Secession?
Okay, so nobody with half a brain is suggesting it, just
Lawrence O'Donnell on the McLaughlin Group:
MR. O'DONNELL: No, this mandate talk is ridiculous. And Tony just loosely used the word "everybody" -- (chuckles) -- which is very funny in a county where 49 percent said we've had this guy for four years and we don't want him for another minute. That's 49 percent. He has strength through the Republican Senate. That pickup in the Senate is very, very important. That's where all the strength's going to come from.
But he's -- the government's bankrupt. It can't do anything he's been talking about. He had a Social Security commission recommend options back when there was a gigantic surplus. None of their work is relevant to this deficit situation. But the big problem the country now has, which is going to produce a serious discussion of secession over the next 20 years, is that the segment of the country that pays for the federal government is now being governed by the people who don't pay for the federal government.
MR. BLANKLEY: Did you say secession?
MR. BUCHANAN: (Laughs.)
MR. O'DONNELL: Yes, yes.
MR. BLANKLEY: Are you calling for civil war?
MR. O'DONNELL: Ninety -- not war; you can secede without firing a shot.
MR. BLANKLEY: Not if you have a Lincoln in the White House.
MR. O'DONNELL: Ninety percent of the red states are welfare client states of the federal government. They collect more from the federal government than they send in. New York and California, Connecticut, the states that are blue are all the states that are paying for the bulk of everything this government does, from the ward of Social Security to everything else, and the people in those states don't like what this government is doing.
It is a symptom perhaps of how enraged the Democrats are that O'Donnell would suggest that there is something wrong with folks who don't pay taxes on a net basis voting. Of course, O'Donnell would never say that about individuals, but when it comes to states, he's happy to make the argument.
Here are MSNBC's
exit polling data on various income levels. The first number is the income level, the second is the % of the persons polled with that household income, the third is Kerry's percentage of the vote from that income group, and the fourth is Bush's percentage.
Under $15,000 8 63 36
$15,000-$29,999 15 57 42
$30,000-$49,999 22 50 49
$50,000-$74,999 23 43 56
$75,000-$99,999 14 45 55
$100,000-$149,999 11 42 57
$150,000-$199,999 4 42 58
$200,000 or more 3 35 63
As you can see, as the income rises, the percentage of voters casting their ballots for Kerry declines. The correlation isn't perfect--for some reason those making $75,000-$100,000 were more inclined to vote for Kerry than those making $50,000-$75,000--but Kerry did not win either group; in fact he got trounced rather handily. If we assume that those making $50,000 and up pay the vast majority of taxes in this country, then it is pretty obvious that they are also heavily Republican.
This is not really controversial; in their saner moments, the Democrats like to characterize themselves as the party representing the poor and the working class. It's just that O'Donnell and the rest of the Democrats are not sane right now.
