I will again, post this question, (and for the less mentally dexterous, substitute conservative for republican.)
Short answer; “a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.” (Paul Simon, “The Boxer”)
Long answer, paraphrased excerpts from an article in Forbes.
A common analytical error is the “post hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy. (Meaning, "after this, therefore because of this.”) For example, chronic federal deficits became chronic in the 1960s. What changed in America at that time? Alaska and Hawaii were added to the union in 1959 and 1960, respectively; therefore, the erroneous assertion to follow is that the US need only expel those two states from the Union to solve their deficit spending problem. Absurd, right?
Similarly, you can’t facilely assume that the lower per capita incomes in the 10 poorest states were caused by Republican policies.
Another common mistake in economic analysis, seen often, for example, in the (irrational) rationale that liberals use when resisting cuts in marginal tax rates, is to adopt a static rather than dynamic view—to see life and economic conditions in terms of snapshots rather than as a motion picture. In the politically motivated attempt to blame Republicans for the lower incomes in the 10 poorest states, Democrats have taken one snapshot—of the census’ income statistics—and combined it with another snapshot—of current political leanings—to create the impression that Republican policies make America poorer.
The more important factor is not the economic ranking of states at a point in time, but the overall trends. An important article by John Merline compared the economic performance of blue states and red states during the presidency of Barack Obama. The trend of economic indicators clearly favours Republican states. Democratic states have experienced lower growth in both jobs and income in the last few years. Home prices have fallen further in Democratic states, and their unemployment rates are higher. In other words, a dynamic economic analysis of the states casts a far more favourable light on Republican states than static analysis. Since real life is dynamic, not static, Republicans can make the stronger case about which party is best suited to lead the way to greater prosperity.
Here in Ontario the Liberals were able to win the election through misdirection, fear mongering (like your photo) and hollow promises. All illusory and circumstantial.
The Conservative's case is solid and substantial. The chickens will come home to roost starting with the budget.
