Comments Related To: February Pundit honors go to new voice from Maryland, defending champ from Florida

I must enter my protest of the award to itobin for her article on poverty rates in "red" states. Her whole premise is false, and she used a map with red and blue colors on it that were not meant to represent the political red and blue states as the term is generally used.

The COLORS on the map start with dark blue for the LOWEST RATES OF POVERTY and progress through neutral then to red/dark red for THE HIGHEST RATES OF POVERTY. The color are for the RATES OF POVERTY, not which states voted red or blue politically. If the artist had decided to use white for lowest poverty to yellow for middle poverty to green for highest poverty, then the duplicity would be easy to see.

I note that AllVoices overall has a left-leaning slant from both the contributors and many commenters. I do agree that AllVoices does publish centrist-to-right leaning articles, so I am not accusing the site of political bias. But I do find it interesting that someone who wrote such a blatantly misleading article would be awarded the prize.

And no, I didn't submit an article, so this is not sour grapes that I didn't win. I'd just like more vetting of the facts.

Cyberiante, your criticisms aren't valid in this particular instance.

The map's color-coded states were not the point of the story. The map was merely a visual aid, and it does not contradict anything in the story. The facts presented in the story are solid and stand on their own. Punditry is about expressing one's opinions based on facts and the available data, and itobin did exactly that in her winning article.

Most people with any political knowledge of the US (which states vote blue and which red) can figure out the coalition between poverty level and voters support for Republicans or Democrats - it's obvious. Any I think anyone reading the figures would immediately realize that the color coding is based solely on poverty rates (regardless of what color's are used). I think itobin53 has it right. You just don't like seeing the obvious correlations.

If that is true, then why is CA - a politically blue state - showing with a high poverty rate (colored red/orange)? And that is just one of many examples that can be culled from this map.

Is it really the colors on the map you didn't like? Or is it the DATA that shows how poorly conservative policies work when they are actually put into practice?

The link at the bottom of the article leads to the source of the map. Have at it.

I love it. I make a valid point that you purposely misled your readers by using a map that implies "red state-blue state" when it doesn't and when I point it out, your response is that my disagreement is based on not liking the colors.

Thus, your reaction is not factual but is ad hominem, in that it is my fault for not liking the colors and you purposely deflect from addressing my point that you intentionally misled your readers by finding a map that you used wrongly to prove a point you had already concluded.

"poverty" means "poor", like in low income, nothing to eat. It does not directly correlate to education, healthcare or other measures. I live in the South and know plenty of people who did not complete high school, or did just barely, who are quite wealthy - farmers, plumbing company owners, etc. It is personal effort and gumption that plays a big role in how anyone turns out in life.

What makes people poor is our poor education system run by progressives who spend their time telling minorities that "the man" is putting you down, and telling them that without liberal largesse, they can't make it in life. So look what we get.

So spin it like you want, all I can say is there is a reason Detroit is a hell-hole, Chicago has more gun deaths daily than our troops have in Afghanistan, and people are fleeing the liberal paradises by the bus load.

And I stick to my original point that you purposely misled your readers with a map that DOES NOT show what you were talking about, and your only answer is - "well, go look at the DATA" that is not in your article.

Sad - but expected.

So your saying most people don't know which states usually vote with which parties? Or that that should have been indicated on the map in some way as well as the indicator of poverty level? Would you have been satisfied if the map showed which states went for Romney and which states went for Obama, or maybe how many House members from each party in each state? If that is what would make this map more clear than so be it. But the color range used in the map could be any set of colors (which colors they are is irrelevant. It is only you who are attributing a motive of deception to the map maker. Personally, I think you are paranoid, so this is the last message I will answer from you. I used to work with paranoid personalities for money. I'm retired now so I can be picky.

So you're saying most people don't know which states usually vote with which parties? Or that the political majority of each state should have been indicated on the map in some way as well as the indicator of poverty level? Would you have been satisfied if the map showed which states went for Romney and which states went for Obama, or maybe how many House members from each party were elected in each state? If that is what would make this map more clear than so be it. But the color range used in the map could be any set of colors (which colors they are is irrelevant. It is only you who are attributing a motive of deception to the map maker. Personally, I think you are paranoid, so this is the last message I will answer from you. I used to work with paranoid personalities professionally (for money). I'm retired now, so I can be picky.

dbmeyers - liberalism is a mental disorder and you keep proving it by your nonsensical (I didn't say "nonsense") comment above that isn't even coherent. Let me speak slowly and see if you can understand.

Your statements about color usage, etc, are EXACTLY right. If the map had been colored as to red-blue from the last election then the percentages of poverty numbers inserted, I would be fine. But in that case, itobin could not have used that map because it would not have supported her view.

In her article, all the states with high poverty are colored red (happens to be the color selected and is not used to represent how the state voted). She then redefines that "red" on the map (used to means higher poverty rate) to be the same as "red" meaning the state voted Republican. Not the same use of "red" by any stretch. Thus her conclusion about poverty is not supported by the map.

Your statement that "the color range used . . .could be any set" and "which colors used are irrelevant" is exactly right, EXCEPT itobin USED those irrelevant colors to prove her erroneous assumption. So you are correct, but your liberalism causes you not to see that.

itobin used a map that uses color to show levels of poverty. This is not the same as red-blue state politics. But she wrote her article using the map as support of her position that red-blue politics was a main causal factor, which is a fallacy.

Using HER map, CA, OR, NV, IL, MI, OH, NY and FL all show high poverty levels, yet they voted blue in the last election. And UT, ND, SD, NE, WY, KS and MO have lower poverty levels, yet they voted red in the last election. Therefore her premise - that red states have higher poverty levels because they are run by Republicans is FALSE.

There are many reasons for poverty levels in states. And I find it interesting that she is implying that because a state has a better social net, that makes poverty lower. NO. It just means more poor people are receiving government benefits. They are STILL poor. So Democrats giving things to people does NOT cure poverty, (actually makes it worse and does not cure it) but only ameliorates the short term pain of that poverty. But then again, it buys votes!

That is all I'm trying to say. And I hold to my original statement that a misleading map was used to support this FALSE assumption.

Again, I find it interesting that your main response to me is to call me paranoid (an ad hominem attack) - the typical answer when a progressive can't respond with facts is to attack the person. Instead, please attack my POV. Even if I were crazy as a loon, my statement needs to be proved false, not my mental state.

The map was SUPPOSED to show poverty levels. It was NOT and election map - never said it was. And it is not 'my' map.

Calling "liberalism is a mental disorder" is typical of fundamentalists who believe they are entitled to their own facts. That didn't work for MItt Romney, despite his efforts to the contrary.

One thing I have learned writing politics is that many right-wing ideologues are rigid in their views and rarely let facts get in the way. Instead, they tend to create distractions or simply deny the data. Cases in point: Romney poll numbers were wrong, Karl Rove's on-air rant over Ohio, Jeep CEO asks Romney to stop lying about closing factories, the earth is only 9,000 years old, bla bla bla.

Making up excuses to deny the facts is at the heart of what's wrong with today's conservative movement.

Again, the story was about poverty in 'red' states - not election results. The map - which is NOT "MINE" is accurate and appropriate for the content. Anyone who wants to create an alternate reality about the map is free to do so in their own mind. But that will not change the facts.

All I can say, congrats to the winners. I'm an outsider so I don't know anything about US political matter. Congrats again, well done and don't stop writing nice intellectual topics.

Congrats Maryann... excellent piece of writing as always...