Do you see what I see? Ben practically put up a Red/Blue State election map - with the notable exception of Florida, a 50/50 state marked by a heavy concentration of speculating Northeasterners and Midwesterners.
UPDATE - Hello Malkin-ites!
By the way, I am well aware, as the first commenter pointed out, that there are many, many ways to interpret these highly correlated maps.
UPDATE 2 - My illiberal Communist buddy just said to me, "Well, that's because we have the minorities...What you need to compare is the foreclosure rate between Red State and Blue State non-minorities..."
Say what??? Didn't we end up in a Civil War the last time it was decided to *not count* everyone equally?
Like I said, there are many, many ways to interpret the maps. The most practical application for them I can think of is, well, ribbing your illiberal acquaintances.
44 comments:
That's interesting. In my opinion, there are a decent amount of conclusions that can be drawn from those two graphs.
Yea, the top one is full of itsy colored squares. The bottom one's red & blue. Nothing else to be learned by trying to connect the maps I'm afraid. You're reaching.
Anonymous - you must be blind.
The south Florida, meaning mostly Miami-Ft Lauderdale, condo speculation market imploded. Out of state speculators, northerners, now the empty foreclosed units are staggering.
When you make mortgage qualification discrimination, as the ACCI 2003 act did, what do you expect?
It's clear where the speculators were focused ... and who they were.
I agree, the people who tell other people that the government has to help them to live are the same people who are unable to live with-in their means with-out someone either bailing them out or preventing them from making bad judgement calls. That would be the larger more liberal parts of the country also are where the majority poor judgements seem to be showing up in the form of housing problems.
Maybe anonymous (3:05pm) is merely colorblind ???
It should be obvious that a majority of the forclosures and proposed bailouts are situated in areas where there would be a higher concrentration of homes, i.e major cities and other population centers. Most major cities or population centers shift democrat over republican.
Very interesting. If it were not a political year one could just say thatdo to poor managment the blue states are being aided. However since this is an election year it is not hard to conclude a buy the vote operation going on.
The differance between a liberal and a conservative = liberals give hand outs, conservatives give a hand up.
So which is this bail out? A hand up or a hand out?
To ignore the obvious is unhelpful. I compared the county maps to this delinquency map and it is even more telling. Thanks for pointing this out. At least we know where the morons live even better now.
County map comparison HERE
Those graphs are very telling!
And, everyone knows that Southern Florida is over-overwhelmingly Demorat.
And Anonymous 3:22, this is a percentage map, it matters not whether there is a higher population in those areas. It is a percentage of the population, which means there is an apples to apples comparison. Not total population comparison. Geez, stupid much?
As you stated, there are numerous ways to connect this. To make it a political point is as disingenious and misleading as the politicos on the left who would capitalize on it to secure anti-Bush votes by making it the administration's fault somehow. The concentration of foreclosures was generally highest in areas that the housing price points reached astronomical and unsustainable levels. Regardless of political affiliation, this was somewhat inevitable. Does that negate personal responisbility? Of course not. But finger-pointing is simply a distraction from figuring out sensible ways (i.e anything BUT the "stimulus" package) to ride the depressed economic wave. Until we stop trying to point out how the "other side" is stupid, we're never going to reach any decent solutions here.
the prefect,
Point taken. Read more of my blog and you'll see that I generally don't concern myself with the BS that's best described as contemporary politics. The real "bailout" is an incumbent Big Government trying to get itself re-elected with even larger mandates. It may look like the Feds are bailing out speculators, Wall Street, or even certain colored states, but in actuality the biggest crooks, scapegoaters, and class warriors are marketing themselves as blameless and scheming with abandon on how to exploit the natural ebbing of a mania into personal gain.
If the pols couldn't prevent whatever it is that happened on the way up, then what right-minded person would think they can mitigate no less *fix* the aftermath?
Their specialty is in fact problem AGGRAVATION!
Take a look at this map by county from USA Today:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm
there are other meshes which overlay the fact that the BodyWorlds exhibit was allowed only in blue states and denied in red states, as well as direct correlation between college and higher levels of education in blue states as opposed to high-school and less in red states. I'm more inclined to believe these demographics (proven) rather than this, which doesn't take into account loan companies owned and operated from remote states. How about the company run from Colorado that's handling mortgages in California? I have a friend who's losing her job in Colorado because of the lending practices in California, which I don't see covered in this short-signed comparison.
Is there any way you could post the first map with colors that I can tell apart? I guess red and green were used, but they look the same to me.
I'm so glad Malking finally is paying attention to this issue of state bailouts. Unfortunately, a bailout of homeowners is not nearly as insidious as the persistent tax subsidies which have been going to Red States for quite a while. In light of the following data, a little help for blue CA would be welcome change. The following data is easily verifiable, although Ms. Malkin is too lazy and/or deceitful to actually look up real, factual evidence...
What each state receives from the federal government for $1.00 sent in taxes (Source: The Tax Foundation, 2004 data)
District of Columbia $6.64 (Blue)
New Mexico 1.91 (Red)
Alaska 1.80 (Red)
West Virginia 1.75 (Red)
Mississppi 1.70 (Red)
Alabama 1.64 (Red)
North Dakota 1.64 (Red)
Virginia 1.60 (Red)
Hawaii 1.54 (Blue)
Montana 1.51 (Red)
Arkansas 1.43 (Red)
Oklahoma 1.43 (Red)
South Dakota 1.43 (Red)
Kentucky 1.41 (Red)
Louisiana 1.41 (Red)
Maryland 1.41 (Blue)
Maine 1.36 (Blue)
South Carolina 1.35 (Red)
Tennessee 1.29 (Red)
Arizona 1.28 (Red)
Missouri 1.27 (Red)
Idaho 1.25 (Red)
Utah 1.14 (Red)
Kansas 1.11 (Red)
Vermont 1.11 (Blue)
Iowa 1.10 (Red)
North Carolina 1.10 (Red)
Wyoming 1.09 (Red)
Pennsylvania 1.07 (Blue)
Nebraska 1.06 (Red)
Rhode Island 1.03 (Blue)
Ohio 1.02 (Red)
Florida 1.01 (Red)
Georgia 0.99 (Red)
Indiana 0.99 (Red)
Texas 0.98 (Red)
Oregon 0.97 (Blue)
Washington 0.91 (Blue)
Michigan 0.88 (Blue)
Wisconsin 0.85 (Blue)
Colorado 0.84 (Red)
New York 0.84 (Blue)
California 0.83 (Blue)
Delaware 0.83 (Blue)
Massachusetts 0.82 (Blue)
Nevada 0.78 (Red)
Illinois 0.77 (Blue)
Connecticut 0.73 (Blue)
Minnesota 0.73 (Blue)
New Hampshire 0.73 (Blue)
New Jersey 0.63 (Blue)
ec, please remove the amount of defense spending from those totals and then open your cakehole. It's an eye-opener to look at Mass that received seven times in Fed money than what Miss received. That list has only been debunked seven thousand times.
First, it's not like the defense spending isn't an economic good like any other. So I'm not sure that ignoring it is the right way to look at the work. But since two dogs wants the adjusted data, he can have the adjusted data. This is one Democrat who is neither stupid nor unaccommodating. Unfortunately, for two dogs, it still proves my point. Enjoy.
Non-Defense per capita Spending as a % of U.S. Non-Defense average per capita Spending (Source: Dept of Commerce, Bureau of Census)
Blue States:
CA 90
CT 103
DE 94
HI 95
IL 94
MA 115
MD 143
ME 107
MI 93
MN 89
NH 86
NJ 96
NY 115
PA 114
RI 118
VT 103
WA 98
WI 89
Red States
AK 140
AL 110
AR 106
AZ 92
CO 88
FL 103
GA 86
IA 98
ID 102
IN 89
KS 94
KY 112
LA 105
MO 110
MS 112
MT 127
NB 106
NC 92
ND 153
NM 145
NV 78
OH 95
OK 102
OR 95
SC 97
SD 132
TN 114
TX 85
UT 75
VA 112
WV 131
WY 122
Blue State average: 102.3
Red State average: 106.5
One caveat. These are '01 figures. I have heard the skew became greater under GOP control during these last eight, sad years. But I don't have the data.
And, to my original point, CA still places in the bottom 10. So what should this "stupid" Democrat do with his pie-hole now, two dogs? You have no idea who you are debating online, so I wouldn't assume you're the smartest guy in the world unless you really are...
Two Dogs, in response to ec the real point should be "EC, if these are the correct numbers (without removing the military spending, then Blu Staters are absolutely INSANE! If they keep losing money to the friggin federal government, why on God's green Earth would they keep electing the idiots taht are stealing from them? EC, it is patently obvious that the answer is not to elect anyone that wants to make government bigger...in fact, based on your numbers, Liberals should be demanding secession and the dissolution of the Federal Government, not electing socialists."
And of course, you now see that the total numbers are well within the normal statistical margin of error, right? 4% total separates the Red from the Blue.
Which states get the least amount percentage wise? How many blue states in the top ten? How many in the bottom ten?
So, do you still want to argue the point some more, since you proved my side of it?
Whoops, don't feel so smart now, huh, Mr. Man?
And I dropped out off school in the sixth grade, remember, I am in Mississippi.
And forgive my typos...fingers don't seem to work some days.
I'm sorry, two dogs, but what statistic error are you talking about? This is not data based upon statistical sampling, so there cannot be a sampling error.
As to the comment about small versus large government and why blue staters don't revolt, I wouldn't want to offer an opinion because I do not have a good one. I am not a liberal or a conservative. I just am a simple guy trying to coax people to look at the world as it is, based upon what the numbers say, rather than living in fantasies, fashioned out of ideological garbage. For those who refuse to do the arithmetic are doomed to talk nonsense.
I know that this is an annoying practice of mine. Afterall, they killed Socrates for doing it. But it makes my life more interesting. And that should be reason enough.
Not criticizing you EC, just asking a legitimate question. Why anyone would accept outright theft, and ask for more of it, is beyond me.
But then again, I think that almost all of what our government does is beyond the pale, so I would razz the whole thing and start over.
EC, you do know that the US Census has a margin of error, right?
Their confidence level is 90% and they use a modifier of 1.65 on all of their data.
Sorry, I gotta go study for my GED.
Listen, I ask myself everyday on the way to work in a traffic jam, on a pot-hole filled road, as I contemplate the money I've spent to put my kids into private schools because public schools are failing...where is my money going? I am not a big fan of government anymore than the biggest Malkin-supporting conservatives on this site.
The problem is, I have seen nothing in the last eight years to make me think the GOP is any better. What I'm waiting to find are conservatives who dump the likes of Malkin, Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, as well as the GOP leadership from Bush on down, and actually tackle the problems rather than play the blame-the-left game. Believe me, neither I nor other well-meaning liberals are the problem. The problem is that politicians in general and the sorry excuse we now have for journalists and pundits propogate a system for their own financial enrichment. Political parties serve as conduits for legalized bribery, founded on brand positioning more than policy differences. Meanwhile, pundits like Malkin and O'Reilly sell books by making ridiculous comments rather than actually checking facts and fashioning thoughtful policy. At the rate we're going, you will not have to razz the whole thing, because the empire will collapse onto itself. I love America, but hate the ignorance and, worse, the opportunism of those who exploit it. The only solution is for people to think for themselves. And test what you think. Start now.
Two dog, sorry but I missed your last couple of posts. You raise a good point about sampling error. I forgot that the 2000 census used sampling for 10% of the population while employing enumeration for the other 90%, whereas the 1990 census relied upon enumeration only. I went back and found, however, that the data I cited earlier used the 1990 census rather than the 2000 census--I guess because the population data from the '00 census was not out yet in '01--so it does not have a sampling error that you assumed. The 1990 census is considered to be 98.4% accurate. I am not completely positive on this, but I believe that would make the red state-blue state difference significant even with a 1.6% estimation error in the 1990 population data.
Also, assuming it had been 2000 census data, I was wondering how you could calculate the statistical significance of the red state-blue state difference without knowledge of the margin of errors. You use the 1.65 factor to adjust the errors, not the average spend per cap I cited. Just wondering, since you're studying for the GED and all...
"Blue State average: 102.3
Red State average: 106.5"
ec, with all your blathering about statistics and how smart you think you are, you ignore one glaring point with your "averages" - THEY ARE NOT WEIGHTED BY POPULATION. Yes, California is below average, but other high-population blues states (NY, PA, MA) are above average. Eyeballing it, the blue states may average out close to your "average" which is just the sum of the state numbers divided by the number of states.
The problem is with the red states, where a lot of high-population states are below average (TX, OH, NC, IN, GA) and some sparsely popluated states (WY, WV, ND, SD, MT, NM) bring the average way up. Note in particular Texas is even lower than Califonia and way lower than New York. It's back to remedial statistics class for ec.
OK, so the map shows basis point change-not overall numbers. It gives you no baseline to compare. This map would generally be used with an earlier map to show change over time. What would be more telling is the overall percentage of mortgages in delinquency. To be fair, I would bet these same areas all have higher percentages of delinquencies as well. But still, this is kind of senseless.
The rural states, which are generally red, show much less change. But: there are red dots conveniently located in higher growth urban areas. IE, places where values and populations grew fastest. The rural south is not going to have a lot of change because there hasn't been much change there in the first place. The vast majority of population and economic growth in souther states centers around the urban areas: Atlanta, Raleigh-Durham, etc.
Ultimately my point is that the map is useless. Trotting it out and using it as an idealogical club is disingenuous. It tells us nothing of consequence politically. CNut-I expect more intellectual honesty from you.
-Slow-Rion
Slow Rion,
It's not an ideological club - it's a feather. All I am doing is tickling the hypersensitive.
How dare you try to put a damper on my self-amusement!
By the way, the "blue states pay more in taxes" junk couldn't have been more predictable. However, I am surprised that nobody has worked in "red states have higher divorce rates".
Just about any singular conclusion on housing or colored-state warfare will be fallible. Agree?
6,000 hits and only one person has called me an "*sshole" so far. I get more flak, more epithets thrown my way on short car trips into town!
Mr. Rosen, why are you and two dogs so harsh? Show some civility to strangers engaged in lively debate. Now, your critique of the work is unclear to me. These are per capita numbers, so what weighting or adjustment to population do I need to make?
Actually, I think the really effective argument that I would be making as a conservative would be to point out that high population states, red or blue, have economies of scale in government spending that sparsely populated states don't have. Think about it. Montana must spend more money on roads per capita than Rhode Island. And since more red states are sparsely populated, they should and will get more funding. This, I think, may be what you were trying to go after as an argument, no?
But if that argument is true, then why should the government be allowed to address a legitimate need that happens to favor red states without criticism from the left, but the government cannot address a legitimate need in blue states without drawing the ire of conservatives. And I say legitimate because you are far less likely to have real estate bubbles in sparsely populated areas, because the real estate is not scarce there. This is the exact opposite problem as the RI-MT one, but proves the same point.
Hence, I believe conservatives are being hypocritical to fault the other side just because their color of states is not benefiting. Tell me where I am wrong, without attacking me personally...
I don't think "government" and "economies of scale" should ever be uttered in the same sentence.
This "economies of scale" canard is the motif of so-called Urban Planning. What it's critically lacking is a whiff of empirical evidence - anywhere on Earth.
captiousnut, i love your handle but not your argumentation style. Whether an argument is predictable or not has nothing to do with its validity. Are you going to rebut it on the merits so I can learn something or are you going to dismiss it out of hand merely because it is inconvenient. I am no economist or statistician, and my point of view could be wrong. I'd love to hear how it is so I can learn something. And if divorce rates have something to do with government bailouts, then please enlighten us...
What empirical evidence do you need to believe that if MT is several times the size of RI and needs several times the miles of road but has a population about the same size or slightly smaller than RI, then the per cap spending on roads will be a lot bigger in MT than RI? I guess I could go look up the figures, but I thought this one was pretty obvious.
OK, OK, Cnut- You are an A--hole!
Does that make you feel better? I'd hate to disappoint you.
Not that being an A-hole is a bad thing. I disagree with you on several fronts and agree with on others.
Heres my feather. What three presidents have accounted for the largest increases in federal spending in US history?
Now CNut: When are you going to use that brain to do something great? You have such an entrepreneurial spirit it seems such a waste to have you trading all day when you could be creating something great.
What I don't understand is why you are a Republican. You are a libertarian near as I can tell and so am I. The Republican's don't stand with you, they are looting the nation as much or more than any group of people ever.
Slow out.
I haven't time or the interest to get distracted into inane, masturbatory theoretical discussions. Though I did touch upon the urban efficiency canard 2.5 years ago near the end of this post.
To offer up merely "road spending" as a proxy for all government efficiency is, well, more than a little bit wrong-headed.
Slow Rion,
Where did you discern that I was a Republican?
Lord Halifax said that ignorance,
"...maketh most men go into a party, and shame keepeth them from getting out of it".
This is the answer to everyone outside of Massachusetts who wonders why Massholes keep electing Barney Frank and Ted Kennedy. The old farts up here don't want to cast them out and have to admit they themselves been wrong for decades.
As for what I do all day, it certainly isn't trading. I just sat down at my computer at 1:30pm after I put the little one down for a nap. Two small kids with no babysitters and no daycare doesn't leave me much time to do anything. My time to be productive was age 20 to 30 and, well, back then, I traded like a lunatic, golfed six days a week, and closed out bars on a daily basis.
Sorry, C-nut, but I'm not saying that the full explanation for red states receiving more federal dollars is highway infrastructure. I actually have no idea what the cause is. But taxi medallions doesn't seem very dispositive of scale economies in government spending...if it's a canard, then please tell us why...when you have the time...
Well Cnut- At first glance you come off like a slobbering at the mouth party liner like Rush. Yet really you are much more intelligent. Enough ass kissing though, it benefits neither of us.
Did you vote for Mr. Big government GWB? The crew in charge are a bunch of looters.
Our last pres. did more for the economy and was closer to a true supply sider than any recent president. He got growth without debt too. Love him or hate him, he should get some credit.
I appreciate the stay at home dad thing. My step dad stayed home with me and it worked out pretty darn well. I am 1 year younger than you BTW. I dream of being a stay at home Dad with my own dynamic duo but seeing as nobody wants to pay a big premium for my company then it is not in the cards. Too bad.
Slow out
The map correlates to county population density. The more people in a county, the more bailouts needed. Not much surprise there.
Go see the county density map at
http://www.census.gov/popest/gallery/maps/County-Density-07.html
"What each state receives from the federal government for $1.00 sent in taxes (Source: The Tax Foundation, 2004 data)"
Who is the "Tax Foundation" and Why Did George Soros give them so much money? [lol]
Seriously, Libs & Socialists - You seem inclined to appreciate the art of giving tax dollars to government - then you beef when they don't come back to you.
How about joining Conservatives and shrinking the size of Government to keep as much of your hard earned cash that you have (presumably) made as possible? Bold Concept. Requires NO mental weightlifting.
P.S. Open ANWR & the Gulf to DRILLING for OIL Independence for America NOW!
http://www.taxfoundation.org/about/
You can see a county-by-county breakdown of red v. blue here.
Post a Comment