Las Vegas Sun

October 21, 2014

Currently: 72° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

Letter to the editor:

Consider reason for election results

Another view?

View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:

Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.

Columnists - local and syndicated writers.

Letters to the editor - readers' views.

Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.

It should be obvious after the past elections that the Republican Party with its conservative leanings is effectively dead. The Democrats have been quick to understand that the party that wins the White House is the party that is most in step with the will of the people.

As you listen to the news, you will notice more and more references to polling on this or that issue. Savvy politicians are aware that public opinion is what should guide campaigns and thence policy. There is really nothing new here; the difference is that now, public opinion trumps all other considerations. Our founders anticipated the problems of democracy and hoped for the best.

Take the past election. The economy remained in the dumper, unemployment was at very high levels and public debt was running wild, yet we re-elected the party in charge for the past four years. The answer is simple. Democrats promised to deal with the debt by having the rich pay “their fair share.” The voters were promised no pain, and various social issues were promoted based on their polling results.

If the unelectable conservatives turn out to be right, some big changes will be needed to put the country back on the path to prosperity.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 45 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. Sadly, this letter writer believes the liberal media lock stock and barrel. It's his privilege but also demonstrates a political naivete that is the essence of the liberal main stream media. Think Steve Croft, 60 minutes, and the joint interview with President Obama and outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Melba toast questions about feelings and emotions. That's not journalism. Like most opf the liberal media, it is as newsworthy as a coffee clutch club.

    CarmineD

  2. Can a political party that is overtly obsessed with the financial wellbeing of 2% of us easily attract the support of a majority of us? Apparently not.

    Can a political party express bizarre scientific and social views and attract popular support? Not easily.

  3. So, like lemmings, we are all supposed to jump off the cliff together? Obviously, Dumbocrats are better at buying votes. They promise everything and deliver nothing unless, of course, it promotes sloth, perversion, anti-social behavior, illegality or bigger, more wasteful government and, boy, is that a big hit with the parasitic crowd. The guy with the Cheshire Cat grin plays them for fools and they lie on their backs, paws in the air, waiting to for their bellies to be rubbed. But that will come to an end with a bigger "bang" then the one that started the Universe and then hear the "Chicken Littles" whine when they are told to take responsibility for their own lives. They will be at a total loss. Sweet!

  4. "Can a political party that is overtly obsessed with the financial wellbeing of 2% of us easily attract the support of a majority of us? Apparently not." @ Jim Weber

    Apparently so. 30 governors are republican. 25 state legislatures are republican. The House is republican and has been for the last 20 years, except one term that most agree was an anomaly. The message is not the problem. What the GOP lacks is a national figure capable of winning the White House. And as bad a candidate as Romney was for a host of reasons, he only lost the popular vote by about 400,000 plus in 4 swing states out of 120 million votes cast.

    CarmineD

  5. Enjoyed the letter, Mr. Dornlas. And I actually do enjoy the viewpoints of the commenters who believe everything to the contrary of what the polls reflect. It really shows the lessons of this election fell on deaf ears. The loud propaganda drowns out reality.

    I do want the Tea/Republicans to put Mr. Karl Rove in charge of their election efforts though. He did such a fine job this past election.

    And put him in charge of the dirty, angry money that saturates the Tea/Republican Party political efforts to win. He did a fine job with that too. Not for their cause though. For himself. Made him a millionaire quite a few times over that. The last time I checked, he only showed a little over one percent success rate for every $109 million spent. Good job, Karl. You go ahead on with your bad self.

    Same ole, same ole with the Tea/Republican Party. They have diagnosed a malignant cancer within their party and have issued cough syrup as a remedy. Don't change the message, shoot the messenger and try it again with a different one.

    So, I agree TOTALLY with you, Mr. Dornlas. This modern day Tea/Republican Party is dead.

    And my votes will ensure it stays deader than a doornail.

  6. "So, I agree TOTALLY with you, Mr. Dornlas. This modern day Tea/Republican Party is dead." @ ColinFromLasVegas

    Not really. It's morphed into the Tea/Melba Toast clutch club of the liberal mainstream media.

    CarmineD

  7. "25 state legislatures are republican. The House is republican and has been for the last 20 years, except one term that most agree was an anomaly."

    Sorta what you can expect when you get your facts from right-wing sources.

    First, basic math proves Carmine is wrong. In the past 20 years, the House has been under Democratic control for three terms, the 103rd, 110th and 111th, not one.

    Second, citing the number of republicans in the House is celebrating the gerrymandering they performed in 2010. That's right, Carmine's ecstatic that the GOP rigged the House to go to republicans... even when the national vote for the House went to the Democrats.

    "After Republicans swept into power in state legislatures in 2010, the GOP gerrymandered key states, redrawing House district boundaries to favor Republicans. In Pennsylvania, Democratic candidates received half of the votes in House contests, but Republicans will claim about three-quarters of the congressional seats. The same is true in North Carolina. More than half the voters in that state voted for Democratic representation, yet Republicans will fill about 70 percent of the seats. Democrats drew more votes in Michigan than Republicans, but they'll take only 5 out of the state's 14 congressional seats."

    Carmine can't get the basic facts right about Congress and he's proud of the sleazy republicans rigging the game.

  8. "First, basic math proves Carmine is wrong. In the past 20 years, the House has been under Democratic control for three terms, the 103rd, 110th and 111th, not one." @ Kevin Sandoval

    No, your math and starting point is wrong along with your conclusions. The current House term expires in 2014 and is under House control and has been since 2010 after mid term elections. GOP gained control in 1996 and had it until 2006. Then lost it from 2007-2009. Doing the math correctly this gives control to the GOP for all but 1 term and a split term. That's 3 years for Dems versus 17 years for Reps. ;-)

    I won't comment on the rest of your post. It's opinion not fact.

    CarmineD

  9. PS: What was the gerrymandering that won 30 State Governor Mansions for the GOP out of 50? ;-)

    Rhetorical question. No answer necessary.

    CarmineD

  10. "No, your math and starting point is wrong along with your conclusions. The current House term expires in 2014 and is under House control and has been since 2010 after mid term elections. "

    That is incorrect.

    Carmine, this is Civics 101.

    You gave the range of 20 years.

    The 103rd Congress convened in January of 1993. It lasted until January of 1995. That's one session of Congress.

    The 110th session convened in January of 2007. It lasted until January of 2009. That's a second session of Congress.

    The 111th session convened in January of 2009. It lasted until January of 2011. That's a third session of Congress.

    These are facts and not debatable.

    The House members elected in the midterm elections of 2010 did not take a seat until January of 2011. Duh.

    Again: Civics 101.

    You can't comment on the rest of my post because you can't argue the conclusion. The fact is that the national vote for the House went for the Democrats, yet gerrymandering by the GOP meant the GOP retained control.

    What facts do you have to contradict the ones I cited?

  11. Okay, Kevin try and follow me:

    House is a 2 year term, President is 4 year term, Senate is 6 year term. Remember there are midterm election years. Called midterm because they don't coincide with Presidential election years. I count 20 years by President elections. 1996 was a Presidential election year. 2016 is another Presidential year. That's 20 years. If we split the next 4 years in the House with 2 years for GOP, because they are in until 2014, and give the Dems the next 2 years, it gives 16 years to GOP and 4 years to Dems. I'm giving Democrats the benefit of the doubt that they will win in 2014. I highly doubt it. If Dems don't gain the House, then it's 18 years for the GOP and 2 years for the Dems in the last 20 years. ;-)

    CarmineD

  12. "What facts do you have to contradict the ones I cited?" @ Kevin Sandoval

    You are not stating facts. You are stating opinions. You can't predict in advance with any certainty how districts will vote. Why? Independents and crossover party votes are not a given in the equation. They are unpredictable.

    CarmineD

  13. Carmine, it doesn't matter how you count, or what convoluted methodology you create to try to correct your glaring error.

    When you look at sessions of Congress, and the party that has controlled the House in the past 20 years, the Democrats have controlled three of the past ten sessions, not one, as you originally claimed.

    In the past 20 years, the 103rd, 110th and 111th Congresses all saw Democratic control of the House. That's three terms by anyone's count... and six years of control, not two.

    Sorry, but math is obviously not your forte.

  14. Again, what is factually inaccurate about this paragraph:

    "After Republicans swept into power in state legislatures in 2010, the GOP gerrymandered key states, redrawing House district boundaries to favor Republicans. In Pennsylvania, Democratic candidates received half of the votes in House contests, but Republicans will claim about three-quarters of the congressional seats. The same is true in North Carolina. More than half the voters in that state voted for Democratic representation, yet Republicans will fill about 70 percent of the seats. Democrats drew more votes in Michigan than Republicans, but they'll take only 5 out of the state's 14 congressional seats."

    Those are facts, not an opinion... and facts you have yet to disprove.

    At this point, even Glenn Beck U. would flunk you out for failing math, civics and logic, Carmine.

  15. RefNV

    Carbon Dioxide and Methane are both greenhouse gases. You don't have to trust me on that, you can look it up for yourself. If we continue to burn fossil fuels as we have in the past, I can promise you that economic competitiveness will be the least of our problems. Somewhere there is a tipping point where climate change can accelerate and there would be no way to reverse it in the shrt term. The Earth has been a greenhouse planet before and I can promise you that it would be a highly inhospitable place for life forms currently on the planet, including humans. We are reversing tens of millions of years of earth history by burning carbon and putting carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The original source of that carbon was carbon dioxide in the atmospehere.

    You're good at research. Investigate this on your own with an open mind and something besides the hope that 97% of climate scientists are wrong.

  16. More facts for Carmine:

    "Democratic House candidates appear to have won more of the popular vote than their Republican counterparts on Tuesday, despite what looks as though it will be a 35-seat GOP majority."

    "According to numbers compiled by the Post's great Dan Keating, Democrats have won roughly 48.8 percent of the House vote, compared to 48.47 percent for Republicans."

    "Despite losing the popular vote, Republicans are set to have their second-biggest House majority in 60 years and their third-biggest since the Great Depression."

    "The numbers seem to back up what we've been talking about on this blog for a while: Redistricting drew such a GOP-friendly map that, in a neutral environment, Republicans have an inherent advantage."

    "(A recent Fair Vote study found Republicans were clearly favored in 195 House districts, compared to Democrats being favored in 166. Some of this is because Democratic voters are more concentrated in urban areas, but it's also because the GOP drew some very favorable redistricting maps in important states like North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania.)"

    Carmine would rather celebrate the sleazy republican ploy of rigging the game than argue the facts.

  17. Kevin:

    Term is 4 years as in Presidential term. Using your Congressional numbers: "In the past 20 years, the 103rd, 110th and 111th Congresses" [that's 1993 to 2012 or 20 years].

    Dems in charge of the House in 1993, 1994, 1995, 2007, 2008, 2009 for 6 years. That's ONE TERM and a SPLIT TERM. GOP in charge for 14 years in the same time period. That's 3 FULL TERMS and a SPLIT TERM. Total is 20 years for 5 FULL TERMS. Simple and uncomplicated math. ;-)

    CarmineD

  18. "Carmine would rather celebrate the sleazy republican ploy of rigging the game than argue the facts." @ Kevin Sandoval

    Sour grapes. Facts are these: 25 legislatures are GOP. 30 Governors are GOP. House has been controlled by the GOP for the past 20 years except for ONE FULL TERM and a half of term. These are the facts and they are incontravertible. ;-)

    CarmineD

  19. "the Democrats have controlled three of the past ten sessions, not one, as you originally claimed." @ Kevin Sandoval

    3X2=6 years

    7X2=14 years
    ______

    10 Terms [using your definition] and 20 years

    One full term and one half term [using my definition] for the Dems.

    3 full terms and one split [using my definition] term for GOP.

    Math is accurate. Terminology different. I like mine. You like yours.

    CarmineD

  20. Carmine,

    The House is not convened for four-year terms. They are convened for two-year terms.

    You gave the range of 20 years.

    The 103rd Congress convened in January of 1993. It lasted until January of 1995. That's one session of Congress.

    The 110th session convened in January of 2007. It lasted until January of 2009. That's a second session of Congress.

    The 111th session convened in January of 2009. It lasted until January of 2011. That's a third session of Congress.

    These are facts and not debatable.

    The House members elected in the midterm elections of 2010 did not take a seat until January of 2011. Duh.

    Again: Civics 101.

    You're using goofy math and irrelevant facts to obfuscate the obvious: you don't understand the basics... and according to your poorly-formatted posts, you believe elected officials take control the instant they are elected.

    This is not terminology. It's basic math.

  21. I just checked my calendar, Carmine. One year is 365+ consecutive days.

    One term of Congress is two years, beginning and ending on Jan 3 of every odd-numbered year. The terms of the Senate and the President have absolutely NOTHING mathematically to do with that.

    Technically, 20 years would go back to Feb 4, 1993. The Congress in session at that time was Democratically controlled. Two full sessions since have been controlled by Democrats. Technically, Kevin is wrong. The Democrats haven't controlled the House for 3 terms in the last 20 years: the correct figure is actually 2 terms and one day less than 23/24 of a third term. Personally, I have nothing against minor rounding. REGARDLESS - 2 and 23/24 terms (rounded to 3 terms...) remains more than the ONE term of Democratic control you claimed at 6:46 this morning.

  22. Kevin:

    1993 to 2010 is not 20 years. ;-)

    If you want to use 1993 as your starting year then 20 years would end in 2012.

    I use the presidential term of 4 years as a common denominator for the House terms. It allows me [and others who are so inclined] to gauge the voters' confidence every 2 years in the party that occupies the White House. For the 20 years starting in 1993 [you provided] and ending 2012, the ratio of full terms of both parties in the House to the White House is: Dems: 1.5 terms to 3 terms. AND GOP: 3.5 terms to 2. This gives a voter confidence every 2 years for Dems as 50. And voter confidence every 2 years for the GOP in the same period as 175. Do the division for the ratios [House to White House]. Based on the comparisons in voters' confidence for both parties to the party in the White House over the 20 years [1993-2012] the GOP wins by a ratio of 3.5 times to 1 in the 10 elections.

    CarmineD

  23. "remains more than the ONE term of Democratic control you claimed at 6:46 this morning." Robert Leavitt

    I don't use House terms of 2 years. I use Presidential terms of 4 years. Using start and end years of presidential election years for measuring 20 years and 5 terms. It's the best way to equalize voter sentiment every 2 years for the party in the House to the party in the White House [4 years] and compare the voter results.

    CarmineD

    PS: I said one full term [4 years] with 1996 as the start year and 2016 as the end year. Thus giving 2007, 2008, 2009, to the Dems as is the case. I split the two remaining years [through the end of the current presidential term 2015 and 2016] one each for the Dems and GOP. Since these have not happened and GOP has control through the end of 2012. Kevin preferred to use 1993 as the start yerar. This makes 2012 as the end year for a total of 20 years. Using his 20 years, I recalculated the House terms to ONE FULL [4 years] and one split term [2 years]. As follows: 1993, 1994, 1995, 2007, 2008, 2009. The 14 remaining House years [3 full terms of 12 years and one split term of 2 years] going to the GOP. Using 4 year terms is the common denominator to gauge House elections to White House elections. My creation for comparative analysis of voter confidence in the midterm elections to the party in the White House.

    CarmineD

  24. If you use my analyses for voting purposes for the past 20 years, it is easy to see the reason that the GOP currently controls 30 State Houses and 25 State Legislatures. For the past 20 years, the GOP won the voters' confidence over the Dems in elections held at the national level every 2 years by a margin of 3.5 to 1. If you interpolate that national average to the state level elections, the current party results in the States are exactly as expected.

    CarmineD

  25. After President Obama made his inaugural address, John Boehner said, "Given what we heard yesterday about the president's vision for his second term, it's pretty clear to me, and should be clear to all of you, that he knows he can't do any of that as long as the House is controlled by Republicans. So we are expecting over the next 22 months to be the focus of this administration as they attempt to annihilate the Republican Party."

    There is a condition psychoanalysts refer to as projection or projection bias. It is basically a psychological defense mechanism were a person blames another for their own short comings and failures. GOP leadership is suffering from this ailment because they fail to realize Americans have moved center left. Republicans in general have a problem being out of step with voters, but instead of rethinking their ideology they blame President Obama. The president has no need to annihilate the Republican Party, they've been on a path of self destruction for years and are too stubborn to adapt to a changing environment. Their last two presidential candidates is proof positive. I'm reminded of the 1964 Barry Goldwater campaign and how it failed due to far right ideology, which included the John Birch Society and their off the wall conspiracies.

    Governor Bobby Jindal said, "Stop being the stupid party" referring to members of the GOP. They live in a communications "bubble" ignoring reality. I'm often reminded of Aesop's fable about the frog and the scorpion; you can't change the nature of the beast.

    That is why Obama was relected, the right allowed the loonies to take control of the asylum.

  26. "That is why Obama was relected, the right allowed the loonies to take control of the asylum." @ Vernos Branco

    Truth be told, the Republicans are winning at the State levels and in the House and have been for the last 20 years in the midterms, despite the Democratic party control in the White House. You can kow tow that as much as you like and come up with excuses for the reasons, but the truth and facts remain the same. I opine President Obama and the Dems nationally and locally are in for a rough political ride in the next 4 years. Hold on to your seats.

    CarmineD

  27. "Truth be told, the Republicans are winning at the State levels and in the House and have been for the last 20 years in the midterms"

    This in not Reagan's Republican Party. He could not pass their "purity" test and be an outsider because he raised taxes and compromised with the opposition.

  28. "This in not Reagan's Republican Party." @ Vernos Branco

    Myth pawned off by the Dems as sour grapes for the trouncing that the GOP gives them every 2 [midterms] and 4 years in the States and House of Rep.

    CarmineD

  29. "be an outsider because he [President Reagan] raised taxes..." Vernos Branco

    Another myth. Reagan's own economic advisor, Arthur Laffer [served from 1981-1989 on Reagans' economic advisory council], would vehemently argue with facts that your statement is a huge myth. I tend to believe Laffer and not myths.

    CarmineD

  30. "In those republican states the work product has been antiabortion legislation up the ying yang, union busting, and attempts at gerrymandering." @ Jeff

    And these GOP run states have/will have balanced budgets and economic indicators and growth that exceed their Dem controlled counterpart states. Why? Better managed? On point with the citizenry for government taxing and spending. Or galactically coincidental?

    CarmineD

  31. Jeff:

    You completely ignored the rest of my post on the GOP controlled States faring better economically than their Democratic controlled States. Since you did so well, do it again on the crux of the matter: Economic growth and reduced government taxing and spending. Compare the GOP to the Dem States.

    It's easy to balance a budget by "plugging" a "red deficit" amount in the item that says BUDGET SURPLUS/DEFICIT. In other words, operating expenses greater than revenue as in a LOSS/DEFICIT. ;-)

    CarmineD

  32. "So where's the presidents budget that was due to be submitted the first Monday of February. Yeh elections have results. Guess those that voted figured a budget wasn't that important." Chuck333

    Excellent question. And where's the media outrage for the President not doing so. 4th Year in a row that the President has failed to obey the law and submit a proposed budegt to Congress in February. 4th straight consecutive year. So much for Federal laws on budget requirements!

    CarmineD

  33. Jeff:

    You can find and read more. This is from Forbes magazine.

    http://www.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/0...

    CarmineD

  34. At 5:30 yesterday, CarmineD wrote "If you want to use 1993 as your starting year then 20 years would end in 2012."

    Work it out on your fingers, Carmine, starting at Feb 1993: Feb 1994 = ends 1 year, Feb 1995 = ends 2 years, etc. 20 years ends Feb 2013. Try it . . .

    At 5:55 CarmineD then wrote: "I don't use House terms of 2 years. I use Presidential terms of 4 years."

    Why? Everyone else, even the HOUSE, counts a Congressional term as ending every 2 years - in the odd-numbered year. Why? Because the House that closed on December 31 is not the same House that opened on January 3. Granted, if you do it that way, you can no longer justify your original position nor the arguments you derive from it. "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts," attributed to Daniel Patrick Moynihan. That comment does include you. You are welcome to your opinion. I'll try to shoot you down. You'll try to shoot me down. Fair enough. BUT - unless we stick to the same basic FACTS, we have no common ground for discussing opinions.

  35. This conversation is an example of why we need more than 2 competitive and viable parties.

  36. "Work it out on your fingers, Carmine, starting at Feb 1993: Feb 1994 = ends 1 year, Feb 1995 = ends 2 years, etc. 20 years ends Feb 2013. Try it . . ."

    "At 5:55 CarmineD then wrote: "I don't use House terms of 2 years. I use Presidential terms of 4 years."

    Why?" @ Robert Leavitt

    When you subtract numbers to get years [without using your fingers], you add 1 to the result. 2012 minus 1993 + 1 = 20 years. I don't particularly like 1993 and 2012 as start and end years [you provided] for the 20 years. Why? I said I use Presidential election years for the 20 years.

    I explained why I use 4 years as a FULL term in several posts. House members serve 2 years. Half of the members in the House are up for reelection every 2 years. All are up for relection every 4 years in the even years just like the President. I use 4 as a common denominator for a FULL term to compare voter sentiment/confidence in the midterms to the party in the House. I have a formula that I use for doing so and shared here. My creation, my invention, my political analysis.
    CarmineD

  37. "Reno, Carmine has -- about 4 times been correct out of his 6 million posts," @ Jeff

    That's 4 more times than you.

    CarmineD

  38. "Carmine also refuses to recognize the fact that the last three Republican presidents NEVER produced a balanced budget during the 20 years that they were in control....." @ El Lobo

    By law, Presidents have to produce and present budgets every year to Congress in April. Something President Obama has not done for the last 4.

    CarmineD

  39. "Granted, if you do it that way, you can no longer justify your original position nor the arguments you derive from it. " @ Robert Leavitt

    Not arguments. Analyses. ;-)

    CarmineD

  40. "Carmine still live in goof-ball,
    republican la la land." @ Teamster

    I suggest that you are and will too. I have 4 thoughts for you to consider.

    DC Appelate Court struck down President Obama's 3 nominess for the NLRB as unconstitutional. All 3 are pro-union. All the Board's decisions for the past year will be thrown out and future actions suspended. [Recall I told you so using the words NULL AND VOID here when the President made the appointments on Jan 3, 2012]

    Union membership is falling and at an all time low in the US. Only public unions, because they are a monopoly, have steady numbers.

    Guest worker program as part of the immigration reform will further erode the rank and file union membership roles.

    The Congress will never pass an assault weapons ban. President will have to use Executive Order. If he does, Supreme Court will strike it down.

    As a former AFSCME Chief Steward, I feel your pain.

    CarmineD

  41. Jeff:

    As coincidence would have it, the Wall Street Journal is running a special series of articles on the Red States versus the Blue States. It started yesterday. Entitled: "Party Eyes 'Red-State Model' To Drive Republican Revival." Authors of the first article are Neil King Jr. and Mark Peters. It's too long to post. And since it's current is not yet posted on the internet for general consumption. Based on my interpretion, it appears the GOP will use comparative analyses to illustrate Dems' failed policies at the State level for increased taxes and government spending as a way to economic growth and prosperity. Hope Dr. Krugman is reading too.

    Others here like Boftx, who expressed interest in this issue with me recently, may want to read too. Enjoy.

    CarmineD

  42. BTW Jeff et al:

    The Wall Street Journal article is front page below the fold. I opine Journal figures its important.

    CarmineD

  43. El_Lobo: Comprehension is important here. I said elections have results, not the voters backed the Republicans. Oh and I wouldn't call passing a budget as is the law a weird agenda, I'd call it doing your job." @ Chuck 333

    I second that motion. 4 years straight and no budget by the President. Media ignores it. People don't. They get it.

    CarmineD

  44. "All credibility is down the toilet." @ Jeff

    I don't impute credibility into any media source exclusively and automatically. Same with party affiliation. I read/hear/listen and learn all sides of the argument and then make up my own mind based on the facts and circumstances that are presented.

    CarmineD

  45. Jeff:

    I provided you TWO sources on Red States vs. Blue on economics. Forbes and the WSJ. Sadly, there is not alot of current news/articles on the matter. These are probably the most current especially the WSJ.

    Do me a favor, if you see/read current articles that dispute Forbes and the WSJ and say the Blue States fare better economically than the Red States, please post here on a relevant thread and/or email to me offline. I'm always open to all sides of this issue. Especially if the material is dated 2011, 2012 and later.

    Thanks,
    CarmineD