The Sixty Percent Plus States In The Presidential Election Of 2012

An analysis of the results of the 2012 Presidential Election, now that all of the votes have been tabulated, shows that eight states voted for Mitt Romney by sixty percent or more, and that seven states and the District of Columbia voted for Barack Obama by sixty percent or more.

The “best” Romney states are in order:

Utah—72.62 percent
Wyoming—68.64 percent
Oklahoma—66.77 percent
Idaho—64.09 percent
West Virginia—62.27 percent
Arkansas—60.57 percent
Alabama—60.55 percent
Kentucky—60.49 percent

The “best” Obama states are in order:

District of Columbia—90.91 percent
Hawaii—70.55 percent
Vermont—66.57 percent
New York—63.32 percent
Rhode Island—62.70 percent
Maryland—61.97 percent
Massachusetts—60.65 percent
California—60.24 percent

Note that the District of Columbia and the seven highest voting states have the highest incomes and educational achievements, with three of them being New England States, three of them Middle Atlantic locations, and two being the Pacific Coast.

On the other hand, the Romney states are among the lowest in incomes and educational accomplishments, including three being Mountain states, two being Southern states, and three being Border states (Oklahoma, West Virginia, Kentucky).

This makes clear that poorer “Red” states are simply not using their intelligence, as voting Republican does not benefit them at all, while the “Blue” states are wealthier and understand the benefits of support of the Democratic Party!

8 comments on “The Sixty Percent Plus States In The Presidential Election Of 2012

  1. Juan Domingo Peron January 15, 2013 1:53 pm

    But aren’t the majority of the people who live in DC goverment employees? And didn’t the administration hire over more than 100 thousand new federal employees? Is not the salaries of the federal employees higher than the average private sector employee? Also does not the government get the money from us, the people in the private sector, to pay those salaries? I see it as very unfair and unjust. Also is not California being subsidized by the federal government, that is by us in the rest of the country, due to its fiscal mess? I really don’t understand why my taxes should go to subsidize some state utopia like in California. I also find it really insulting how a college professor like you just dismisses and despises almost have of the population of the US, just because they did not vote for Obama. It is truly sad.

  2. Ronald January 15, 2013 2:51 pm

    Unfortunately, you are missing the point. I am trying to say that the poorer states in education and income are often voting for Republicans who, with the way the party is in 2012-2013, have absolutely no interest in improving the lives of working class and poor whites, as the party represents the wealthy and powerful and extremist right wing groups, and simply use social issues to keep the backing of the white working class, which is exploited by this upper privileged class.

    So these people in the poor states voted against their own economic self interest, because they were appealed to on the basis of prejudice and fear. The fact that the GOP came out against so many groups–women, immigrants, gays, labor–and wants to gut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid—should be enough reason to convince poorer whites that the Republicans are not for them, but it is based on their ignorance of the truth and their fears, that they voted for Republicans. So I do not hate anyone, but am saddened by their lack of understanding as to who is really for them, and who is not.

  3. Juan Domingo Peron January 15, 2013 4:03 pm

    So you know more than the people who happen to be white and are poor? Interesting. I thought it was Republicans who thought the poor who are dependant of government handouts were the ignorant? I thought it was the Republicans who had contempt for the poor? I am confused? Or maybe, the poor who vote for the Democratic party are not ignorant because they vote for those who give them handouts by taking money from people who work and giving them to them. I see, these people are smart because they vote in their self personal interest!! They don’t vote for an ideal or for the general welfare but for thier own personal welfare therefore they are smart. I think I am beginning to understand. It’s like in Argentina, the poor , who always remain poor, always vote for the Peronists because the Peronist always gives them goodies and promise social justice, even though they bankrupt the country every 10-15 yrs! But it doesn’t matter because the Peronist always blame the rich for the crisis or the US or the IMF! It’s brilliant! So now I understand the Democratic Party, they are the Peronist!!!
    Also, I am further confused regarding the Bush tax cuts. I heard all these years that the Bush tax cuts were for the rich, yet I now see that everyone agrees with 98% of the cuts?! In other words they were not for the rich only. I also heard all these years that we should go back to the Clinton era taxes, yet nobody wants to! Well at least 98% of the people don’t want to. Also I don’t understand, as a son of an immigrant family who came to this country legally, respecting all the laws, why is it that if someone opposes illegal immigration they are against immigrants? It really doesn’t make sense to me.

  4. Ronald January 15, 2013 6:19 pm

    To call the Democrats Peronists is ridiculous, and you are comparing a stable nation historically, the United States, with a nation blessed with natural resources, but unstable historically because of the corruption and power of the wealthy (Argentina).

    Our nation has avoided this extreme through proper government intervention and regulation, but the Republicans have managed to scare struggling whites that the minorities are taking over, an ironic thing, since it was Lincoln and the Republicans who originally advocated civil rights, but now have taken up the Confederate Democratic viewpoint of the Civil War, in order to keep themselves from being taxed fairly, therefore making our nation the most stratified nation, as compared to stable democracies around the world.

    The Bush tax cuts heavily favored the rich, with the other 98 percent gaining a small tax cut, and the point is to encourage spending and economic growth by the 98 percent, while returning the wealthy to the Clinton tax rates.

    No one is saying that illegal immigrants are going to go to the front of the line, but the goal is to give them opportunity for advancement over time, as deportation was not advocated even by President Ronald Reagan in 1986.

  5. Juan Domingo Peron January 15, 2013 9:13 pm

    What does the Civil War and the Confederacy have to do with the income tax rate??? Serioulsy. Also I believe no one talked of deportation but of lets say self-deportation. People leaving the country be their own will because it becomes difficult for them to live here. Like it’s been happening these last few years with the stagnant statist economic system that President Obama is trying to impose. Growth and unemployment is so high the these illegal immigrants leave, self-deport. You say, give them the opportunity for advancement. But why? What about the millions who are waiting in line to come here? Don’t they deserve better? Also what will you do the the next 20 million who will come here illegally in the next 2 decades? Do you believe in open borders? Because if you do, then all the discussion on immigration is useless.

  6. Ronald January 15, 2013 10:03 pm

    When you say “Self Deportation”, you sound like losing Presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

    The “stagnant statist economic system” that you say Obama is trying to impose, is something he inherited from George W. Bush, who had managed to destroy the economy in his eight years in office, a deterioration of our economy that began many years earlier than Bush, beginning with Ronald Reagan promoting a growing maldistribution of wealth by tax cuts that favored the wealthy.

    I suppose you believe that John McCain and Sarah Palin would have brought about a better economy, but Obama has dealt with what he was faced with upon his inauguration, and will face the challenges in the future with courage, as he has in his first term.

    We benefit long term from immigration, and the nativism expressed by many is nothing new in America.

  7. Juan Domingo Peron January 15, 2013 10:33 pm

    I actually used the unfortunate phrase of Mitt Romney to make a point, no one , not a single Republican polititian or conservative for that matter, as far as I know, ever called for rounding up an deporting illegal immigrants. But rather to enforce the laws, and don’t make it easy for people who have entered here illegally, so eventually they make the decision to leave, just like they are doing now, due to the economic disaster, and to discourage future illegal immigrants not to come.
    Now if the economy was so terribly bad and deteriorating since Reagan, how is it that millions all over the world voted with their feet and decided to come here and make a living?
    Finally, of course we benefit from long term immigration, but shouldn’t that be legal immigration? Should not we , as a society, have a right to say , who we wish to come join us in our country? Or should the decision be left to foreigners, that decide to come whenever they want and violate our immigration laws? I think that is the question.

  8. Ronald January 15, 2013 11:06 pm

    But my point is that you cannot blame Obama for everything wrong economically, as the economic situation was the worst since 1929-1932 when he became President, and to believe that, somehow, magically, John McCain would have been so much better, is pure speculation. And to believe that Mitt Romney had a magic potion is silly.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.