Party of the Rich
The Bureau of Economic Analysis has released two reports that challenge the media-induced perception of which party is the "Party of the Rich":The reports show beyond question that the states that went for George W. Bush in the last election are considerably poorer than the ones that went for Kerry. The notion that the GOP is the party of the rich simply doesn’t match the economic reality.The top ten "blue states" per capita income is 20% higher than the top ten "red states".States with the highest per capita income trend Democrat; the states with the lowest per capita income trend Republican.
Moreover, those who aspire to be rich are Republican:
Ninety-seven of the 100 fastest-growing counties in America went GOP last year.Those are the people who understand economics and can see that tax-and-spend big government does not make for a healthy business environment.
The race for the presidency will continue to be dominated by the increasingly-Republican South as demographic shifts hold bad news for Democrats:
Migration from liberal bastions in the Northeast and Midwest to the Sun Belt states will boost Republican electoral strength in the coming decade, making it tougher than ever for Democrats to win the presidency without carrying states in the South or Southwest.The Census Bureau's latest projection of population shifts, the first in eight years, shows a dramatic movement from the North to Southern and Western states over the next 30 years. The study points to a political movement as well.
Heavily Democratic states such as New York, New Jersey, Illinois and Michigan will go on losing congressional seats and thus electoral strength in presidential elections, political analysts say. At the same time, they say, Republican states such as Florida, Texas, Arizona, Georgia and Nevada likely will gain congressional and electoral clout.
Blog post #5277 in category
posted 11 July 05
But there's no such thing as a Red State or a Blue State, really. Most states were purple, with very few going strongly one way or the other. Averaging per capita income over an entire state really washes out any real meaning, except to tell us that the heartland states and Texas and Florida have relatively lower per-capita income than the Northeastern states and California. But who didn't already know that? What would be more informative is the income distribution breakdown within the different groups of voters.
On a more meta-level, even if we had such numbers, it wouldn't tell us a thing about who either party's policies benefit; it would only tell us who *thinks* they are benefitting from each party. The reason why the Republicans are regarded as the party of corporate fat-cats is because they overwhelmingly pass laws and tax cuts that favor the wealthy. Just because a lot of heartland voters who will never be able to benefit from, say, uncapping the estate tax exemption, tend to vote Republican because they think G. W. B. is a down-to-earth rancher doesn't mean that they actually benefit from Republican policies.
Take a look at the book "What's the Matter with Kansas?" some time. The book makes some really interesting points about how heartland voters, *especially* the poorer ones, tend to be more easily swayed by touchy-feely notions about character and authenticity, when no actual politician today is anywhere near those ideals, and Democrats and Republicans are equally willing to screw them when profitable.
Posted by Peter on Monday at 7:53 PM
I fail to understand the argument that as GOP states in the sunbelt gain population this will translate into enduring GOP gains. California used to be a solid GOP state and today. Look at what happened to Florida. As people flee the high tax envirnonment of the dhimmiecrats, what makes anyone believe that they will abandon the policies that they have supportedn in the past to embrace new sane policies? Further much of the growth is driven not by internal population movement but by illegal immigration.
Posted by Thomas Jackson on Monday at 9:50 PM