8 ms·

This is why one party rule is bad.

RhodesianHunter 3y ago
Just look at the bottom ten states for any measurable statistic people care about. Healthcare outcomes, standard of living, GDP per Capita, poverty, educational attainment, obesity, etc. All deep dark red.
- throwaway6734 3y ago
  Exactly. One party rule is bad. The failurs of the GOP to put up viable local candidates in SF and the the Democrats in deep red states are not good for the health of the country
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    Exactly why we need ranked choice voting.
  - hotpotamus 3y ago
    I used to hear conservatives lament that large cities were unwinnable for Republican candidate, and these days I don't even hear that; it seems that they just accept it as a law of nature that they will be governed by Democrats. And as an example, Jacksonville, Florida just flipped that way. And I wonder - what would Republicans offer a city? My assumption is that they'd just blow a hole in any city budget with tax cuts for the wealthy, thereby achieving defunding of city services, but that's my bias. Still it doesn't seem like anyone in a big metro is buying what they're selling to the point where the Republicans don't even seem to try selling it anymore.
    - throwaway6734 3y ago
      > what would Republicans offer a city? There are a lot of local policies that are in the vein of the traditional GOP politics (small govt, personal freedom, less regulation, etc.) that are very applicable to urban living but do cut against national GOP politics. If they could separate the local from the national they'd do great. Some examples: * Cutting land use regulations to encourage more housing development. Urban areas suffer from ridiculously high housing prices due to overburdensome regulation * Give parents more input into how their children's education via school choice. * Reduce red tape/bureaucracy for accomplishing things in cities like slow permitting processes and starting businesses
      - hotpotamus 3y ago
        From what I see in the comments about San Francisco (I'm a neophyte about it, never having even visited), it does not seem like people are desirous of less regulation. It seems that a tent city/open drug market is about as unregulated as it gets. (I get that ignoring regulations is different from removing them, though the practical difference seems small). I'm also suspicious of the idea that there's some great supply of land or buildings available for cheap housing if only it was deregulated; isn't San Francisco a small place?
- idlewords 3y ago
  You're not going to find open-air downtown drug markets, public defecation and decriminalized theft in Mississippi or Arkansas. For that, you need to visit one of our progressive West Coast cities.
  - flangola7 3y ago
    Those are much smaller problems than those in the comment you're replying to
    - idlewords 3y ago
      That's simple whataboutism. You can always find a worse problem to deflect to.
      - flangola7 3y ago
        It's not whataboutism. You implied that the deep red states have less severe social problems, which is incredibly false.
  - RhodesianHunter 3y ago
    That's because Mississippi And Arkansas are too damned poor to support the homeless. They've pushed them all out to the West coast where people actually have pocket change to give them.
    - 0xy 3y ago
      Can you explain how the homeless people who defecate on the streets because of a lack of facilities and shoot up drugs in parks are better off on the West Coast? Drugs are taken and sold openly in San Francisco and LA.
    - tptacek 3y ago
      This is reasonably well studied and not true. California homeless are not, in fact, largely migrants from other states.
- TallGuyShort 3y ago
  Not sure if you meant this as a counterpoint or as confirmation, but let's be clear that that ALSO doesn't sound like solidly-entrenched one-party rule is good.
  - RhodesianHunter 3y ago
    I wasn't sure if the person I was responding to was expressing a sincere belief, or just one of the conservatives that love hypocritically pointing out SF's flaws. Figured with this we'll find out.
- rufus_foreman 3y ago
  California has the highest poverty level of any state in the US under the Census Bureau's Supplemental Poverty Measure. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2021/demo/p60-275.pdf https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publicatio...
  - RhodesianHunter 3y ago
    If you don't understand per-capita and why raw sums are meaningless in context of the most populous state then I don't know what to tell you.
    - rufus_foreman 3y ago
      The numbers are a percentage of people in poverty by state.
      - RhodesianHunter 3y ago
        Read page 32 of your own document.
        rufus_foreman 3y ago
        Where it says "Number and Percentage of People in Poverty by State"?
        RhodesianHunter 3y ago
        And where it shows California at 11%, fairly low on the list
        rufus_foreman 3y ago
        11% is not the number for the Supplemental Poverty Measure. The percentage for the Supplemental Poverty Measure is under the heading SPM. It's 15.4% for California, which is the highest of any state. D.C. is at 16.5%, but D.C. is not a state.
asmithmd1 3y ago
I agree mixed government wins. I moved to Massachusetts almost 20 years ago and I don't understand why it isn't held up as an example for other states. Everyone thinks MA is deep blue, and it is on social issues. It was the first state to allow same sex marriage. It has the toughest gun law enforcement in the US (break the law and you are going to jail for 2 years) and consequently has the lowest gun death rate in the US - 80% lower than many red states! But MA also elects Republican governors on the regular. Mitt Romney was Governor from 2002-2006. Republican Charlie Baker ran the state so well that by the end of his second term the state's "rainy day" fund hit the legal max of 15% of the state's annual budget, so last fall every taxpayer in MA got a check for 13% of their previous years state taxes! And state income taxes are not high, basically a 5% flat tax. I would argue this frequent election of people who have run businesses is what also keeps the state at the top of the list of states in per capita GDP.

Just look at the bottom ten states for any measurable statistic people care about. Healthcare outcomes, standard of living, GDP per Capita, poverty, educational attainment, obesity, etc. All deep dark red.

throwaway6734 3y ago
Exactly. One party rule is bad. The failurs of the GOP to put up viable local candidates in SF and the the Democrats in deep red states are not good for the health of the country
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  Exactly why we need ranked choice voting.
- hotpotamus 3y ago
  I used to hear conservatives lament that large cities were unwinnable for Republican candidate, and these days I don't even hear that; it seems that they just accept it as a law of nature that they will be governed by Democrats. And as an example, Jacksonville, Florida just flipped that way. And I wonder - what would Republicans offer a city? My assumption is that they'd just blow a hole in any city budget with tax cuts for the wealthy, thereby achieving defunding of city services, but that's my bias. Still it doesn't seem like anyone in a big metro is buying what they're selling to the point where the Republicans don't even seem to try selling it anymore.
  - throwaway6734 3y ago
    > what would Republicans offer a city? There are a lot of local policies that are in the vein of the traditional GOP politics (small govt, personal freedom, less regulation, etc.) that are very applicable to urban living but do cut against national GOP politics. If they could separate the local from the national they'd do great. Some examples: * Cutting land use regulations to encourage more housing development. Urban areas suffer from ridiculously high housing prices due to overburdensome regulation * Give parents more input into how their children's education via school choice. * Reduce red tape/bureaucracy for accomplishing things in cities like slow permitting processes and starting businesses
    - hotpotamus 3y ago
      From what I see in the comments about San Francisco (I'm a neophyte about it, never having even visited), it does not seem like people are desirous of less regulation. It seems that a tent city/open drug market is about as unregulated as it gets. (I get that ignoring regulations is different from removing them, though the practical difference seems small). I'm also suspicious of the idea that there's some great supply of land or buildings available for cheap housing if only it was deregulated; isn't San Francisco a small place?
idlewords 3y ago
You're not going to find open-air downtown drug markets, public defecation and decriminalized theft in Mississippi or Arkansas. For that, you need to visit one of our progressive West Coast cities.
- flangola7 3y ago
  Those are much smaller problems than those in the comment you're replying to
  - idlewords 3y ago
    That's simple whataboutism. You can always find a worse problem to deflect to.
    - flangola7 3y ago
      It's not whataboutism. You implied that the deep red states have less severe social problems, which is incredibly false.
- RhodesianHunter 3y ago
  That's because Mississippi And Arkansas are too damned poor to support the homeless. They've pushed them all out to the West coast where people actually have pocket change to give them.
  - 0xy 3y ago
    Can you explain how the homeless people who defecate on the streets because of a lack of facilities and shoot up drugs in parks are better off on the West Coast? Drugs are taken and sold openly in San Francisco and LA.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    This is reasonably well studied and not true. California homeless are not, in fact, largely migrants from other states.
TallGuyShort 3y ago
Not sure if you meant this as a counterpoint or as confirmation, but let's be clear that that ALSO doesn't sound like solidly-entrenched one-party rule is good.
- RhodesianHunter 3y ago
  I wasn't sure if the person I was responding to was expressing a sincere belief, or just one of the conservatives that love hypocritically pointing out SF's flaws. Figured with this we'll find out.
rufus_foreman 3y ago
California has the highest poverty level of any state in the US under the Census Bureau's Supplemental Poverty Measure. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2021/demo/p60-275.pdf https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publicatio...
- RhodesianHunter 3y ago
  If you don't understand per-capita and why raw sums are meaningless in context of the most populous state then I don't know what to tell you.
  - rufus_foreman 3y ago
    The numbers are a percentage of people in poverty by state.
    - RhodesianHunter 3y ago
      Read page 32 of your own document.
      - rufus_foreman 3y ago
        Where it says "Number and Percentage of People in Poverty by State"?
        RhodesianHunter 3y ago
        And where it shows California at 11%, fairly low on the list
        rufus_foreman 3y ago
        11% is not the number for the Supplemental Poverty Measure. The percentage for the Supplemental Poverty Measure is under the heading SPM. It's 15.4% for California, which is the highest of any state. D.C. is at 16.5%, but D.C. is not a state.

asmithmd1 3y ago

I agree mixed government wins. I moved to Massachusetts almost 20 years ago and I don't understand why it isn't held up as an example for other states. Everyone thinks MA is deep blue, and it is on social issues. It was the first state to allow same sex marriage. It has the toughest gun law enforcement in the US (break the law and you are going to jail for 2 years) and consequently has the lowest gun death rate in the US - 80% lower than many red states! But MA also elects Republican governors on the regular. Mitt Romney was Governor from 2002-2006. Republican Charlie Baker ran the state so well that by the end of his second term the state's "rainy day" fund hit the legal max of 15% of the state's annual budget, so last fall every taxpayer in MA got a check for 13% of their previous years state taxes! And state income taxes are not high, basically a 5% flat tax. I would argue this frequent election of people who have run businesses is what also keeps the state at the top of the list of states in per capita GDP.