Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Just saying

Two maps:

jobless_1

jobless_2

The unterbussen don't seem to be evenly distributed.

Coincidence?

0
No votes yet

Comments

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

The top graph is misleading if you want to talk about uneven distribution. The better metric for the evenness of the distribution is percentage. If you look at the states with >100k, they are the largest states population wise and so you expect to see more people based solely on the number. Also, the states with the smallest number of people sans benefits are also the states with the smallest population. From this graph, I see no reason to believe in the uneven distribution.

The second graph is a little hard to make out without clicking the link (e.g. what do the colors mean?). It would be quite striking if the percentages mapped to the lower graph as much as the raw numbers do.

Submitted by lambert on

... on caucuses, the percentages aren't quite so important, are they?

* * *

I'm not saying there's a straight line causality here. But when people talk about "the base," we need to be thinking about this correlation.

Card-carrying_Buddhist's picture
Submitted by Card-carrying_B... on

on which our glorious Obama-smashing independent MA Senator Scott "Bankster" Brown was elected, seems to be, awfully, relevant.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

Dems had 60-40 for a while and did what, exaclty? Kucinich was vehemently against the health whatever bill for a while until he went full court press for it in the last days. I folowed several members of Congress who had solid voting records. Now they are doing what I never expected them to do. *Maybe* (and there is solid and sufficient evidence against this being the case, as we've discussed numerous time here) Coakley would be the on single Dem to turn out OK, but what about the other 59 Dems who now suck? It *still* wouldn't be 60-40 liberal-bankster as you imply. Its almost entirely bankster with no real liberals voting liberally *when it counts*.

As we pointed out the, and now have much more evidence, Coakley wouldn't have changed a thing. Your argument relies on the Dems are weak meme--if we just had ONE more Senator, the Dems would be virtuous again. Few here buy that argument anymore so you're not gonna make people feel bad about not electing the one person who would have saved the entire universe forever and ever.