[worldwidetraveler]

(11-05-2014 02:02 AM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 07:48 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 07:23 PM)Brian Shima Wrote:  

Cattle Rustler someone earlier in the thread mention that you do oil work. Why would you vote for a Democrat and put your job on the line and not stay neutral? I mean Green Party seriously!? They would love to shut down oil rigs and leave thousands without work

I don't think CR works which is probably why he voted Democrat. hah

The more you know.....(and I do work)

First of all, I am neither a Republican nor Democrat.

With that said, let's talk about that chart, which is based on 2005 data. What exactly entails a state being a republican or a state being democrat according to your chart?

I'll give you a hint, some of those republican states would fit democrat states according to the same logic used for that chart...

[lskdfjldsf]

(11-05-2014 05:51 AM)Matt Forney Wrote:  

SJWs are completely divorced from reality. Unemployment (and underemployment) is skyrocketing, the college loan crisis is unraveling, the middle class is collapsing... all these morons care about are boutique issues. Abortion has literally been untouched since Roe v. Wade. Gay marriage has zero relevance to 98% of the population (yeah yeah yeah, I get the greater cultural context, but it's not an immediate issue that affects the average person's welfare).

Can you blame them? The Democratic party must convince them there are legitimate issues at stake otherwise the party will fade out into irrelevance. No one will vote for a party trying to accomplish things that have already been accomplished.

- Despite being the largest and most wealthy economy on earth, lies about the "1%" and "elite Wall Street bankers" keep economically-minded voters under the Democratic umbrella. It's the entire world scheming to crush the poor and middle class, according to Democrats.
- Despite the fact we have blacks and minorities in some of the highest positions of power (presidency, Congress, academia, media, sports, entertainment) at levels directly disproportionate compared to their demographic makeup as a whole, lies like "institutionalized racism" and "microaggressions" and "white privilege" keep race/culture-minded voters under the Democratic umbrella.
- Despite the fact women have full equality under the law and enjoy greater levels of financial and social success than men (see: suicide rates, homeless rates, divorce rates, salaries & pay, our court system, affirmative action, college attendance, etc.), lies about "rape culture" and "the War on Women" are perpetuated to keep an entire gender under the Democratic umbrella.

So ask yourself honestly - without class, race, and gender, the three pillars of cultural Marxism, what in the flying fuck does the Democratic party have to stand on? Nothing at all.

The bottom line SJW's and liberals (including some here) need to understand is that benevolence can be used for malevolent purposes, and it's the Democratic party pulling the strings, telling them what they should be outraged about. I'm sure they have the best of intentions, and genuinely believe they are helping others and society at large, but they're completely oblivious to the fact a political party could channel this energy and concern into keeping them in power.

Great day gentlemen, even if you don't support the GOP, a loss for the Democrats is a win for everything the manosphere believes in.

[ChrisPitts]

Even though I'm personally excited that the Democrats lost (with a hope of slowing down our cultural decline), I can't really get excited about the Republicans winning. They are the lesser evil of the two, but at the end of the day, it's still not ideal.

Neither part give a rat's ass about me, your average, white, hetero, working class, conservative man. The type of men that have been the bedrock of this country for most of it's existence doesn't have a party to look out for them. It's the reason I can't get excited to vote and will abstain from doing so for yet another election. Not until some party recognizes the poison that is feminism and cultural Marxism.

[Deluge]

(11-05-2014 06:53 AM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(11-05-2014 02:02 AM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 07:48 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 07:23 PM)Brian Shima Wrote:  

Cattle Rustler someone earlier in the thread mention that you do oil work. Why would you vote for a Democrat and put your job on the line and not stay neutral? I mean Green Party seriously!? They would love to shut down oil rigs and leave thousands without work

I don't think CR works which is probably why he voted Democrat. hah

The more you know.....(and I do work)

First of all, I am neither a Republican nor Democrat.

With that said, let's talk about that chart, which is based on 2005 data. What exactly entails a state being a republican or a state being democrat according to your chart?

I'll give you a hint, some of those republican states would fit democrat states according to the same logic used for that chart...

The chart says based on who they voted for in the 2004 Presidential race. I'm curious as to how American's can explain that Red vs Blue federal budget gap.
There's also a big gap in income:



This is unique to America post the mid-20th century party realignment. In the rest of the Western world the wealthy area's almost always vote centre-right and by large margins even if they are socially liberal and in the big cities. Why does America buck this trend?

[lskdfjldsf]

(11-05-2014 07:36 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

This is unique to America post the mid-20th century party realignment. In the rest of the Western world the wealthy area's almost always vote centre-right and by large margins even if they are socially liberal and in the big cities. Why does America buck this trend?

Simple answer, our cultural DNA.

Americans would rather live in danger as a wolf than live in complete safety as a sheep.
Americans would rather live freely in poverty than be wealthy as a slave.

Public discourse over the past century has been almost entirely centered on that line of thinking as well as justifying deviations from it. As an example, of course Americans want health care, and think everyone else should have health care. We just don't think it's the Federal governments responsibility to provide it, nor should we be mandated to purchase it.

When it comes to gun control, most of us would rather live in a dangerous society where we are free to defend ourselves and our property, than live as slaves reliant on the government to tuck us in and guard us at night.

If you understand the cultural logic behind Americans, our entire political system will make sense.

[Deluge]

(11-05-2014 07:50 AM)Blick Mang Wrote:  

(11-05-2014 07:36 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

This is unique to America post the mid-20th century party realignment. In the rest of the Western world the wealthy area's almost always vote centre-right and by large margins even if they are socially liberal and in the big cities. Why does America buck this trend?

Simple answer, our cultural DNA.

Americans would rather live in danger as a wolf than live in complete safety as a sheep.
Americans would rather live freely in poverty than be wealthy as a slave.

Public discourse over the past century has been almost entirely centered on that line of thinking as well as justifying deviations from it. As an example, of course Americans want health care, and think everyone else should have health care. We just don't think it's the Federal governments responsibility to provide it, nor should we be mandated to purchase it.

When it comes to gun control, most of us would rather live in a dangerous society where we are free to defend ourselves, than live as slaves reliant on the government to protect our lives.

If you understand the cultural logic behind Americans, our entire political system will make sense.

I know the libertarian mindset is why America is the most supportive of small government and culturally conservative, but I don't see how that explains why your wealthiest areas vote for a centre-left party. Everywhere else the wealthy areas will vote staunchly right-wing because of economic issues, even if they are socially liberal. Similarly working class areas will vote staunchly left-wing even if they are socially conservative.

[It_is_my_time]

(11-05-2014 07:57 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

(11-05-2014 07:50 AM)Blick Mang Wrote:  

(11-05-2014 07:36 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

This is unique to America post the mid-20th century party realignment. In the rest of the Western world the wealthy area's almost always vote centre-right and by large margins even if they are socially liberal and in the big cities. Why does America buck this trend?

Simple answer, our cultural DNA.

Americans would rather live in danger as a wolf than live in complete safety as a sheep.
Americans would rather live freely in poverty than be wealthy as a slave.

Public discourse over the past century has been almost entirely centered on that line of thinking as well as justifying deviations from it. As an example, of course Americans want health care, and think everyone else should have health care. We just don't think it's the Federal governments responsibility to provide it, nor should we be mandated to purchase it.

When it comes to gun control, most of us would rather live in a dangerous society where we are free to defend ourselves, than live as slaves reliant on the government to protect our lives.

If you understand the cultural logic behind Americans, our entire political system will make sense.

I know the libertarian mindset is why America is the most supportive of small government and culturally conservative, but I don't see how that explains why your wealthiest areas vote for a centre-left party. Everywhere else the wealthy areas will vote staunchly right-wing because of economic issues, even if they are socially liberal. Similarly working class areas will vote staunchly left-wing even if they are socially conservative.

My guess is one of these two reasons...

#1) Wealthy elitist who get more wealthy with the Democrats in charge. As I have pointed out in this thread, the more power and control the Democrats have, the better the rich do and the worse everyone else does. More Democrats, means more regulations, means more govt., means less chance for the middle class to compete and become wealthy.

#2) A lot of easy living in the USA. The last true war in the USA was 150 years ago. So that is around about 7 generations of not having to face war or the consequences from it at home. Lots of wealthy people live in a bubble. They inherited their wealth. They don't know how the world works. They don't know how brutal life can be. They think if we just got together with the bad guys and sang kum-bi-ya that magically war would end overnight. They think if the rich pay more in taxes that magically poverty will end overnight. And that is as far as they want to think, then they go shopping, get drunk, party, then hate themselves for deep down knowing they are slugs and lash out then pass out.

[TravelerKai]

Mitch McConnell said last night that one of the first things he wants to push through to Obama is a tax bill to lower taxable income on overseas income. Let's watch and see if they keep their word on that. God knows all us aspiring entrepreneurs that want to be financially and location independent really need this. It doesn't matter what your political affiliations are, the witch hunt on expats needs to stop.

[Deluge]

(11-05-2014 08:10 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

(11-05-2014 07:57 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

(11-05-2014 07:50 AM)Blick Mang Wrote:  

(11-05-2014 07:36 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

This is unique to America post the mid-20th century party realignment. In the rest of the Western world the wealthy area's almost always vote centre-right and by large margins even if they are socially liberal and in the big cities. Why does America buck this trend?

Simple answer, our cultural DNA.

Americans would rather live in danger as a wolf than live in complete safety as a sheep.
Americans would rather live freely in poverty than be wealthy as a slave.

Public discourse over the past century has been almost entirely centered on that line of thinking as well as justifying deviations from it. As an example, of course Americans want health care, and think everyone else should have health care. We just don't think it's the Federal governments responsibility to provide it, nor should we be mandated to purchase it.

When it comes to gun control, most of us would rather live in a dangerous society where we are free to defend ourselves, than live as slaves reliant on the government to protect our lives.

If you understand the cultural logic behind Americans, our entire political system will make sense.

I know the libertarian mindset is why America is the most supportive of small government and culturally conservative, but I don't see how that explains why your wealthiest areas vote for a centre-left party. Everywhere else the wealthy areas will vote staunchly right-wing because of economic issues, even if they are socially liberal. Similarly working class areas will vote staunchly left-wing even if they are socially conservative.

My guess is one of these two reasons...

#1) Wealthy elitist who get more wealthy with the Democrats in charge. As I have pointed out in this thread, the more power and control the Democrats have, the better the rich do and the worse everyone else does. More Democrats, means more regulations, means more govt., means less chance for the middle class to compete and become wealthy.

#2) A lot of easy living in the USA. The last true war in the USA was 150 years ago. So that is around about 7 generations of not having to face war or the consequences from it at home. Lots of wealthy people live in a bubble. They inherited their wealth. They don't know how the world works. They don't know how brutal life can be. They think if we just got together with the bad guys and sang kum-bi-ya that magically war would end overnight. They think if the rich pay more in taxes that magically poverty will end overnight. And that is as far as they want to think, then they go shopping, get drunk, party, then hate themselves for deep down knowing they are slugs and lash out then pass out.

Neither of your guesses are adequate. Your second point is true of the other wealthy countries as well, and even more true of certain wealthy countries than America, i.e Australia which has never had a "real war" and hasn't had an economic downturn since the late 80's.

For your first point, I'm sure you'll agree most high income people want less taxes and less regulation on their businesses, which are both centre-right platforms and both small business owners and the owners of big corporations vote for them and donate to those parties. There's definitely some very wealthy people who might benefit personally from left-wing legislation like Obamacare, but that doesn't explain this, they're still a tiny portion of the electorate and it can't be because of their political influence/donations because the elites in other countries can do exactly the same. Since we're talking about voters here, think of it from a local level. Why is your typical upper-middle class family in Westchester County, New York voting left? Why is a working class family in Kentucky voting right? In the U.K, Australia, Germany, France, Scandinavia etc. it would be the other way around.

[DChambers]

(11-05-2014 07:36 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

(11-05-2014 06:53 AM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(11-05-2014 02:02 AM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 07:48 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(11-04-2014 07:23 PM)Brian Shima Wrote:  

Cattle Rustler someone earlier in the thread mention that you do oil work. Why would you vote for a Democrat and put your job on the line and not stay neutral? I mean Green Party seriously!? They would love to shut down oil rigs and leave thousands without work

I don't think CR works which is probably why he voted Democrat. hah

The more you know.....(and I do work)

First of all, I am neither a Republican nor Democrat.

With that said, let's talk about that chart, which is based on 2005 data. What exactly entails a state being a republican or a state being democrat according to your chart?

I'll give you a hint, some of those republican states would fit democrat states according to the same logic used for that chart...

The chart says based on who they voted for in the 2004 Presidential race. I'm curious as to how American's can explain that Red vs Blue federal budget gap.
There's also a big gap in income:



This is unique to America post the mid-20th century party realignment. In the rest of the Western world the wealthy area's almost always vote centre-right and by large margins even if they are socially liberal and in the big cities. Why does America buck this trend?

Define wealthy area. New York City has a high concentration of wealth, but it also has a large lower and working class, quite a few unions, and large minorities. Many upper class people do in fact vote Republican, but in cities what tends to happen is that the population goes Democrat. Cities tend to have high concentrations of the kind of people who vote liberal, people on some type of welfare, are benefiting from government spending, and minorities who are promised entitlements.

There is a massive gulf between the rural parts of America and the cities.

[Deluge]

^Compare NYC's Upper East Side to London's uber wealthy boroughs like the City of Westminster, and Kensington and Chelsea. Compare NYC's suburbs to London's Home Counties. With New York both kinds of higher income areas vote Democratic, with less a margin than an immigrant or working class area sure but they still reliably do. London's counterparts are the opposite, they're also socially liberal but they are some of the safest Conservative seats in the U.K. It would be a cold day in hell before they went to the Labour Party. The same pattern repeats itself in Paris, Berlin, Sydney you name it.

[Deluge]

dupe

[DChambers]

Are your center-right platforms any similar to the conservative policies in the U.S.?

[Feisbook Control]

(11-05-2014 08:26 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

(11-05-2014 08:10 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

(11-05-2014 07:57 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

(11-05-2014 07:50 AM)Blick Mang Wrote:  

(11-05-2014 07:36 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

This is unique to America post the mid-20th century party realignment. In the rest of the Western world the wealthy area's almost always vote centre-right and by large margins even if they are socially liberal and in the big cities. Why does America buck this trend?

Simple answer, our cultural DNA.

Americans would rather live in danger as a wolf than live in complete safety as a sheep.
Americans would rather live freely in poverty than be wealthy as a slave.

Public discourse over the past century has been almost entirely centered on that line of thinking as well as justifying deviations from it. As an example, of course Americans want health care, and think everyone else should have health care. We just don't think it's the Federal governments responsibility to provide it, nor should we be mandated to purchase it.

When it comes to gun control, most of us would rather live in a dangerous society where we are free to defend ourselves, than live as slaves reliant on the government to protect our lives.

If you understand the cultural logic behind Americans, our entire political system will make sense.

I know the libertarian mindset is why America is the most supportive of small government and culturally conservative, but I don't see how that explains why your wealthiest areas vote for a centre-left party. Everywhere else the wealthy areas will vote staunchly right-wing because of economic issues, even if they are socially liberal. Similarly working class areas will vote staunchly left-wing even if they are socially conservative.

My guess is one of these two reasons...

#1) Wealthy elitist who get more wealthy with the Democrats in charge. As I have pointed out in this thread, the more power and control the Democrats have, the better the rich do and the worse everyone else does. More Democrats, means more regulations, means more govt., means less chance for the middle class to compete and become wealthy.

#2) A lot of easy living in the USA. The last true war in the USA was 150 years ago. So that is around about 7 generations of not having to face war or the consequences from it at home. Lots of wealthy people live in a bubble. They inherited their wealth. They don't know how the world works. They don't know how brutal life can be. They think if we just got together with the bad guys and sang kum-bi-ya that magically war would end overnight. They think if the rich pay more in taxes that magically poverty will end overnight. And that is as far as they want to think, then they go shopping, get drunk, party, then hate themselves for deep down knowing they are slugs and lash out then pass out.

Neither of your guesses are adequate. Your second point is true of the other wealthy countries as well, and even more true of certain wealthy countries than America, i.e Australia which has never had a "real war" and hasn't had an economic downturn since the late 80's.

For your first point, I'm sure you'll agree most high income people want less taxes and less regulation on their businesses, which are both centre-right platforms and both small business owners and the big corporations vote for them and donate to those parties. There's definitely some very wealthy people who might benefit personally from left-wing legislation like Obamacare, but that doesn't explain this, they're still a tiny portion of the electorate and it can't be because of their political influence/donations because the elites in other countries can do exactly the same. Since we're talking about voters here, think of it from a local level. Why is your typical upper-middle class family in Westchester County, New York voting left? Why is a working class family in Kentuky voting right? In the U.K, Australia, Germany, France, Scandinavia etc. it would be the other way around.

I think a similar trend is in its infancy in Australia as well as the UK, though it's slightly different because neither of those two countries is a two party system, so there's less need for strange coalitions within parties (strange coalitions occurring between parties instead). The Democrats in the US seem to be a strange coalition (unholy alliance?) of people right at the top and people right at the bottom. In Australia, John Howard managed to carve off a fair section of what was traditionally the ALP vote through a combination of social issues and not taxing self-employed tradies to death, and many of those people have remained with the LNP ever since because they feel betrayed and aggrieved by the new left. Or they're behind PUP (not sure if that party will stay the course). The interesting point in Australian politics has been the rise of the Greens. Their support comes from youth and/or the upper middle class. My parents live in a solidly Liberal Party seat (for the Americans here, in Australia, the Liberal Party derives its name from classical liberalism, and is centre right). At the last federal election, if I remember correctly, the Greens polled ~16% in their electorate, compared to 8.65% nationally. The Greens are not getting their support from the working class suburbs -- the average working class person is either baffled by them or disgusted by them. They're getting their support from the kids of rich people or from the wives of rich men, essentially. As I said, this is only in its infancy, and I don't really expect blue ribbon Liberal seats to go Green anytime soon, but there is somewhat of a similar trend as what's going on in the US.

Likewise, in the UK, witness the rise of UKIP. They're described variously as libertarian or far right (depending upon the level of bias of the reporter or news agency). They're not just carving off voters from the Tories, however. They've tapped into a demographic of people who will never forgive Thatcher, and so could never bring themselves to vote Tory, but who are increasingly infuriated or disillusioned with the Labour Party, and so have been sitting ripe for the picking for any right wing party that isn't the Conservative Party. Likewise, there are those who are defecting from the Tories because they see them as Labour-lite. I'm not saying that the Tories will go extinct, but they're in real danger as UKIP positions itself as the real right wing party. The (upper) middle class could never hold their nose enough to vote UKIP, for whom they have real disdain, and so if the Conservatives do fall apart, I would expect many to defect to a left wing party based upon social issues and Davos Man principles. Tell me that David Cameron couldn't be a member of the Labour Party, for instance? He's not a real right politician. Based upon my understandings of things, the Lib-Dems have filled a niche similar to that of the Australian Greens and if they can survive long enough to possibly see the Conservatives implode, might pick up many of the stragglers. Labour seems to have the makings of a strange unholy alliance a la the Democrats in the US, though I think they will eventually fracture as the latte liberal and immigrant factions find it more and more difficult to share power as they do now.

[worldwidetraveler]

(11-05-2014 07:36 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

The chart says based on who they voted for in the 2004 Presidential race. I'm curious as to how American's can explain that Red vs Blue federal budget gap.

I'm not sure I understand your questions. Are you referring to the chart when referencing Red vs Blue?

Quote:

There's also a big gap in income:

How are you comparing income gaps?

[Truth Teller]

(11-05-2014 08:58 AM)DChambers Wrote:  

Are your center-right platforms any similar to the conservative policies in the U.S.?

I'm not a European, but with a few exceptions, the right-wing parties in the Europe are basically the equivalent of the Democratic Party in the United States. The US is right wing relative to the rest of the Western world.

[TheWastelander]

(11-05-2014 08:13 AM)TravelerKai Wrote:  

Mitch McConnell said last night that one of the first things he wants to push through to Obama is a tax bill to lower taxable income on overseas income. Let's watch and see if they keep their word on that. God knows all us aspiring entrepreneurs that want to be financially and location independent really need this. It doesn't matter what your political affiliations are, the witch hunt on expats needs to stop.

They need to repeal FATCA. In fact, I will be calling my congressman in a few days to tell him that.

[Deluge]

@Feisbook, what you get in Australia's private school belt areas like Sydney's North Shore or Melbourne's Inner East is a very high Liberal vote with a very small Labor vote, but also the highest Greens vote outside of the bohemian inner city. In some of these wealthy electorates the Greens manage to almost tie with Labor. Basically in these places Daddy makes decent coin from his successful small business or from the corporate sector and votes for the Coalition because it's in his economic interest etc. but is liberal on social issues. Meanwhile his kids are socially liberal but don't care a lot about economic issues (their actual positions are fairly centrist, no fans of protectionism), so they vote Greens and become the "intelligentsia" in their 20's and 30's, when they become older though they'll become like their parents, high income socially liberal to Coalition supporters ala Malcolm Turnbull.

Also Feisbook the "Howard Battler" is a myth based on journalists misinterpretation of electoral geography, no doubt because most of those journalists did not grow up in Western Sydney. The seats of Western Sydney that kept Howard in power are actually middle income swing seats (i.e Parramatta, Lindsay, Greenway etc.) not working class seats. Trades people and the like voted for Howard no more then they voted for any other popular Coalition Prime Minister. Howard would have been a one-term Prime Minister if it wasn't for an uneven swing in 1998 that saw him lose the popular vote but still win a majority of seats, and none of his elections afterwards were won in landslides. Journalists like to mythologize a lot about Howard's success that doesn't have any basis in the facts.

@DChambers pro free market, anti-tax, anti-regulation and socially conservative yes, but as much they'd like to they can't bring in policies like America's Republicans because it'd constitute electoral suicide. At least in Australia the centre-right party is a lot more conservative behind closed doors than it is publicly, but sometimes cracks show and it gets them into trouble.

@worldwidetraveller overall America's blue states have higher incomes and higher GDP per capita's then red states, and you can see this play out very clearly on the county level income map I posted.

[worldwidetraveler]

(11-05-2014 09:30 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

@worldwidetraveller overall America's blue states have higher incomes and higher GDP per capita's then red states, and you can see this play out very clearly on the county level income map I posted.

Higher incomes in places like California and New York is the same as lower income in the midwest if we are talking about disposable income.

You seem to be trying to push some sort of agenda.

[elabayarde]

Because repubs have a way of insulting every minority(which about half are men) at some point showing the utter disregarded for people of other creeds, races, ethnicities. Also Fox News paints repubs to be all extremely xenophobic. It's not true, but, conservatives don't disagree with the views enough to really put an end to the nonsense.

[TheWastelander]

Let us all take joy in the fact that Mark Udall, Mr. War on Women. was defeated. Coakley also lost in MA and Sandra Fluke lost in CA.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/sa...12574.html

Quote:

Allen won the primary in June to take the state Senate seat left behind by Democrat Ted Lieu. According to LA Weekly, the Santa Monica-Malibu school board member held a 22-point lead over Fluke after more than half of the votes were in.

[It_is_my_time]

(11-05-2014 11:04 AM)elabayarde Wrote:  

Because repubs have a way of insulting every minority(which about half are men) at some point showing the utter disregarded for people of other creeds, races, ethnicities. Also Fox News paints repubs to be all extremely xenophobic. It's not true, but, conservatives don't disagree with the views enough to really put an end to the nonsense.

Can you give an example of Republicans "insulting minorities"?

[CRR]

I'd be interested to hear what people hope the Republicans propose (if anything) regarding the following issues:

1) Student loans.
2) ACA/Obamacare. If repeal, then what?
3) If spending cuts, what to cut.
4) Jobs/underemployment.
5) Financial regulation.

Or anything else one hopes to see them focus on

[Deluge]

(11-05-2014 10:09 AM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(11-05-2014 09:30 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

@worldwidetraveller overall America's blue states have higher incomes and higher GDP per capita's then red states, and you can see this play out very clearly on the county level income map I posted.

Higher incomes in places like California and New York is the same as lower income in the midwest if we are talking about disposable income.

You seem to be trying to push some sort of agenda.

You're seeing an agenda where there isn't one, I'm not interested in having a debate about why blue states are richer, I want to know about the other way around so to speak. Basically why are the rich states blue? (don't miss the distinction) Like I said you would not see that in other Western countries, you'd expect them to be electoral strongholds of the Establishment wing of the main centre-right party.

I looked it up and the blue states still have more disposable income but it goes same way to explaining this anomaly, especially in the Midwest.

[kaotic]

Well I'm surprised how I voted, all republican, a few abstains.

Do keep in mind that republicans in California are "moderate" democrats hiding in the closet.

I used to hate republicans more than dems, my how times have changed.


We need a major overhaul of the political system/process.