Top Ten Poorest States are all Republican

[tufsu1]

Are you kidding?

As I've already noted, New Jersey is not traditionally a Democrat state, and Michigan definitely isn't;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors_of_Michigan

We already went through this. I know having your claims exploded generally doesn't prevent you from repeating them again anyway, but let's at least be somewhat realistic about it. Michigan a liberal bastion? Really? I guess if you go back to before the Civil War maybe...

ok...please show me how those states have voted in Presidential elections since say 1964 (Goldwater revolution)....and how about US Senators?

[tufsu1]

Here...I'll help you get started....here's data on the last 10 presidential elections

Both New Jersey and Michigan voted R from 1972 through 1988....and D from 1992 through 2008

http://www.270towin.com/states/New_Jersey

http://www.270towin.com/states/Michigan

So, using your logic that 20 years ago is ancient history (see comment on Texas), care to revise your statement that these two states are prinmarily Republican

[ChriswUfGator]

New Jersey ,,, Republican?  Oh my.  I am not sure how to respond to that,, lol.  Even the sicophant Koolaide sucking liberal zealots on the Democratic Underground (which I do read) claim NJ as one of their own.  Wow, that put some of you on the far far extreme fringe of the fringe.  Very exclusive club.  lol.  We will see who defaults in the not to distant future I have a feeling and we can revisit this thread.

Why don't you look up the histories of governors and controlling legislative parties in New Jersey, Wiki even has nice color-coded lists for you. New Jersey has been Republican more than it has been Democrat. There was a stretch between 2002-2006 when they had 4 Democrat governors in a row, if that's what you're referring to, but that was really due to resignations stemming from scandals, and obviously the outgoing governor gets to choose his Lieutenant Governor, soo...I'm not sure that history supports your assertion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors_of_New_Jersey

California had a GOP gov too.  I guess u need to put California in the Red state column.  Let's just be consistent then I guess.

Well there's rather a large difference between California's politics when it comes to local vs. national, when you get into it. Let's not forget the father of the modern Republican party, Ronald Reagan was formerly Governor of California. Richard Nixon was also a Californian. Actually, though most of California tends to lean liberal in national politics, the results are much more of a mixed bag for their state-level politics. The Governor and majority in the legislature often are often Republican. Exclusive Democrat(ic) control of California vanished in 1862. But rather than conjecture, we could always look at the facts; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors_of_California

[johnnyman]

New Jersey ,,, Republican?  Oh my.  I am not sure how to respond to that,, lol.  Even the sicophant Koolaide sucking liberal zealots on the Democratic Underground (which I do read) claim NJ as one of their own.  Wow, that put some of you on the far far extreme fringe of the fringe.  Very exclusive club.  lol.  We will see who defaults in the not to distant future I have a feeling and we can revisit this thread.

Why don't you look up the histories of governors and controlling legislative parties in New Jersey, Wiki even has nice color-coded lists for you. New Jersey has been Republican more than it has been Democrat. There was a stretch between 2002-2006 when they had 4 Democrat governors in a row, if that's what you're referring to, but that was really due to resignations stemming from scandals, and obviously the outgoing governor gets to choose his Lieutenant Governor, soo...I'm not sure that history supports your assertion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors_of_New_Jersey

California had a GOP gov too.  I guess u need to put California in the Red state column.  Let's just be consistent then I guess.

Well there's rather a large difference between California's politics when it comes to local vs. national, when you get into it. Let's not forget the father of the modern Republican party, Ronald Reagan was formerly Governor of California. Richard Nixon was also a Californian. Actually, though most of California tends to lean liberal in national politics, the results are much more of a mixed bag for their state-level politics. The Governor and majority in the legislature often are often Republican. But rather than conjecture, we could always look at the facts; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors_of_California

Ok, well,, i ws never one for using Wikipedia,, but since you did.

"Politically New Jersey is considered one of the more liberal states in the nation. "  Straight from Wiki "Politics of New Jersey"

Wow,, seriously dumb thread.  I should get back to work.  LOL.

[ChriswUfGator]

Here...I'll help you get started....here's data on the last 10 presidential elections

Both New Jersey and Michigan voted R from 1972 through 1988....and D from 1992 through 2008

http://www.270towin.com/states/New_Jersey

http://www.270towin.com/states/Michigan

So, using your logic that 20 years ago is ancient history (see comment on Texas), care to revise your statement that these two states are prinmarily Republican

Well I already mentioned you'd try another strawman, so I suppose this should come as no surprise.

What the residents of the states in question do when it comes to National politics is irrelevant, and is often contradictory to what occurs with their state-level elections. Sometimes there are mind-boggling contradictions, as with California, when you compare their national and state voting patterns. But who voted for who for President is completely meaningless, as it has nothing do with state-level leadership that affects the state's default risk.

That was a rather easily combustible strawman I'm afraid.

[ChriswUfGator]

New Jersey ,,, Republican?  Oh my.  I am not sure how to respond to that,, lol.  Even the sicophant Koolaide sucking liberal zealots on the Democratic Underground (which I do read) claim NJ as one of their own.  Wow, that put some of you on the far far extreme fringe of the fringe.  Very exclusive club.  lol.  We will see who defaults in the not to distant future I have a feeling and we can revisit this thread.

Why don't you look up the histories of governors and controlling legislative parties in New Jersey, Wiki even has nice color-coded lists for you. New Jersey has been Republican more than it has been Democrat. There was a stretch between 2002-2006 when they had 4 Democrat governors in a row, if that's what you're referring to, but that was really due to resignations stemming from scandals, and obviously the outgoing governor gets to choose his Lieutenant Governor, soo...I'm not sure that history supports your assertion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors_of_New_Jersey

California had a GOP gov too.  I guess u need to put California in the Red state column.  Let's just be consistent then I guess.

Well there's rather a large difference between California's politics when it comes to local vs. national, when you get into it. Let's not forget the father of the modern Republican party, Ronald Reagan was formerly Governor of California. Richard Nixon was also a Californian. Actually, though most of California tends to lean liberal in national politics, the results are much more of a mixed bag for their state-level politics. The Governor and majority in the legislature often are often Republican. But rather than conjecture, we could always look at the facts; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors_of_California

Ok, well,, i ws never one for using Wikipedia,, but since you did.

"Politically New Jersey is considered one of the more liberal states in the nation. "  Straight from Wiki "Politics of New Jersey"

Wow,, seriously dumb thread.  I should get back to work.  LOL.

At the national level, it is. At the local level, not so much. Which affects a State's default risk for its state debt, again?

[johnnyman]

New Jersey ,,, Republican?  Oh my.  I am not sure how to respond to that,, lol.  Even the sicophant Koolaide sucking liberal zealots on the Democratic Underground (which I do read) claim NJ as one of their own.  Wow, that put some of you on the far far extreme fringe of the fringe.  Very exclusive club.  lol.  We will see who defaults in the not to distant future I have a feeling and we can revisit this thread.

Why don't you look up the histories of governors and controlling legislative parties in New Jersey, Wiki even has nice color-coded lists for you. New Jersey has been Republican more than it has been Democrat. There was a stretch between 2002-2006 when they had 4 Democrat governors in a row, if that's what you're referring to, but that was really due to resignations stemming from scandals, and obviously the outgoing governor gets to choose his Lieutenant Governor, soo...I'm not sure that history supports your assertion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors_of_New_Jersey

California had a GOP gov too.  I guess u need to put California in the Red state column.  Let's just be consistent then I guess.

Well there's rather a large difference between California's politics when it comes to local vs. national, when you get into it. Let's not forget the father of the modern Republican party, Ronald Reagan was formerly Governor of California. Richard Nixon was also a Californian. Actually, though most of California tends to lean liberal in national politics, the results are much more of a mixed bag for their state-level politics. The Governor and majority in the legislature often are often Republican. But rather than conjecture, we could always look at the facts; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors_of_California

Ok, well,, i ws never one for using Wikipedia,, but since you did.

"Politically New Jersey is considered one of the more liberal states in the nation. "  Straight from Wiki "Politics of New Jersey"

Wow,, seriously dumb thread.  I should get back to work.  LOL.

At the national level, it is. At the local level, not so much. Which affects a State's default risk for its state debt, again?

Seems pretty liberal all around to me.  So State Federal govt doesnt have anything to do with the states default risk.  LMAO.  Ok,, I swear I won't post again.  We are getting into crazy land. This is going nowhere. 

Btw,, congrats on your bar lawyer thing.  Good job.

[tufsu1]

Well I already mentioned you'd try another strawman, so I suppose this should come as no surprise.

What the residents of the states in question do when it comes to National politics is irrelevant, and is often contradictory to what occurs with their state-level elections.

fine...so how about you provide data on the Governors and state legislatures since 1964?

here again...I'll help you get started

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_General_Assembly
(under Democratic control since 1970)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_Senate
(under Democratic control since 1962)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors_of_New_Jersey
(Democrat from 1954-1970, alternated 1970-1994, Republican 1994-2002, Democrat 2002-2010, Republican now)

next argument please

[ChriswUfGator]

New Jersey ,,, Republican?  Oh my.  I am not sure how to respond to that,, lol.  Even the sicophant Koolaide sucking liberal zealots on the Democratic Underground (which I do read) claim NJ as one of their own.  Wow, that put some of you on the far far extreme fringe of the fringe.  Very exclusive club.  lol.  We will see who defaults in the not to distant future I have a feeling and we can revisit this thread.

Why don't you look up the histories of governors and controlling legislative parties in New Jersey, Wiki even has nice color-coded lists for you. New Jersey has been Republican more than it has been Democrat. There was a stretch between 2002-2006 when they had 4 Democrat governors in a row, if that's what you're referring to, but that was really due to resignations stemming from scandals, and obviously the outgoing governor gets to choose his Lieutenant Governor, soo...I'm not sure that history supports your assertion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors_of_New_Jersey

California had a GOP gov too.  I guess u need to put California in the Red state column.  Let's just be consistent then I guess.

Well there's rather a large difference between California's politics when it comes to local vs. national, when you get into it. Let's not forget the father of the modern Republican party, Ronald Reagan was formerly Governor of California. Richard Nixon was also a Californian. Actually, though most of California tends to lean liberal in national politics, the results are much more of a mixed bag for their state-level politics. The Governor and majority in the legislature often are often Republican. But rather than conjecture, we could always look at the facts; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors_of_California

Ok, well,, i ws never one for using Wikipedia,, but since you did.

"Politically New Jersey is considered one of the more liberal states in the nation. "  Straight from Wiki "Politics of New Jersey"

Wow,, seriously dumb thread.  I should get back to work.  LOL.

At the national level, it is. At the local level, not so much. Which affects a State's default risk for its state debt, again?

Seems pretty liberal all around to me.  So State Federal govt doesnt have anything to do with the states default risk.  LMAO.  Ok,, I swear I won't post again.  We are getting into crazy land. This is going nowhere. 

Btw,, congrats on your bar lawyer thing.  Good job.

Well, what would the federal government have to do with a State's default risk on its own debt? Whatever it spends or incurs has to be done at the state level, no? I suppose certain areas like DOT and matching funds requirements can affect state debt, but for the most part a state chooses to spend the money it spends outside of the feds. There is a constitutional prohibition against the federal government imposing unfunded mandates on the states.

[KuroiKetsunoHana]

how about:  the top ten poorest states are all suffering under a broken and artificially divisive system.  will that work for everyöne?

[manasia]

how about:  the top ten poorest states are all suffering under a broken and artificially divisive system.  will that work for everyöne?

+1

[Garden guy]

Fairness will not come until true campaign finance reform is put in place...the haves have overpowered the havenots for many many generations because the wealthy are the only ones that get elected and  money is the leader no matter what...fundamentals of sociatal living are piched out the window along with the baby...help us all..

[buckethead]

^^^Be that as it may, when you see or hear the "Democrat Party" it pretty much tells you where the speaker is coming from.

And where might that be, in this case?

[simms3]

Are Republican policies keeping them poor?

Why do these states also have the highest divorce rates, the highest abortion rates and yet they are the most religious?

Why do they care so little about the general welfare of their population?

1. Mississippi
   Without health insurance: 18.7% (8th highest in the nation)
2. Arkansas
   Without health insurance: 18.5% (9th highest in the nation
3. Tennessee
   Without health insurance: 14.7% (20th highest in the nation)
4. West Virginia
    Without health insurance: 13.9% (25th highest)
5.  Louisiana
   Without health insurance 18% (11th highest)
6.  Montana
  Without health insurance: 16.3% (16th highest)
7. South Carolina
  Without health insurance: 17.6% (12th highest)
8. Kentucky
  Without health insurance: 15.5% (18th highest)
9. Alabama
  Without health insurance: 14.4% (21st highest)
10. North Carolina
  Without health insurance: 16.7% (13th highest)

About half of all insured have junk insurance: insurance that is quite useless except they don't know it until they get sick...........they are still at risk for bankruptsy as healthcare costs are the #1 reason for all bankruptsies in the US.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/15/americas-poorest-states-_n_964058.html#s362459&title=1_Mississippi

Well not to put a damper on your stats here, but some of these states are actually bluer than you think.  Many of these states happen to have the highest percentages of African Americans in the country, so when it comes to health insurance and poverty, these entire states have similar demographics as many large inner cities, which not coincidentally have the same problems.  That in itself is not a Republican or southern problem, but a problem of racial proportions all across this country.  If MA weren't as white as it is and instead as black as MS, it would most likely be at the top of this list, too.

West Virginia is also digging itself out of one of the deepest holes any state can be in.  Its entire statehood is Appalachia, mountainous in other words.  All it can really do is provide coal, natural gas, etc.  We all know the history of mining for coal, and natural gas in the Marcellus Shale has been unavailable until now, but in the last year or two WV has been doing just fine!  I think we'll see unemployment and uninsured numbers drop dramatically there, at least for the time that they can harvest their resources.

Louisiana the state is red, but its population centers are as blue and corrupt as they get.  Hint: New Orleans.  Lots of AAs, too.  In fact, NOLA could be where Houston is right now if the corruption hadn't driven out the big energy and oil companies (really all but one or two are left there).

Montana has Max Baucus.  Enough said.  It really is not red territory there.

North Carolina is actually a "purple" state now, shading completely blue on occasion.  It's definitely not a red state.

[KuroiKetsunoHana]

Louisiana the state is red, but its population centers are as blue and corrupt as they get.  Hint: New Orleans.  Lots of AAs, too.  In fact, NOLA could be where Houston is right now if the corruption hadn't driven out the big energy and oil companies (really all but one or two are left there).

i really don't believe corruption would drive big energy and oil out.  quite the opposite, in fact.