I have seen this kind of post before. The theme: blue states have worse economies than red states. The usual culprits are trotted out; high taxation, burdensome regulations and closet-Marxist liberals.

A few examples to get us warmed up. First from The View from Alexandria

Red states continue to experience healthy economic growth, while blue states are in recession. 

But the people in the blue states aren’t blaming their own Democratic leaders for the high taxes, crippling regulations, and generous government spending that hold their economies back.

full post.

Next; Pajamas Media.

If you’re looking for troubling times, visit the blue states. You’ll find plenty.

Looking for high unemployment?

  • First, go to California (Kerry by 10% in 2004, Democrat-dominated legislature, and might-as-well-be-Democratic governor). Its seasonally adjusted August unemployment rate was 7.3%, up from just 5.4% a year ago.
  • Then go east to Michigan, where things have gone from bad to really bad during Democrat Jennifer Granholm’s tenure. Wolverine State July unemployment was 8.5%.
  • Move on to Ohio, which went from pseudo-red under Bob Taft to blue in 2006, with the election of a Democratic governor, who has been aided and abetted by a mostly complacent GOP legislature. July unemployment: 7.2%.

 So if there is indeed a recession taking place, blame it on the blue states and blue regions, with their high-tax, high-regulation, high-giveaway environments.

Well as much as I like just taking things at face value, I thought I’d throw some actual analysis at the problem and see what I found out.

A few notes on my methods.

People are way too simple when it comes to a Red vs. Blue states. Tom Blumer over at Pajamas Media used a mix of 2004 election results, governor’s offices and state legislature to determine whether a state is red or blue.

 I used four data points to determine if a state was red, blue or split. My four data points; 2004 Presidential Election results, current governor,  current state senate & current state house. If a state had three or more blue data points, I designated them blue. If they had  two and two, I called them split and so on.

A few other assumptions:

I designated Washington D.C. a state. I used the mayor and city council to determine the red/blue status.

Nebraska has a unicameral legislature. It didn’t really matter because the other 3 data points were red.

I compared unemployment for July 2008. My source was the Federal government’s official BLS numbers.

Here’s what I came up with.

1) 20 states had a July unemployment rate that was higher than the national average.

2) Of those states, eight were red, eight were blue, and four were split.

So yes, I think I have to agree. There is a clear correlation between party affiliation and unemployment. (That’s sarcasm for you kids at home).

My analysis:

State

July 08  Rate

Deviation from Nat’l Average (5.7%)

2004  Election

Current Governor

State Senate

State House

Status

Michigan

8.5%

2.8%

BLUE

BLUE

BLUE

RED

BLUE

Mississippi

7.9%

2.2%

RED

RED

BLUE

BLUE

SPLIT

Rhode Island

7.7%

2.0%

BLUE

RED

BLUE

RED

SPLIT

California

7.3%

1.6%

BLUE

RED

BLUE

BLUE

BLUE

Illinois

7.3%

1.6%

BLUE

BLUE

BLUE

BLUE

BLUE

Ohio

7.2%

1.5%

RED

BLUE

RED

RED

RED

South Carolina

7.0%

1.3%

BLUE

RED

RED

RED

RED

Alaska

6.9%

1.2%

RED

RED

RED

RED

RED

Tennessee

6.9%

1.2%

RED

BLUE

BLUE

RED

SPLIT

Delaware

6.7%

1.0%

BLUE

BLUE

RED

BLUE

BLUE

Kentucky

6.7%

1.0%

RED

BLUE

BLUE

RED

SPLIT

Nevada

6.6%

0.9%

RED

RED

BLUE

RED

RED

North Carolina

6.6%

0.9%

RED

BLUE

BLUE

BLUE

BLUE

Missouri

6.4%

0.7%

RED

RED

RED

RED

RED

Indiana

6.3%

0.6%

RED

RED

BLUE

RED

RED

Georgia

6.2%

0.5%

RED

RED

RED

RED

RED

Florida

6.1%

0.4%

RED

RED

RED

RED

RED

Oregon

6.0%

0.3%

BLUE

BLUE

BLUE

BLUE

BLUE

Connecticut

5.8%

0.1%

BLUE

BLUE

BLUE

BLUE

BLUE

Minnesota

5.8%

0.1%

BLUE

RED

BLUE

BLUE

BLUE