Thursday, May 15, 2014

"Redvilles" v "Progress" Cities

Since the inception of this blog, I have preached the word about the quality of life in our "Red" (conservative) areas v the quality of life in our "Blue" (progressive) areas.

Below is a map of the 2012 election results by county.

As you know, Obama won handily against Romney. Yet, when you look electoral map by county, you can see that most of the country is red except for our large urban areas.

I've been at this blog for 8 years now. And in all this time, not one liberal has been able to refute this assertion on my part. In every single quality of life measure (unemployment, crime, schools, cost of government, etc.), the red areas are better. Really, it's not even close.

There's one quality of life measure that I have failed to consider, income inequality.

Guess what, the red areas reign supreme on that one as well........................

There’s just one problem: the districts where Democrats have the best shot to win Republican-held seats show some of the smallest gaps between rich and poor in the U.S., an indication of just how hard it will be for their message to take hold with voters.

Of the 100 congressional districts ranked as having the greatest gap between rich and poor, not one is held by a Republican whose seat is considered up for grabs this November, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Again, how does a liberal with any conscience see the evidence right in front of them and believe that liberal policies work?

I guess it's the same blind faith that has them believe in the global warming/climate change/chaos.

Maybe if these "progressives" understood this concept, they would understand why conservatives are fighting so hard to keep their safe, clean and productive enclaves from turning into Detroit.


No comments: