Why does it jump to top/bottom ten for poverty
Rhetorical impact.
I’m not sure the point I’m meant to take from this. That people who live in worse circumstances and feel marginalised and undersupported are more likely to vote for something they see as a change to the status quo? And that people for whom the status quo is working will continue to support it?
Republicans are against the services and systems that make Massachusetts hit those specs.
Yeah. Land doesn’t vote. No matter how blue, we still have impoverished. Seattle, where I live, is a fortified bastion of deep blue, but the wealth gap and inequality are rampant here, as is homelessness.
Moreover, while I am hard left, I’m no Liberal and definitely no Democrat.
This election’s outcome upset me terribly, but I’m not going to blame poor, uneducated people in Oklahoma or make fun of what they don’t have because I need a scapegoat.
I do blame Oklahoma leadership. I do blame the DNC for shoving two milquetoast candidates in our face to choose from. I blame social media and corporate mainstream media programs for misinformation.
Oh, and Merrick Garland can fuck himself for being a wishy washy bitch and not attempting to punish Trump sooner.
I think it’s trying to say that blue politics creates better outcomes. The national election has historically had little effect on this. The local level elections, which have most certainly not been bucking the status quo, have put these states where they are.
All of what you said is true but this particular change is going to be far worse than the status quo, especially for the people in places like OK.
How are the republicans not the status quo for all those metrics in Oklahoma?
Both states were in the same spot in the rankings when Trump was president and well before that. Change is not the issue. Long-term policy is the issue.
