Alabama--covered up with conservatives--the most extremely conservative state in the U.S.A.
Alabama--covered up with conservatives--the most extremely conservative state in the U.S.A.
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Gallup has different numbers and placed Alabama as 10'th with Washington DC being the most liberal place in the U.S.; a real loon's nest.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/167...rvative-liberal.aspx
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Wyoming was the most conservative U.S. state in 2013, replacing Alabama, which fell to 10th place. The District of Columbia was once again the most liberal area in the United States, with Vermont and Massachusetts having the highest percentage of liberals among the 50 states.
Out of curiosity, how does average income compare
Obviously, systems rating people, states, or other entities in terms of "most" or "least" are to a considerable degree subjective. They depend upon the criteria relied upon in constructing the rankings, and that, in turn, can be affected by the bias of the persons or organizations performing the evaluations.
The internet is rife with all kinds of "most" and "least" and "best" and "worst"rankings and the intelligent user is well advised to examine the basis upon which any such rankings are structured.
If Alabama is 44.7% conservative, what are the remaining 55.3%?
jdavis:
According to the table in the link below, 8 of the ten most conservative states in your list have median household incomes BELOW the national average. The listed conservative states of Utah and Wyoming have incomes significantly above the national average.
There are a few other states not on that list that also report below-average incomes. See the table.
If Alabama is 44.7% conservative, what are the remaining 55.3%?
___
Well, wouldn't you think the 55.3% would be made up of moderates plus liberals? Those seem to be the only categories besides conservative.
If Alabama is 44.7% conservative, what are the remaining 55.3%?
________________________________________________
A mixture of moderates and liberals:
If Alabama is 44.7% conservative, what are the remaining 55.3%?
________________________________________________
A mixture of moderates and liberals:
+++
Thanks.
Interesting those states such as NJ and Massachusetts where Moderates outnumber Liberals.
If Alabama is 44.7% conservative, what are the remaining 55.3%?
________________________________________________
A mixture of moderates and liberals:
+++
Thanks.
Interesting those states such as NJ and Massachusetts where Moderates outnumber Liberals.
____________________________________________________________
Like beauty is in the eyes of the beer-holder; the terms conservative, liberal, and especially moderate probably have different meanings to different folks.
If Alabama is 44.7% conservative, what are the remaining 55.3%?
___
Well, wouldn't you think the 55.3% would be made up of moderates plus liberals? Those seem to be the only categories besides conservative.
+++
You'd certainly think so given all the information was on the link Stanky provided but which I failed to open.
My bad.
Obviously, systems rating people, states, or other entities in terms of "most" or "least" are to a considerable degree subjective. They depend upon the criteria relied upon in constructing the rankings, and that, in turn, can be affected by the bias of the persons or organizations performing the evaluations.
The internet is rife with all kinds of "most" and "least" and "best" and "worst"rankings and the intelligent user is well advised to examine the basis upon which any such rankings are structured.
+++
What are your concerns with a Gallup pole? [Not a baiting question.]
Seems like given how often they are quoted, I would have thought they had credibility. No?
Obviously, systems rating people, states, or other entities in terms of "most" or "least" are to a considerable degree subjective. They depend upon the criteria relied upon in constructing the rankings, and that, in turn, can be affected by the bias of the persons or organizations performing the evaluations.
The internet is rife with all kinds of "most" and "least" and "best" and "worst"rankings and the intelligent user is well advised to examine the basis upon which any such rankings are structured.
+++
What are your concerns with a Gallup pole? [Not a baiting question.]
Seems like given how often they are quoted, I would have thought they had credibility. No?
___
If you would re=read what I posted, you would see that I am not taking issue with any particular poll, but merely cautioning folks to examine how a given poll was developed and implemented.
Obviously, systems rating people, states, or other entities in terms of "most" or "least" are to a considerable degree subjective. They depend upon the criteria relied upon in constructing the rankings, and that, in turn, can be affected by the bias of the persons or organizations performing the evaluations.
The internet is rife with all kinds of "most" and "least" and "best" and "worst"rankings and the intelligent user is well advised to examine the basis upon which any such rankings are structured.
+++
What are your concerns with a Gallup pole? [Not a baiting question.]
Seems like given how often they are quoted, I would have thought they had credibility. No?
___
If you would re=read what I posted, you would see that I am not taking issue with any particular poll, but merely cautioning folks to examine how a given poll was developed and implemented.
Dead on regardless of who or which side paid for the poll. If you have ever taken on you know by the questions how they want the results to be.
Obviously, systems rating people, states, or other entities in terms of "most" or "least" are to a considerable degree subjective. They depend upon the criteria relied upon in constructing the rankings, and that, in turn, can be affected by the bias of the persons or organizations performing the evaluations.
The internet is rife with all kinds of "most" and "least" and "best" and "worst"rankings and the intelligent user is well advised to examine the basis upon which any such rankings are structured.
+++
What are your concerns with a Gallup pole? [Not a baiting question.]
Seems like given how often they are quoted, I would have thought they had credibility. No?
___
If you would re=read what I posted, you would see that I am not taking issue with any particular poll, but merely cautioning folks to examine how a given poll was developed and implemented.
+++
Rereading your post following Stanky's, I previously believed you were challenging the credibility of his source [gallup], but in reading your post at your suggestion, I realize you were commenting on yours.
Thanks.
Obviously, systems rating people, states, or other entities in terms of "most" or "least" are to a considerable degree subjective. They depend upon the criteria relied upon in constructing the rankings, and that, in turn, can be affected by the bias of the persons or organizations performing the evaluations.
The internet is rife with all kinds of "most" and "least" and "best" and "worst"rankings and the intelligent user is well advised to examine the basis upon which any such rankings are structured.
+++
What are your concerns with a Gallup pole? [Not a baiting question.]
Seems like given how often they are quoted, I would have thought they had credibility. No?
___
If you would re=read what I posted, you would see that I am not taking issue with any particular poll, but merely cautioning folks to examine how a given poll was developed and implemented.
Dead on regardless of who or which side paid for the poll. If you have ever taken on you know by the questions how they want the results to be.
+++
Regarding Stanky's link to the Gallup pole, who would have paid for it and to what ends?
Alabama is almost the most conservative state, and the voters are proud. Alabama is almost at the lowest income state. Is anyone proud?
Alabama is almost the most conservative state, and the voters are proud. Alabama is almost at the lowest income state. Is anyone proud?
________________________________________________________________
One hundred plus years of Democrat rule leaves any place a wreck. Just check out DC, Detroit and Chi-town.
yep.. and it only took the republicans ONE ELECTION CYCLE to be brought up on corruption charges in the state of alabama..... after running on the promise to 'clean up alabama' and stop the very things they're being charged with, now... the rt. wingnut way.
Alabama is almost the most conservative state, and the voters are proud. Alabama is almost at the lowest income state. Is anyone proud?
________________________________________________________________
One hundred plus years of Democrat rule leaves any place a wreck. Just check out DC, Detroit and Chi-town.
In the last 12 (TWELVE) years of republican governors and leadership, Alabama's average income has dropped 3%. That's really helping out.
Alabama is almost the most conservative state, and the voters are proud. Alabama is almost at the lowest income state. Is anyone proud?
________________________________________________________________
One hundred plus years of Democrat rule leaves any place a wreck. Just check out DC, Detroit and Chi-town.
In the last 12 (TWELVE) years of republican governors and leadership, Alabama's average income has dropped 3%. That's really helping out.
________________________________________________________________
Since 2008, the average US wages have dropped 23 percent,
http://www.cleveland.com/busin...n_23_percent_si.html
Appears that the present Republican administration has done much better than average. And, to my list of cities destroyed by Democrat reign, add DC
Since 2008, the average US wages have dropped 23 percent,
http://www.cleveland.com/busin...n_23_percent_si.html
Appears that the present Republican administration has done much better than average. And, to my list of cities destroyed by Democrat reign, add DC
Dire, I'm impressed, you used a number supplied by "The United Stated Conference of Mayors". They were addressing the subject of wage inequality and how it is getting worse. I didn't know you were concerned with wage inequality. The top 1% is getting too much of the pie.
The first thing this country needs are jobs, then you can cry about how unfair you think the wages are.
Since 2008, the average US wages have dropped 23 percent,
http://www.cleveland.com/busin...n_23_percent_si.html
Appears that the present Republican administration has done much better than average. And, to my list of cities destroyed by Democrat reign, add DC
Dire, I'm impressed, you used a number supplied by "The United Stated Conference of Mayors". They were addressing the subject of wage inequality and how it is getting worse. I didn't know you were concerned with wage inequality. The top 1% is getting too much of the pie.
_________________________________________________________
JT,
I've explained this situation a couple of times. As you weren't paying attention, once more!
The upper 2 to 3 percent make most of their wealth by investments, not salary. During the last six years, the Fed has made traditional more conservative investments such as savings accounts, CDs, and FDIC protected money market accounts almost worthless with extremely small interest rates. This forced investors into the stock and bond markets. Now, stocks are bid up, beyond book value. its a bubble. Whether it will deflate slowly or burst is the question. The last week or so was a demonstration of same. High value investors lost billions, but recovered to some degree. Its central planning by a semi government entity that is causing much of the growth in the upper 2 or 3 percenters wealth.
The first thing this country needs are jobs, then you can cry about how unfair you think the wages are.
________________________________________________
As governments suck more and more wealth away as taxes and require more and more to be spent on regulation, its no wonder that less is left over for more jobs or higher pay. Dems can't get their minds around this. Simply foreign to their intellect.
The first thing this country needs are jobs, then you can cry about how unfair you think the wages are.
________________________________________________
As governments suck more and more wealth away as taxes and require more and more to be spent on regulation, its no wonder that less is left over for more jobs or higher pay. Dems can't get their minds around this. Simply foreign to their intellect.
----------------------------
They think small business should provide those jobs and pay those high wages, all the while knowing they would crawl a mile to save 15 cents instead of patronizing those small businesses. I do business with the small companies every chance I get. One thing, I pay $2.69 for something at one place, small business run by owner, when I could pay $1.99 for it at the dollar store. I know I pay more per year on other things, but it's worth it to help, hopefully, small businesses survive.
The first thing this country needs are jobs, then you can cry about how unfair you think the wages are.
I agree. I try to shop local. I don't expect a mom and pop business to match or beat wally world, but they shouldn't be double. In hardware and lumber, I've found that local family owned beats the national chains. If I take a written bid in to the chain, they will beat it by 10%. I won't do that, beat it the first time.
Also, on tools and some other things, you don't get the same quality at the national chains as you do at smaller stores.
I don't expect a mom and pop business to match or beat wally world, but they shouldn't be double.
You have no idea whether or not they have to charge double. I doubt I'd pay double, but I am willing to pay more to support them. You have no idea the operating expenses, even for small businesses, and they don't have millions/billions rolling in.
The first thing this country needs are jobs, then you can cry about how unfair you think the wages are.
________________________________________________
As governments suck more and more wealth away as taxes and require more and more to be spent on regulation, its no wonder that less is left over for more jobs or higher pay. Dems can't get their minds around this. Simply foreign to their intellect.
___________________________________________________________
Regulation: Mitt Romney was right. In 2012, he said President Obama's policies were costing a record 100,000 business start-ups a year. Now a liberal think tank backs him up. Only it's worse.
The Brookings Institution found that for the first time on record U.S. businesses are being destroyed faster than they're being created. In fact, the American economy is less entrepreneurial now than at any point in the last three decades.
It's certainly not uncommon for businesses to fail, but normally startups replace them. That's no longer the case. Businesses are now dying at a faster clip, despite the end of the recession. The rate of business births has plunged since Obama took the reins of the economy in 2009.
The study doesn't answer why — "the reasons explaining this decline are still unknown" — but the reason is obvious. According to other studies, Obama's massive top-down regulations are making it too costly to start a new business or too uncertain to risk capital.
A 2013 Gallup poll found that ObamaCare caused nearly half of small businesses to freeze hiring and a fifth of them to cut jobs. Another 38% of entrepreneurs said they "have pulled back on their plans to grow their business" because of ObamaCare.
Meanwhile, small-business owners complain that new financial regulations mandated under the Dodd-Frank Act have dried up startup capital.
"This has not been a good time to start new enterprises," Romney warned during the 2012 campaign. "This president's policies are responsible for the fact that this recovery has been postponed."
In contrast, entrepreneurial activity exploded during the '80s and '00s, when Washington incentivized Americans to create new businesses.
Brookings data show new firms entering the market spiked during the 1983-88 period, the heyday of Reaganomics and deregulation, and again during the 2001-06 period, when President Bush, like Reagan before him, cut personal marginal income-tax rates across the board.
The Obama economy lacks business dynamism, a healthy process also known as "creative destruction," where productive firms enter the market and drive out laggards. The process is healthy because new competition constantly forces labor and capital to be put to better use, spinning off innovative products and services while lowering prices for consumers.
But that feature of the American economy is dying. "If it persists," the study warns, "it implies a continuation of slow growth for the indefinite future."
More than 20% of new job creation comes from business startups. So if Obama wants to know why he has a jobless recovery — and an annual job growth rate that stubbornly refuses to budge above 2% — he should look at the report put out by one of his favorite think tanks.
Stanky, Most lefties can't get their minds around what you posted. Rather like trying to operate Windows on a computer made for DOS 3.0