Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
...Personally, I think a division between "red states" and "blue states" would make a lot of sense. Basically the productive, growing parts of the country would be able to shake off the dead weight of the Gore states, with their corrupt welfare state systmes and domination by union bosses, illegal immigrants and radical activists.
Unfortunately, within 5 or 6 years they would be begging for us to either protect them from some foreign power or bail them out financially.
WOW, AAA....
it's a rare occasion that I catch you as dead wrong as this...
"...The Democrats' electability predicament comes into focus when you compare the map of Giver and Taker states with the well-worn electoral map of red (Republican) and blue (Democrat) states. You might expect that in the 2000 presidential election, Republicans, the party of low taxes and limited government, would have carried the Giver states â while Democrats, the party of wild spending and wooly bureaucracy, would have appealed to the Taker states. But it was the reverse. George W. Bush was the candidate of the Taker states. Al Gore was the candidate of the Giver states.
Consider:
78 percent of Mr. Bush's electoral votes came from Taker states.
76 percent of Mr. Gore's electoral votes came from Giver states.
Of the 33 Taker states, Mr. Bush carried 25.
Of the 16 Giver states, Mr. Gore carried 12..."
http://elitetrader.com/vb/showthrea...ght=gore+AND+bush+AND+red+AND+blue#post422262