http://psweb.sbs.ohio-state.edu/facu...cy-OSUConf.PDF
Key points... but you should read the whole article.
Boston Globe reporter Mike Barnicle, appearing on MSNBC, dubbed the Bush states the “family values” states and the Gore states “the sense of entitlement” states. Paul Begala later responded that the Bush states were home to hate crimes, setting off a frenzy of oped pieces about the differences between Bush’s America and Gore’s America.
...
If Barnicle is correct that Gore states are “entitlement”
states, then we might expect that the states won by Al Gore receive the most in federal spending compared to the tax revenues they send to Washington. In short, Gore’s states may be net beneficiaries of federal government spending while Bush’s states may be net contributors to the federal government. It would make sense that the states that lose money to the federal government would be more likely to vote for the candidate who promised to cut taxes and reduce the scope of government, and that the states that gain from the federal government would support the candidate who would protect or increase
federal spending. The evidence shows that such a story is exactly backwards. Bush won most of the states that benefit from federal spending, while Gore won most of the states that bankroll the federal government. Perhaps more interesting, the states in which Al Gore did worse than Bill Clinton did in 1996 are the states that increased their net take from the federal government in the two years leading
up to the 2000 election.
Substantively, the regression shows that Bush’s margin over Gore increases by 20 percentage points for every dollar in spending per dollar of tax that the state receives. Put another way, Bush’s margin goes up by 2 percentage points for every additional dime of
federal spending in a state per dollar of taxes paid by that state.
The real effect of federal finances on vote shares comes from tax burden. States that have a higher per capita federal tax burden have more Gore voters; states with a lower per capita federal tax
burden have more Bush voters. A $1,000 per person increase in federal taxes indicates a 7.6 percentage point decline in Bush’s vote margin. This result is indeed curious since Bush campaigned on a platform of lowering taxes and reducing spending. This message appears to have been best received in states that have low tax burdens already.
The paradoxical relationship between federal spending levels and votes for Bush
may be an artifact of Congress. Republicans in the House and Senate may be funneling federal dollars back to Republican states and congressional districts. Republicans may also spend more federal dollars in states with Republican governors in order to bolster
( All results hold even if I add a state’s population as a control variable. The results are also not sensitive to
outliers other than D.C. All results hold when I delete outlying observations or random samples of 5 and 10 observations.) their popularity.
Seems the money in the red states is being primarily spend on welfare, retirement, farm subsidies & highway construction.
It is interesting to see who's really getting the "free handouts". We see that the blue people are needed in this country to keep paying for everything because otherwise we'd be more bankrupt than we already are. So keep it up blue states! Keep payin for more than your share.
Another interesting thing was that swing states have about a net $ change of 0. There seems to be a very direct correlation. The only one that doesn't fit is New Mexico... We should get rid of that state. It looks like this time around though they are leaning right. In which case they will fit right in with the big welfare states.
This can also help us see who will win the next election based on the layout of our current federal spending. My prediction is Bush.
Top
