|Percent voting Democratic, 1980-2013|
|Source: Sierra Rayne @ American Thinker|
[T]he "red state welfare" argument appears to be entirely based only on how each state voted in the most recent presidential election. This results in entirely junk science. We also need to look at how each state votes for its senators, representatives, and even governors. Given how Congress has the "power of the purse," this is core to assessing how a state's welfare status relates to its Democrat versus Republican voting record.Clearly, the "Red State Welfare" claim is a lie, and that a more nuanced take on the relationship between the political orientation of a state's citizens and how much that state receives in Federal funding is required. The graph above seems to suggest that, when it comes to the relationship between being "Red" and "Blue" and accepting Federal monies, the data is mixed.
The following table shows the percentage of person-years between 1980 and 2013 for which each of the top and bottom welfare states voted Democrat at the presidential, congressional, and gubernatorial levels.
At the senatorial level, how can you call North Dakota, Louisiana, and West Virginia "red states" when their voting record is overwhelmingly Democratic over the past three decades? On the other side of the aisle, New Hampshire -- supposedly a blue state -- has only elected a single Democratic senator (the currently serving Jeanne Shaheen) since 1980. Minnesota and Colorado also fail the blue state designation based on who they have put in the Senate over this timeframe. Similarly, New Hampshire and Delaware have elected predominantly Republicans in the House, and somehow they are blue states?
In the House of Representatives, it is absurd to characterize Mississippi, West Virginia, North Dakota, and South Dakota as red states when they have elected more Democrats than Republicans since 1980.
The gubernatorial comparison also strikes a blow to any "red state welfare" claims.