guapo

If you don't like the hand that feeds you, and you know it's going to feed you regardless, why not bite it once in a while

The problem I have with this, is that, as I already stated, there's a general ignorance amongst the electorate of the subsidized states that they are being subsidized. Its not that they are "knowingly biting the hand that feed them" without fear of repercussion.
They don't have the first clue that they are being fed by the hand to start with.....

rickyp wrote:there's a general ignorance amongst the electorate of the subsidized states that they are being subsidized. Its not that they are "knowingly biting the hand that feed them" without fear of repercussion.
They don't have the first clue that they are being fed by the hand to start with.....

Do you have proof of this or are you just assuming that dum R'buplikn hiks doesn't knows any betters?

I think it's a supposition, but having seen the extent to which Alabama and Louisiana are effective recipients of Federal subsidy (comparison of taxes raised with taxes spent), compared to the reported levels of opposition to the extent of the Federal deficit in those states, I can only suppose that there is ignorance* or cognitive dissonance at play.

*that ignorance is not the same as stupidity. It may be wilful, but chances are it's just that people aren't really told.

archduke

Do you have proof of this or are you just assuming that dum R'buplikn hiks doesn't knows any betters?

Here's what I said.

My guess is that very few Alabamans possess that knowledge. But thats only based on the recent polling that demonstrated some of the disinformation held by the populace. (see Obama muslim...)

I was not limiting this lack of knowledge to republicans... I just figure if a large percentage of the populace of Alabama still beleives Obama is Muslim than I gotta figure the majority don't know something as esoteric as the extent to which the state benefits from federal taxes paid by Americans from other states... Is that really such a stretch to conclude ?
If I could find a poll on this specific knowledge I'd quote it..

rickyp wrote: Is that really such a stretch to conclude ?

I think it is a bit of a stretch. But then I don't know either.

Well, with Santorum out, who does the media cover? Do they ignore the GOP race now altogether? Or is Newt suddenly a story again?

Newt is a story until the next primary or so, and then depending on what he does.

Are any of them still a story ? The interminably long process has bored the pants off of me long since. I'm not American of course, but I suspect it just be the same for most voters too.

The process is boring, and the end result is now pretty inevitable.

But Gingrich and his massive ego are something the media won't ignore for now.

The focus is now the Presidential election.
Gingrich has been a side show for quite a while. He's not paying all his campaign bills now .... He has neither the credibility nor the means to stop Romney from accruing the delegates required.

Only time and primaries in Texas and California will tell

Gingrich is polling in the teens in both of these states... with no money and no organization how is he supposed to build on that? Santorums suppport will not flow to him as a matter of course.

Perhaps Guapo is thinking of a different candidate storming through in those two states?

Jeff as long said Dr. Paul was going to win the California Republican Primary.

Ignoring the polls that show Paul running fourth in California? ALL the polls.
Running behind Gingrich?
I guess reality bites.