Hmmm, what an interesting concept. If GWB was only president for 8 years, and it is unrealistic to expect the country to "turn" as we were promised it would... how long do you think it would take to turn a state or a group of states that have been blue for, oh, I don't know... many, many decades?
Why is relevant? Well, in light of the "Mitt Romney 47%" media-manufactured "gaffe," the typical liberal parrot masters were at it again, squawking the usual hollow liberal talking points. Their point-of-the-week: Most of the states with the highest percentage of income tax non-filers are "red" states. Liberal media master Ed Schultz published the following chart last night, and, as expected, it was repeatedly posted and re-tweeted across the internet. But, as simple facts will show, the whole story isn't being told.
The top ten non-filer states, according to The Tax Foundation, rank as follows:
So it seems like Ed Schultz has an air-tight case, right? Not quite. The problem is, quite simply: Most of these states have been blue for a really, really long time. Most of them are only recently red. Yes... RECENTLY RED. I ask again: if we can't hold Barack Obama accountable for turning around 8 years of alleged "disaster," can we really say these states have "turned" red after decades of being blue? The fact is: These states have such deep histories of being blue that it would take decades more to make them truly red.
Let's take a look, shall we? Obama is the president of the country, so to make a comparison, we have to look at governors of these states. Just a simple Wikipedia search about the number of democrat versus republican governors that comprise these state's histories yields the following glaring information:
1. Mississippi: Longest streak: Democrats from 1876-1988, Republicans 1992-2000 Dem 2000-2004, Rep since 2004. Total count: 55 D, 5 R2. Georgia: Longest streak: Democrats from 1872-2003, Republicans 2003-Present: Total count 47 D, 4 R
Okay, so after just the first two, I realized posting the "longest streak" is going to be redundant, so I will quickly summarize the total count for each of these state's histories.
3. Arkansas: 48 D, 7 R
4. New Mexico: 19 D, 12 R
5. Alabama: 52 D, 6 R
6. South Carolina: 57 D, 8 R
7. Louisiana: 40 D, 10 R
8. Texas: 39 D, 6 R
9. Florida: 34 D, 8 R
10. Idaho: 12 D, 20 R
Total Count: 403 D, 86 R
So there you have it. It's not really close. This isn't terribly scientific, but it does lead to the argument that these states aren't really as "red" as people with talking point intentions like to make them out to be. With the exceptions of New Mexico and Idaho, these states have long, deep histories of being blue, and if the democrat's excuse for Obama's 4-year failure to turn a body in which he is the head around, then these state's blue histories are far from being turned. As stated, none of these states were "red" until only the last decade. Many were blue for an entire century or more. Who knows why they have recently turned red? Maybe the citizens got tired of mismanaged government? Maybe they were tired of their situations and decided to make a change for the good? That's a debate for another day.
So for people like Ed Schultz and the like who want to trumpet the "well, look at these states... they're red," what do you say? Is your case just a hollow talking point? Do you still stand by it? Please share below.