Fake news: it's 93%.







This post was edited by Saucisson6000 on Jul 30 2019 03:00pm

thats locale rather than policy.

Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, St. Louis, etc..... Those cities are the result of decades of poor policy.

Detroit? Detroit is doing amazingly well atm. It was doing bad cuz we had a crook mayor.

Idk about Chicago or st. Louis though. But those are liberal, not red.

I was taking about the pictures in context.

This post was edited by ChrisKz on Jul 30 2019 03:24pm

This is a much repeated talking point... but it's hard to see the rationale behind it. Are we supposed to pretend that if politicians made what you believe to be great decisions for decades, there would no longer be areas in America without economic opportunity? Or cities with strained budgets wouldn't have crappy areas with defeated populations?

QFT x 100

meh. of the 3141 counties in the U.S., Trump won 2626, Clinton won 487, see:
https://www.apnews.com/afs:Content:5265150031

so going by the 2016 results, only 15.49% of the counties in the country are Democratic. therefore, among all counties, the partisan distribution (R/D) is 84.5%/15.5% while the distribution among the poorest counties is, according to your source, 93%/7%.
this already puts those numbers into perspective.



additionally, it must be kept in mind that the Democrats control most of the very populous urban counties, which are so big that they combine depraved, piss-poor areas with average or wealthy neighborhoods. LA county, for example, contains extremely impoverished neighborhoods in South Central LA, Compton etc, but also rich areas like Hollywood and Bel Air. and even if LA county was among the poorest counties in the country, it would still only count for 1 in your metric. if we only count the number of counties, then 2 poor red counties in West Virginia with a combined population of 8000 are considered "worse" than, say, 2 million poor people living in a blue urban county like LA.



the much more meaningful stat would be the share of the poorest 10 or 20% of the American population who are living in Democratic counties vs Republican ones.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jul 30 2019 04:34pm

Ah... Counties. You know how many counties there are in... states? LOL


/e Just for an example there are 67 counties in Pennsylvania. 58 in Cali, 62 in New York, 88 in Ohio, 254 in Texas. So that 97% means diddly.

This post was edited by Ghot on Jul 30 2019 04:40pm

I'm sure it will escape him that the cost of living in those counties is far lower as well. Sorry, but I'd be better off making a $50,000 salary in Montgomery County, AL than a $80,000 salary in Los Angeles County, CA.

This post was edited by Santara on Jul 30 2019 04:42pm

Based on data from 2010-14:
https://www.brookings.edu/research/poverty-crosses-party-lines/



25.1m poor people in red districts vs 22.7m in blue districts. Not really a dramatic difference.

-----



Note the sharp increase in poverty between 2000 and 2010-14 in places like Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, Iowa, Minnesota, North Carolina and Florida. Is it really a surpise that Trump, the candidate promising disruptive change, overperformed in those places compared to Clinton, the personified status quo candidate?

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jul 30 2019 05:09pm