Programs to help the rich are defined as sound economic theory.
There’s corporate welfare, but corporations don’t vote, so that’s not particularly relevant to this part of the discussion.
BTW, when are Democrats going to become against corporate welfare again, or is that just campaign talk?
The state with the highest food stamp participation rate is Mississippi; most of the staunchly Republican states in the South have above-average levels, while California and New Jersey (to name two liberal strongholds) are below average.
And the midwest and Western Republican states?
And Rocket J. Squirrel asks plaintively: Again?
This may answer your question I think. Or at least as close as we can get.
You answered a different question. Slash was talking about southern states and food stamps. You cited what almost all of us already know, that red states get more in federal spending than they receive. WHich again, may not be true anymore since the Medicaid expansion that most of them didn’t participate in.
So the federal subsidies going directly to their inhabitants instead of through the state don’t count?
It must be noted that there have been a run of polls favorable to the GOP in both Alaska and Colorado recently. Wang’s election day prediction number stands pat for now (it has some inertia) but his “metamargin” is now in GOP territory.
Sigh.
The answer is neither so that is not going to be part of his decision.
vary more widely. Arizona, e.g., is above average, while Wyoming has very low usage levels.
See the 2012 participation levels mapped: the states with above-average levels are concentrated in a band from Arizona to North Carolina, with an arm extending up through Appalachia into Ohio and Michigan. There are a few outliers in the Northeast and Northwest, but the bulk of the states with high levels of food stamp enrollment are in the solidly Republican South.
There is nothing about McConnell or Reid that makes them indispensable. If anything, they are very, very dispensable.
Clive Bundy and the Walmart executives vote Democratic?
Actually, these days it’s the Democrats who stand up for corporate welfare. But we will celebrate together when Democrats join the Republicans in ending corporate subsidies.
Republican chance of victory:
Sam Wang: 51%
538: 60%
The Upshot (NYT): 67%
Average of 3: 59%.
WAPO: 70%
Huffpo: 58%
As fundamentals take a smaller share of the modeling output, it looks like Sam Wang’s figures are converging to the consensus more than the consensus is converging to Sam Wang. The race is still a tossup, but the Republicans have a slight edge, with MfM labs giving them a 59% probability.
That calculation was made by one of our interns who has been fired. We regret the error.
Our statistician, Marge N. Overra.
Why does he have the GOP with 51 seats leading, but still a 70% chance of Dem hold if the election were held today?
And here, Wang seems to be saying 68% chance of GOP control:
http://election.princeton.edu/todays-senate-seat-count-histogram/
There’s no contradiction. To use a simplified example, say there were just three seats: two with a 60% chance of going R (and 40% for D), and the third a 100% lock for D. One could say that the R is leading in 2 of the three seats, but one could also say that they only have a 36% chance of control after the election (.6 x .6) versus the 64% for the D.
He does not.
The 70% is not his election held today but his odds for the election when it is held weeks from now. That number does not move so easily, as he explains. He currently gives no “nowcast.” He still believes that his prediction number is valid but states that such may change if the current poll numbers hold a few more times.
The problem is not your math, the problem is your conception of society. It’s not just working and welfare recipients. You’re forgetting students, (lean left) retirees, (heavily lean right) housewives, (lean right) the disabled. (lean left unless you live in a self-deluding heavily red state) Does military count as working?