Thursday: I believe Dr. Isis would call this FWDAOTI

I saw that I had a referral link from some crazy right wing blog that I mocked before the election.  I did a quick look at what he'd posted since, and came across this post.  The quote that made me stop and think was: "Thankfully, it’s not the only one, and red states are still outperforming blue states by a good measure. A narrow Obama victory can’t change that."  That didn't seem right to me.  Are red states actually outperforming blue states?

So, search one resulted in the fact we have a Bureau of Economic Analysis that comes with our very own Department of Commerce.  Thank you, Big Government, for automatically accumulating the very statistics I'm looking for for me!

Search two: election results, so we can see who really is a red state and a blue state.

Compile that list, and then decide how we're going to define "outperforming."  My initial thought is that this is probably best represented by the growth in GDP by those states.  If group A is outperforming group B, then it must be growing faster than group B.  That led me to this table:


#       Obama wins                      Romney wins                     
#year   ave     median  sum(O)          ave     median  sum(R)          O/(R+O)  R/(R+O)   
2008    331759  242141  8.62573e+06     175622  119826  4.39056e+06     0.662687 0.337313 
2009    318763  232894  8.28783e+06     169492  110779  4.23729e+06     0.661697 0.338303
2010    327857  242022  8.52427e+06     175739  112759  4.39348e+06     0.659888 0.340112
2011    332332  244912  8.64062e+06     178714  113367  4.46785e+06     0.659163 0.340837

For each year in the BEA data, calculate the statistics for each group's GDP.  I chose average, median, and sum, with the final decision that the sum is probably the best statistic to use.  If you want to know about the growth of a group, then large changes in one element of that group need to be represented in this as well.  The sum does that, making it a decent enough statistic.

Next, if you normalize the sums as a fraction of the total GDP (the national GDP, since we're not actually two groups), then if one group gains in that fraction over the time range, then it is in fact overperforming the other.  The last two columns show these fractions, and lo and behold, crazy internet guy was right.  The GDP growth in Romney voting red states is outperforming the growth in Obama voting blue states.

One slight glitch in this whole calculation is that that fraction also tells you that the 25+1 blue states (Washington, DC is included in the calculation) account for roughly 2/3s of the economy, or twice that of the 25 red states.  So although the red states are overperforming, at the current rate, it will take until 2140(ish) to achieve parity.

I know where I'd rather live, I guess.

"Slow loris wants popcorn. Thank you for popcorn, Creature From Beyond This Fork."

• Red panda. Sleepy red panda. Sleepy red panda with tongue sticking out.
• He should have just said, "Fuck everybody.  I'm still rich, you still have to work for a living. Fuck you."  That's clearly what he was thinking.  What a jackass.
• Pikachu!