U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-16-2019, 05:16 PM
 
Location: 20 years from now
5,510 posts, read 5,712,344 times
Reputation: 3441

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007 View Post
If I am cherry-picking, I'm afraid you are also cherry picking.

Your choice of the last 1 elections is just as arbitrary as my choosing the last 7 elections.

But the problem with choosing just 1 election (even if it's the most recent) is that, you don't know if it's an outlier or not. If you choose several elections, without going back so far that you've dipped into ancient history, you get a good sample. 1 election is not a good sample. 7 is better.

If Iowa goes red in each of the next couple elections, I will concede it has "gone red." In the meantime it remains blue.
a very poorly throughout explanation. Even if I gave you Iowa it wouldn’t change the rankings in your favor.

My point remains, the Quality of Life rates and the Best States overall are ranked higher in Red states compared to Blue ones. I provided the rankings to prove it, and you had no credible rebuttle.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-16-2019, 05:23 PM
 
Location: Kansas City, MISSOURI
9,013 posts, read 2,728,318 times
Reputation: 6945
"Quality of life" is subjective. The data I posted in the OP (life expectancy) is objective.

There are other rankings of quality of life by state. Here's another one:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/22/amer...e-in-2018.html
^
1. Vermont
2. Hawaii
3. Minnesota
4. North Dakota
5. (tie) New Hampshire
5. (tie) Washington
7. (tie) Iowa
7. (tie) Montana
9. Colorado
10. Massachusetts

8 blue states, 2 red states. Even if we counted Iowa as a red state it would still be 7 blue states and 3 red states.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2019, 05:26 PM
Status: "think locally, act yokelly." (set 20 days ago)
 
Location: Clyde Hill, WA
3,245 posts, read 574,473 times
Reputation: 975
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007 View Post
Epic failure on your part
Sure, you betcha. You're right, your legion of critics on this thread are all wrong.

Quote:
It appears you are disturbed by me pointing out it is a fact that life expectancy in blue states is longer than in red states.
I'm not surprised you believe you have mental telepathy over the internet, but I can assure you it's not working properly today. I am not disturbed.

Quote:
As for your changing political alignments, back in the 70's there were still lots of liberal republicans and conservative democrats. That is no longer the case. The republicans in states like NJ and IL (both of which voted republican in 1976) were a far cry from the republicans of today - they were more moderate, and even liberal. And the democrats in the South were more like the republicans of today (which, after all, is why they switched parties). So even back in the days you're referring to, the pattern was....
Red herring. Again, the South was solid Dem at one time, and presumably had equally poor life expectancy. What in Hades does that have to do with Northern liberal republicans? Nothing. Your post #1 theory lies in tatters.

And along with the red herring, some non-factual history. The Democrats of the South were not like the Republicans of today. They were New Dealers who favored big government. Robert Byrd (D, WV) for example, was king of pork when he was running as a segregationist, and remained king of pork later. Sam Ervin (D, NC) was a segregationist and hero to liberals for his role in the Watergate hearings. I could cite numerous other examples.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2019, 05:31 PM
 
Location: Kansas City, MISSOURI
9,013 posts, read 2,728,318 times
Reputation: 6945
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis t View Post
Red herring. Again, the South was solid Dem at one time, and presumably had equally poor life expectancy. What in Hades does that have to do with Northern liberal republicans? Nothing. Your post #1 theory lies in tatters.

And along with the red herring, some non-factual history. The Democrats of the South were not like the Republicans of today. They were New Dealers who favored big government. Robert Byrd (D, WV) for example, was king of pork when he was running as a segregationist, and remained king of pork later. Sam Ervin (D, NC) was a segregationist and hero to liberals for his role in the Watergate hearings. I could cite numerous other examples.
Please, spare me. If the Southern democrats back then were truly liberals, they would have stayed with the democratic party. As I said, the reason they left the democratic party was because they weren't really liberal!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2019, 06:17 PM
 
15,089 posts, read 3,993,514 times
Reputation: 10936
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis t View Post
Sure, you betcha. You're right, your legion of critics on this thread are all wrong.

And along with the red herring, some non-factual history. The Democrats of the South were not like the Republicans of today. They were New Dealers who favored big government. Robert Byrd (D, WV) for example, was king of pork when he was running as a segregationist, and remained king of pork later. Sam Ervin (D, NC) was a segregationist and hero to liberals for his role in the Watergate hearings. I could cite numerous other examples.
Take away the party labels and nothing has changes. WV wants and gets pork from the "liberals". Other red states also do.

No doubt the Fed. Gov, through the TVA and the WPA and CCC, helped greatly to civilize the South and pull it forward. I see this as a good thing....no party labels attached other than that of FDR. It was just good policy and infrastructure development as well as a way to give some hope to the unemployed.

Lumping all that stuff together is ridiculous. The "Northern Union Irish working class Democrat" in NYC or Boston had little in common with the KKK member in GA.

The simple generalization is that the South dumped ANY relationship to Democrats due to a SINGLE ISSUE - Civil Rights. What else is new?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2019, 06:19 PM
Status: "think locally, act yokelly." (set 20 days ago)
 
Location: Clyde Hill, WA
3,245 posts, read 574,473 times
Reputation: 975
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007 View Post
Please, spare me. If the Southern democrats back then were truly liberals, they would have stayed with the democratic party. As I said, the reason they left the democratic party was because they weren't really liberal!
Pick up a history book some time, then I won't have to 'spare you.' Very few left the democratic party. Of over 200 who were either Dixiecrat members or voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, exactly 1 switched to the GOP--Strom Thurmond of SC.

Robert Byrd(D, WV) was king of pork as a segregationist, and king of pork after he disavowed segregation. William Fulbright (D, AR) advocated for higher federal education spending. Sam Ervin was left-wing hero of the Watergate hearings. Ernest Hollings (D,SC) was instrumental in the creation of SNAP (food stamps).

These were all segregationists, and liberals on tax, spending, and growing government. They were New Deal and Great Society supporters. None of them ever left the Democratic Party. Ernest Hollings did grow more conservative in later years, for example voting for Clarence Thomas as SCOTUS justice.

Please pick up a history book and read.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2019, 06:21 PM
Status: "I hate living in Georgia!!" (set 7 days ago)
 
47,980 posts, read 45,443,916 times
Reputation: 15310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Masterful_Man View Post
Genetics.


Blacks & Hispanics (on avg) don't live as long as Caucasians.
Also, lots of older folks flock to states like CA and Hawaii for the good weather when they're older.
CA and Hawaii also have a much higher percentage of east Asians, and east Asians on avg tend to live longer than any other racial group.
If genetics are such a factor, then why do Blacks in Minnesota live longer than Whites or Asians?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2019, 06:33 PM
 
Location: Kansas City, MISSOURI
9,013 posts, read 2,728,318 times
Reputation: 6945
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis t View Post
Pick up a history book some time, then I won't have to 'spare you.' Very few left the democratic party...
Uhhh ... geeze, yeah, somebody needs to pick up a history book: You. I mean, I can't believe somebody would even say that, that Southern democrats didn't switch to republicans.

You're using individual politicians as an excuse to avoid talking about the overall trend. And the reason you don't want to talk about the overall trend is because it clearly contradicts your claim that 'Southern democrats were liberal.'

Here, look at these maps of the electoral college. Starting at, say, WWII or wherever else:
https://www.270towin.com/historical-...ial-elections/

Prior to about 1960, the South was mostly democrats. It then started gravitating towards republicans. Nowadays it is mostly republican. This is, like, common knowledge.

And as I have already said multiple times, the reason why those Southern democrats switched parties from the democrats to the republicans, is because those Southern democrats tended to be conservative, and increasingly, the democratic party was no longer a place for conservatives. And as the republican party DID increasingly become the party of conservatives, that's why Southern democrats gravitated toward them.

Unbelievable I even have to explain that well-known fact of history.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2019, 07:56 PM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
8,090 posts, read 4,710,956 times
Reputation: 2877
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post
Medicaid expansion under the ACA for one: https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-b...pand-medicaid/

The consequences of that are a significant number of lower income people with no health coverage.
Medicaid expansion is pretty recent. The gap was there long before the ACA. And most "red-states" have medicaid expansion.


The states green_mariner referred to about blacks living longer than whites, South Dakota and Wyoming, don't have medicaid expansion. But Utah basically does, and so does West Virginia.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/newre...e=1&p=54959231


I do think there is a connection between life-expectancy and left-wing policies, but it isn't welfare programs, it is differences in lifestyle.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2019, 08:09 PM
 
Location: Atlanta metro (Cobb County)
1,558 posts, read 743,963 times
Reputation: 1668
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner View Post
If genetics are such a factor, then why do Blacks in Minnesota live longer than Whites or Asians?
I don't know the answer to this question - but Minnesota has a rather different demographic makeup among all racial groups than most of the country. The black population includes a large share of East Africans and fewer who have been in the US for several generations; much of the Asian population are of Hmong and Laotian ethnic backgrounds, who were highly impoverished in their homeland; and whites are much more heavily Scandinavian and German, with fewer having British Isles or Mediterranean heritage.

Some of the data for subgroups with small populations (e.g. blacks in Wyoming) may also be unreliable with a high margin of error. That entire population group could be smaller than a typical zip code in a metropolitan area. Thus, it may be best not to try to draw conclusions at a very detailed level. But as far as the premise of this thread, yes it is fair to say that there is a correlation for longer life expectancy with states that voted Democratic in 2016, and that holds among key racial groups as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top