If you compare the 2008 election results:
To where Georgia get assistance from the federal government:
You can see that the “liberal” areas of Atlanta, Athens, and for the most part Savannah, tend to not rely on government benefits while the more conservative areas, such as the Southwest and North tend to rely more heavily on Government benefits.
What do you think would happen if you had to accept the policies of the people you vote for? Say all those red areas couldn’t get medicare, medicaid, unemployment etc, if they voted for a Republican. You think that would change the way they vote – if they realized how they voted would directly hit them in their wallets?
I bring all this up to say this – Republicans keep attacking Obama as the “food stamp” president, or for “Obamacare.” But is this really a smart move? If 17.6% of all personal income came from the Government, is it really wise (politically) to attack that? If Republicans want to get rid of food stamps, won’t people who are using food stamps vote against them for their own survival? Will people try to bite the hand that feeds them?
Because let’s face it, the only thing worse than being the “food stamp” president is being the “starvation” president, which is what the Republican presidential candidates will do if they cut unemployment and food stamps like they want.
Follows the same general principle nationwide: blue states get less federal money than red states. Many of the people dependent on federal aid either don’t vote or are being discouraged from voting by ID requirements, or they don’t recognize that its federal aid (“Keep the government’s hands off my Medicare!”) and consider it to be something that they’ve “earned” or are “paying for” through taxes and premiums.