" Davis - Democratic
November 17, 2003 to present - Arnold Schwarzenegger - Republican
So let's see if "the previous governors were all Democrats":
Ronnie Ray-Gun? Nope
Jerry Brown? Yes
Deukmejian? Nope
Wilson? Nope
Davis? Yes
Schwarzenegger? Nope
But wait - you said BEFORE Schwarzenegger "the previous governors were all Democrats". [emphasis added]
So Wilson was a Democrat?
So Deukmejian was a Democrat?
So Ronnie Ray-Gun was a Democrat? (Well he was in the 30s, maybe the 40s).
With your perception of history (which is easily debunked), you wonder why no one on this site takes your postings seriously?
You are nothing but a TROLL, a GOOPer TROLL, and a TROLL who is not trying to post anything but Republiturd talking points that have no basis in reality.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/0284889341225109596
Nate-
You're also not considering the % contribution to GDP of each of these states AND the composition of industries in each state. These seem to be important factors given the nature of this recession and these statistics.
Nate-
Also wanted to add that almost every indicator of a strong economy has been better under Democrat rule throughout the statistically measurable history of this country.
Bart DePalma said...
Legislatures set spending, regulation and tax policy for states and are thus partisan control of the legislature fair, but not perfect, proxies for the state's governing ideology.
True in some states, but not universal, Mr. GOOPer talking points person, but posting nothing of FACT.
In Maryland, the state Constitution gives the Governor a LOT of power. The Governor proposes a budget to the state legislature. The legislature can cut, but cannot add, to the submitted budget.
If, after the legislature passes a budget, cuts to that budget need to be made, or just because the Governor decides to make cuts, it takes two votes from the state Board of Estimates to cut funding from the budget. The BoE consists of the Governor, Comptroller of Maryland and State Treasurer.
Example - From January 2003 until January 2007, the Governor of Maryland was a GOOPer, but the legislature was overwhelmingly in the control of the Democrats. GOOPer Boobie Ehrlich proposed a budget that the legislature didn't like, but the only thing they could do was cut out the most odious parts of Boobie Ehrich's proposed budget. But where Boobie Ehrlich proposed less spending than the legislature felt should be spent, there wasn't anything the legislature could do to increase the spending level.
So your blanket "Legislatures set spending, regulation and tax policy for states and are thus partisan control of the legislature fair, but not perfect, proxies for the state's governing ideology" is FALSE.
Instead of spouting GOOPer talking points as FACT, maybe you should do a bit of research? Or just not spout those talking points as FACTS?
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/0284889341225109596
Nate's not being especially partisan in this case. He just completely master-stroke destroyed the entire basis of that op-ed.
Well Played.
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment