You gotta love the irony of tolerant, open minded liberals calling those who disagree with them, 'ignorant' or stupid. Are the Democrats the party of the wealthy? That would seem to be the case, were your analysis of the numbers correct. But as they say, statistics don't lie, statisticians do. So, let's look at the numbers a little more critically, okay.
Firstly, what is a red state and what is a blue state? Looking at a map, the states appear to show large red areas and large blue areas. But some of those states are red or blue by ridiculously low margins, Florida and Ohio, for example, statistically insignificant. If we zoom down to the county level, the nice, neat map becomes a crazy quilt, with all states having red, blue counties scattered throughout. Now, are you really arguing that the blue states have higher incomes because of blue counties, or do they have higher incomes in spite of them. The worst living conditions in the country are among the underclass in our large city slums, many in blue states. Their government of choice, Democrats, and has been for years.
Again, are you really arguing that the Democrats are the party of the rich? It makes as much sense taking the data in your newspaper article and of the underlying study, to say that the wealthy vote Democratic and the poor vote Republican, as to say that blue states are subsidizing red states. Your data show no such thing. I gave you some clear examples, such as someone who works in New York and the blue state gets credit for their working income and net tax gain, they then retire on social security to a red state, which gets credit with their lower income and net tax loss.
