Party of the rich

Further to Krugman's thesis, I took a look at the poorest states and noticed that nine out of ten of them are predominantly Republican (basing my judgment on party affiliation using this interesting article on Wikipedia).  Here is the list:

Here is the rich list.  The three Republican states have small populations and resource-based economies, the Democrat states are much more populous and economically diverse:

For the full country the mean and median GDP/capita for a Republican state is 51,000. Democrat states are 60,000.  Deleting some rich states list New York and California from the overall list doesn't change the conclusion much.

It's also true that support for Democrats virtually collapsed in some states during and after the financial crisis and recession:

Seems kind of funny after all those "The Republican Party is Demographically Doomed" articles of a few years ago.  A hundred years from now historians looking at this table will be thinking about economics, not demographics.

No one asked, but here is The Other Fronts' advice to the Democrats:

Recognize you are are a party of the rich.  Silicon Valley, Wall Street, the Chicago Board of Trade, the Pacific Northwest technology region, are all under Democratic control.  These states may have some progressive tendencies, but like the rest of America they are governed by the rich for the rich.  The public schools stink.  Homelessness is pervasive (and rising in California).  If Democrats want to be more competitive, they need to think about actually delivering good government where they have control.  If this is what a rich Democrat state looks like, what do you have to offer Wyoming?

• Clean up San Francisco’s streets, tourist industry pleads (link)

And maybe visit the rest of America once in a while, and stop calling it "Flyover Land"?