Why don't democratic states ditch republican states?
Anything recent? Like from the last 10 years or was this the best looking cherry to pick?
>>129490602
It stays the same very year.
>>129488377
>most of the named states rely or relied on agriculture
>most southern states are still taking care of their post-civil war black populations
>southern states and agriculture states where cast aside for many years as worthless and backwards, still are
>conservative agri and southern states vote conservative
>act shocked when conservatives have to spend money doing something noone else has too
>>129490981
Lol @ Oregon standing out like a sore thumb.
That's why I moved to superior Washington
>>129488377
If you haven't figured out the racial component to this yet, you're still painfully blue pill.
>>129488377
Because both parties trip over each other for which will be more pro Israel, (((big banks))), (((big pharma))) etc.
So it's all good in the end.
Black ghettos vote democrat and democratic inner cities are just as bad as third world countries.
>>129490981
this data includes farm subsidies and will of course have red states (which have higher rural population) getting a lot of aid to feed people.
>>129488377
>mfw the libertarian state is on welfare.
>>129488377
Because without the red states they would all starve to death and their "tax revenue" would be approximately: $0
>>129490981
here's the sleight of hand, hiding in plain sight:
>Federal aid as a percentage of STATE GENERAL REVENUE
Given two states with equal federal spending, the one that taxes its own citizens less would have a higher percentage of federal handouts. It might be meaningful to look at federal aid/state population or even federal aid/state GDP but it is bullshit to use federal aid/state govt. revenue as an indicator of "red state socialism" because many of those states intentionally have lower tax revenue.