In late June 2018, I started watching this debate and then I saw two videos on youtube about San Francisco: 1) SH*THOLE ALERT: Liberal San Francisco Full of Poop and Needles and 2) San Francisco Zombie like Homeless Mobs leave Pandering Elitist Libs Baffled & Tourists Terrified. Your debate, intelligence squared has no value now, and Gray Davis needs to come back and debate something of value for Intelligence Squared. A new debate is requested. Thank you.

"No serious person would suggest that state fiscal and regulatory policies are the most important factors affecting state economies, or even that they are large enough to swamp other factors when seeking to explain state-by-state differences in economic performance."http://haberqc.com/

On 2015-10-16 17:18:35, james corbett wrote:
Look, I'm a conservative, but you must admit that ALL (except Texas) of those states controlled by Republicans (Legislature and Executive) are on welfare paid for by Democrats. You see, each Red State sends X amount of dollars to Washington in Taxes, but they all get back X+. In the case of Mississippi, they send a dollar and get back almost two dollars. That's "free stuff." I care about welfare, no matter who gets it. Does anybody else?

On 2015-07-31 20:52:40, David R.W. Wadsworth wrote:
Would like to download a list of past, present and future debates. SUGGESTION FOR FUTURE DEBATE: "Legalization of Drugs, Human Relationships, etc". Educate Don't Legislate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On 2015-07-27 16:29:38, Tony wrote:
I was glad to get the opportunity to hear this debate, having missed it the first time around. I personally was struck by some of the things we didn't know then that we do know now and how they might have changed the course of the debate at the time. As one example, there was a point made about how many of those gaining insurance were those who'd had it before but lost it. McArdle made the point that if it was as bad as the 5M feared it would have made Obamacare year 1 almost a wash. One of her opponents said it was "way less". Today we know it was actually a bit more (nearly 6M). Another example actually puzzled me a bit. One of the "against" team ridiculed McArdle for some earlier position (I think he called it "preposterous") that the exchanges might not even be able to open on time. What I don't understand about this is that the debate was supposedly recorded (according to the intro) after January 1, by which time McArdle's supposed prediction that they would not be ready on time had actually come to pass. I also learned something brand new, for which I'm very grateful. I've long been puzzled by the repeated claim that health care costs are down since passage of Obamacare. After all, prior to ACA passage I'd never seen a premium increase higher than a still-too-high 10-12%. Since passage, the minimum annual increase has been over 20%. In 2014 it was about 64%. The opponents of the motion (perhaps unintentionally) worded their claim on this a little differently - they clarified, slightly, that their cost number corresponded with the amount of health care delivered (or consumed), NOT with what was actually paid for that health care. As someone who, thanks to the ACA, is paying more but consuming less health care than ever before, this mirrors my own experience very well - and it is not a good thing.

I wanted to thank the IQ2 staff for re-posting this debate; it was another debate in which a clear majority failed to grow enough to defeat an obvious - and pretty clearly wrong - minority opinion The pleasure of hearing a paid mouthpiece for rentier economic interests like Megan McArdle get "owned" (have her arguments dismantled and destroyed) is immeasurable! At what point does being an accurate prognositcator, as measured by actual track record become a relevant metric for being deemed an expert worth of inclusion as a panelist? Or is it merely that difficult to find anyone serious who is willing to take that position at times? It was particularly delightful to hear, from the vantage point of an additional 18 months, a repeat of Mr. Chait's central point that there is a longstanding theme on the radical right of constant doomsaying of disaster just around the corner. From today's vantage point, it's clear that far from "beyond rescue", the ACA is proving successful at the slow process of restructuring the entire health-care economy in ways that, yes, make it less profitable for the interests of the people represented by Scott Gottlieb (fee-for-service providers) and Megan McArdle (unregulated insurers). Mr. Chait's oft-repeated assertion that the opposition is really grounded in nothing more than not liking the changes rather than liking them but feeling they are failing has proven completely accurate. I hope IQ2 is keeping score, at least in terms of who they invite back. With any luck, neither Ms. McArdle nor the likes of John Eastman and Dan Senor will ever darken the stage again, though, admittedly, it's fun to watch them go down.

On 2015-01-01 17:12:04, bob wrote:
It seems to ignore the disparity in life expectancy which is significant with the exception of Utah people live longest in blue states without exception with the 10 highest life expectancy states being blue and the ten lowest red. It also seems to put little weight on what are significant differences in per capita earnings between blue and red states. If I make 10k more doing a job than I would in SC or TX the few thousand more I pay in state taxes means diddly. Plus it also ignores the benefits those taxes buy which is reflected in the longer life expectancy. Tax dollars in my community are an investment in the community and the pay off is longer life and less poverty. It treats taxes like they go into a black hole. Good luck if you have a child who has a special education need in SC. As to the Union vs right to work from a workers perspective the pay in a union is 15 percent more and they have far better job security. My union dues were 80 dollars a month w/o a pension included. When pensions are included they run higher but pensions double earnings in retirement. Hate unions all you want but it doesn't change the fact they result in higher standards of living both during the working life and retirement and in retirement. My Union job has left me with a pre tax income of 57k a year just form pension and social security. Private sector pensions basically don't exist in the south. I

On 2014-11-29 21:11:36, Did I Tweet That wrote:
i had an issue with the way the proposition was even presented. The arguments should have truly been FOR and AGAINST Red states, instead it being RED vs BLUE. My arguments against would have been about method of death and quality of life. Oil and gas have some of the highest workplace injuries and death, but hey if youmake it out of the boom alive, you might have saved enough to move to a blue state, away from the decay and ruin of the new unregulated boom economy and the unregulated pollution. i,d also have played upon how many of those migrating to those red states were moving for low cost of living, because it certainly is easier to be poor in the red state. And your family has more room to take you in...hence so much charity and communal uneducated god will provide living. YIKES The FOR RED almost instantly made the argument TX vs CA and while CALIFORNIA is an extraordinary place on so many planes of existence, including 8th largest global economy, TEXAS, is extraordinary for a RED state. certainly NOT THE NORM, or even representative of most. both come loaded with conservative parrot political hypnosis... LIBRaLS arE COMING TO GET YOU and CA is the BOGEYMAN ... BOO! "IDIOCRACY" IS UPON US 2006!

On 2014-11-28 19:53:15, Charles Bennett wrote:
This debate seems to be a competition between two sides to see who can pick the most misleading stats. Also, is it just me or is immigration hardly mentioned? BTW, Blue State and staying that way.

@Sarah Please do move to a blue state then. 1) Right to work means you don't have to join a union, not that you're excluded from unions, so all your points about your work environment are moot or lies. 2) Complaining about not receiving something for free is just a dumb argument. You have plenty of bills you need to pay, your medical bills are actually not your highest. For a vast majority of Americans both housing and vehicle costs are higher, vehicle costs are including purchasing, fuel and taxes. You're not asking your employer to pay for your house or car, yet these are much harder on your quality of life to pay for. When looking at what a job offers you need to look at both pay an benefits, add the figures together and that's the total compensation you're getting at that job. If company A pays 100 bucks a year and provides 50 dollars worth of medical care and company B pays 150 bucks a year and provides no medical care, company B is not an evil corporation, they are on the same terms. Forcing companies to pay for specific benefits is really only hurting people, as that means that have to provide those benefits to everyone regardless of if they even want them or not. Really, if you were a rational human being you would want no benefits at all from your company and instead go for full cash, unless they were giving benefits that you specifically wanted and were giving them at a rate higher than they give cash compensation. Also, there are plenty of great companies in Red States, there are also plenty of terrible companies in Blue States. Just because you happen to work for a terrible company is not the state's fault.

On 2014-06-17 21:07:55, Sarah Compton wrote:
The absurd "Right to Work State" just means your employers can treat you like an animal, threaten you with harm (and harm you), cut your pay and hours, take away your vacation time/sick days, hire illegal immigrants, and demand you work for free without fear of going to jail or being fined. I would know, I'm a woman who's barely survived the monstrous dictatorships in a Red State dump known as Texas! Yes, I'm looking to move to a Blue State. Women don't receive prenatal care, no family planning (discussion of contraceptives, proper diet, family schedule, counseling on birth/genetic defects), below average pay in ALL careers, discrimination in hiring (I've been personally asked "So, how many bastards do you have?"). In the state of Texas the number of repeatedly unwanted and unplanned pregnancies is high. We have a higher incidence of children born with birth defects because of this. Raising a unwanted baby with a serious defect is NOT what any woman wants. The GOP is fighting to force their own Sharia laws on women but do nothing to fight the sad demographics of impoverished single mothers. They prefer to attack and blame them for their predicaments while paying for erectile dysfunction medications. In addition to not paying women anything resembling a real wage, offering hostile work environments, no rights for employees I have to laugh at the old MALE touting how great this "fertile" dump is. I'd have to also ask about why he failed to mention the rise in violent crime and fraud. We have a lot of illegal immigrants here and quite frankly I'm sick of fighting identity theft. Many Texans are seeing red at an inactive and hypocritical GOP who gave criminals in state tuition at the cost of US citizens. Maybe it's why the Tea Party is so popular here. Perry, Dewhurst, and Abbott have been lying for so long no one wants a single incumbent to hold office. I refuse to vote for Abbott period. He's the biggest hypocrite looking to stop frivolous lawsuits when he himself made a fortune doing the exact same thing! In fact, I had to leave Texas in order to get a college education! The colleges here rank low on the ROI lists of financial magazines. Most survive on popularity but in reality when students graduate it's not in four years. Good luck finding an employer who will work with college/university students too. I graduated in the recession and am still not able to find work with a computer science degree that pays above $23,000 yearly. Starting a company with student loan debt on poverty wages is not feasible. Here's a pro tip: You'll have to have money to BRIBE people in Texas for your own company! Isn't that nice? No wonder the rich get richer. I'd make more as a hooker which they have a lot of here along with a booming child prostitution trade. Venereal diseases, rape, assault, gun violence, domestic abuse, child abuse/neglect has kept the headlines busy. In fact a month can't go by without a child DYING in the care of CPS agents or an abused child dying after being taken back to a bad home. Texas now has Dengue fever, West Nile Virus, H1N1 (first from across the Mexican border), high MRSA rates, and even a few cases of Malaria! We also have the fun distinction of being home to a large population religious morons who refuse to get vaccinated and then wonder why their child has Scarlet Fever or the Whooping Cough (Pertussis)! Now you get to see idiots with Measles too because shots are for "elitist heathens". Yes, if you can think you're a monster somehow but forcing teenagers to have babies they can't care for is somehow "good". What that foolish old man (and Rick Perry) won't tell you that women don't get medical leave for having babies. You work right after giving birth or risk losing your job due to "disability". Not only that but when it comes to being married you're already black listed for raises because everyone expects you to just have babies and throw away any chance of a career anyway. In fact, every male employer hates dealing with female employees - unless it's a woman he can have an affair with. Red States are for people who enjoy being treated like animals while cults and companies do whatever they want to them without fear of punishment. It's not a coincidence that every woman I know is looking for work NORTH of the Mason-Dixon line! The Blue States actually won, even though they're subsidizing illegal immigrants and throwing away citizenship like yesterday's news.

On 2014-03-31 15:13:53, Peter wrote:
Intelligence Squared should make every effort to recruit a random cross-section of Americans to attend and participate in these shows as voters on the propositions. Expensive, yes, both otherwise the results of the audience polling at the end of the show are extremely misleading. Also misleading are the results of the online polling on this site. In both cases, respondents are self-selected and not representative of the American people. If the expense is too great, then abandon both. Better nothing than to mislead.

On 2014-01-19 02:29:41, Jake L wrote:
I listened to what appears to have been the abridged/edited version. Granted I'm biased, I tried to listen objectively and truthfully thought the opposition to the motion were much more organized. Reading in the comments, here, however, there paints a different picture in the unedited apparently. That said, this was strictly on economic grounds and did not even mention a myriad of other factors, such as culture (open-mindness versus inclusiveness), environmental, and crime-rate (touched a little), etc. Education-wise, I thought there was a no-contest between the two, yielding to the blue state proponents. The best thing the red state proponents had going is that their states are showing improvement in education. But this can be incredibly skewed. No comparisons to other rates of change in other states, and no ultimate comparison in overall rank. It's like a person who chooses to exercise or learn a skill. The biggest change will be in the beginning or when you're behind. When you're at the top of the game, reaching the next plateau is exponentially more difficult. Undeniably, the tech industry is still flourishing and in demand. Going by labor statistics for job-prospects, the money-makers with the highest demand are in computers and engineering. And despite its conflicts with aggregate blue-state beliefs, Wall Street is certainly in New York. So if they're trying to appeal to the claim that at some point in the future, red-states will offer a better life, I find that suspect.

On 2014-01-03 22:51:22, Alex Darr wrote:
The first time I heard this debate I couldn't believe the Red Staters won. It seemed as thought the Blue Staters side had the facts on their side. BUT, after listening to the complete debate, without any cuts, I can see why the Red Staters won. Gray Davis conceded the point on teachers unions by not answering the question. Some questions asked of the debaters didn't make it to the radio cut, which were helpful to the Red Staters.

I agree with a previous comment. They seem to cherry pic stats and make that the basis for arguments. But, I guess that is what a debate s all about. The audience will be the judge of what is relevant. But, you'll have to ask yourself where is the audience from?

On 2013-11-20 23:39:24, Nick Bousquet wrote:
I have to say that this debate was a rare disappointment. It was merely a battle of competing statistics on the economy which as we all know can be skewed. I understand that the panel was filled with economists, but I wish they looked to the cultural narratives of the states in question. For instance, a red state is a great place to live....so long as you are not gay, a racial minority, a woman or a non-christian. The hate crime index, social progression track record and spousal abuse statistics as well as the state laws show this to be the case. On the other side of that same fence, a blue state may not be a great place to live if you value Second Amendment rights or favor increased religious intervention into the government.. These are pieces of the culture, often backed by local legislation that create a massive impact upon the local populous and yet they were not even broached. I was looking for a much more robust picture to be painted by each side and I believe they fell sadly short.

On 2013-11-19 03:05:22, Jason Abelard wrote:
I am surprised that no one mentioned the historical shift of certain states between red and blue policies/leadership. Economically and culturally ascendant states such as Texas and Georgia, were blue states for well over a century following the Civil War. During this era, such states stagnated on economic, political, and social levels. With the help of red policies and governance, these states have transformed themselves into economic, cultural, and political powerhouses.

I quite enjoy listening to these debates, but there is a fundamental issue, it seems to me, with the competition format, which was more glaringly evident in this debate than ever: sandbagging the teams with packed audiences. It was evident from the applause metering during the opening statements. One seriously doubts that any of the supposedly "undecided" were even undecided at all. Neither side was powerfully persuasive or dominant in their arguments (the most laughable arguments were not being able to pick a city or locality and the question of "fertility" which is perhaps better understood as lack of access to reproductive healthcare), but there are never results this lopsided, even with very strong favorable opening percentages. Mr. Moore has made previous appearances and been consistently beaten. How long did Mr. Hewitt promote his upcoming appearance on his radio show? I think this dynamic also occurs when the debates are held at the Skirball Center in liberal-leaning NYC, not just in this debate. Given that in some measure, these debates are noticed by policy and opinion makers, one hopes that something can be done to address this issue.

On 2013-11-09 17:52:43, Logan wrote:
There are shining examples of both red and blue states doing extremely well in the last couple of decades. One thing that has been routinely ignored is that many of the red states that are doing well are states that have economies based upon commodity production such as oil, corn, and beef and were not outrageously hurt by the recession. This isn't necessarily an indicator of the merits of policy but simply reflects the basis of their economies. Furthermore, all red and blue states are not equal. The plains states like Nebraska and North Dakota are radically different than southern states like Mississippi and Alabama in terms of their poverty rate, teen pregnancy rates, and numerous other measurements. Meanwhile, blue leaning states like Minnesota and Wisconsin are very different from states like New York or California. Insofar as available services and access to certain amenities go it is clear that blue states do win out. I grew up in an area of Nebraska where the only governmental presence was the gravel road grader, postal worker, department of roads highway workers, the occasional state patrolman, and three or four county law enforcement officers that served a 700+ square mile area. The only high speed internet we had available on my parent's farm has a download cap of five gigabytes and is practically worthless for anything other than e-mail and casual internet surfing. It is also worth noting that Red states were also more likely to reject the Medicaid expansion than blue states. It is obvious that the Medicaid expansion was primarily a red vs. blue issue. However, I think it is worth noting that access to governmental services and amenities are often more dependent on whether you live in a rural or urban area than your state's political affiliation. Because red states tend to have more rural areas it is rather obvious that governmental services will be less visible statewide than they would be in most blue states. The difference between red states and blue states is more of a matter of preference than anything else. Highly educated and not so educated people can and do make very good livings in both places. The difference between these states is what type of lifestyle you prefer, what type of economy you want to depend on, how you view politics, and the type of people you prefer to interact with on a daily basis. I'm personally choosing to go back to a rural area in a red state after I finish law school because I prefer the opportunity to pursue solitude, know the area, and am sure I can build up a successful career over time if I am remotely competent. This is not for everyone and I know that someone else's decision to move to an urban area in a blue state will not automatically result in a horrible economic death. This debate has been simplified to the point that it is almost not worth going into. If you like to live in New York City and view Chicago as a backwater then you will obviously hate everything about Nebraska or South Dakota. If you grew up in a rural area and find towns of 7,500 people to be too claustrophobic then you will probably hate everything about New York City. Perhaps one political philosophy is significantly better than the other. (I will admit that I lean more to the right.) However, comparing red states to blue states to see which is better is probably not the best approach to the situation. I like my red state. However, I cannot say that simply living in a red state gives you a better future than you would find in a blue one.

On 2013-11-06 20:45:29, Spinoza wrote:
Most of this debate focused on financial concerns. A little was mentioned about health outcomes and education. But the panel in favor of the motion argued mostly about employment growth. The question regarding employment should have been: are people happier when they work for pittance or when they work for a living wage? People find less trouble when they are working but are not happier working and still not able to afford simple necessities or raising a child. The other statistics that were clearly overlooked by the panel arguing against the motion concern people's attitudes about life in those states. For example, the states that still allow housing discrimination against gays are almost all red states (http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housing/2013/04/states-where-its-still-legal-discriminate-against-gays-single-women-and-poor-housing/5273/); the state with the highest incidence of workplace discrimination is Texas by far according to the EEOC; the states demonstrating the most race discrimination are incontrovertibly red states with Mississippi, Alabama, and Texas leading the charge. The states that provide the least protections for workers are clearly red states (WI is and interesting case study - slowly transitioning into a right-to-work state and is indicative of the restriction on workers' rights). My point: there's far more to think about when addressing our futures than just where you might be able to find a job or having a job. Another non-debated topic can be found in Europe. The happiest people live in the Scandinavian countries and in Europe - in countries with vast social programs, high taxes, better equality, and in which everyone has health care coverage. Just the opposite of the red states where the mantra is less taxes and a pull-yourself-up-by-your-own-bootstraps mentality. And then the biggest under debated issue has to be health outcomes. The red states are a total mess in comparison. Life expectancy is lower, there's less access to health care services for women, infant mortality rates are higher, obesity levels are off the charts, and so on. I mean would any parent regardless of their political persuasion tell their son or daughter, if that said parent really loved that child, to live in Mississippi instead of Vermont, or Alabama instead of Oregon. I don't think so.

On 2013-11-05 21:36:55, Kevin D wrote:
When I heard where this debate took place (very red county and town in California), and then heard every question from the audience coming from a fairly strident right-wing bent, I pretty much knew what the outcome would be. (I lived in Utah until a couple of years ago. One of the people in the audience who posed a question was Paul Mero, of the uber-right Sutherland Institute in Utah. Funny that he was at this debate in California. Anyway, even in super-red Utah, Mero is looked upon as a kook.) I'm sure Intelligence Squared US can't always choose where their debates are held. It's a shame that an audience, no matter where they stand, seem to work to sway an outcome rather than truly letting the debate win or lose. We used to do this all the time in school. I often would state that I still didn't find one team on the right side but that they certainly won the debate. The Blue State team CLEARLY won this debate.

On 2013-11-05 19:06:16, Troy wrote:
You can't get any more red than North Dakota. The time in between the oil boom of the 80's and the present one is what you really need to look at. Low unemployment because everyone worked two jobs to make ends meet. Most of the smarter promising youth outmigrated to blue states which offered better everything. Without todays oil boom in ND it would be the poorest example of success for a red state. I know, I'm from there, lived there, and now live in MN where I am now fairly compensated for my skills, and my skills have higher demand. I will gladly pay twice in taxes for 30% more pay. If you think a no income tax red state is ideal then head on over to South Dakota, yea I lived there too. Oh and good luck with that.

On 2013-11-04 06:35:21, Julie wrote:
As a woman, the argument that Red states are better because they are more 'fertile' is absolutely ridiculous. Leave it a man to make such a crackpot contention. What, like there's something in the air or water that makes women likely to have children in Red states than Blue states? Nope, I don't think so. That Red states have higher birth rates is a product of policy and education. Red states overwhelmingly restrict access to family planning services. These states have aggressively been trying to defund Planned Parenthood (which is where many women go for affordable birth control – I went there for years), and have steamrolled though trap laws designed to close clinics that provide abortion. Which disproportionately affect low-income women, as they don’t have the resources to travel for the services they need. And of course no one mentioned that Red states have the highest teen birth rates in the country, and Blue the lowest. If we are comparing Texas and California, Texas is like #5 for teen births, and their rate is almost twice the rate of California. Texas also leads the nation in the teen re-birth rate. Why? Abstinence-only sex education policies, that why. And the data show that teens that get an abstinence-only education have a statistically higher birth rate than those that get a real sex education program. Just look at Mississippi, which does not require sex-ed, and when they do, its abstinence-only, vs New Hampshire, which has a rigorous sex-ed program. Higher and lowest teen birth rates in country respectively. Lastly, a woman’s educational level is the BEST predictor of how many children she will have. And the data show a direct relationship between years of education and birth rates, with the highest birthrates from women with the lowest level of education. Ever looked at a state-by-state comparison of the percentage of the population at least a bachelor’s degree? The states with the higher percentage of college graduates are overwhelmingly Blue, and the states with the fewest are overwhelmingly Red. Simply put, fewer educated women mean more babies. Tie this back into teen births and restricted access to family planning, and it’s easy to extrapolate that many teen moms may have otherwise gone to college had they not had a child. So Red states are better because they are having more babies? Absolutely not.

On 2013-11-01 16:21:39, Cranky_Yankee wrote:
I'm amazed that no one called out Hugh Hewitt on his statements in support of the proposition. Hewitt argues that Red states are better because housing is cheaper-well, folks, you get what you pay for. If housing is cheaper it's usually because of one of two things, either there's a glut of housing on the market, or the housing stop is cheap to begin with; can you say mobile home? There's nothing wrong with mobile homes, per se, but they are considerably cheaper than stick built custom homes. I live in what's considered a blue state and our housing stock is expensive due in large part from out of state wealthy buying up prime property, including our working waterfront, and pushing the locals out. Hewitt then goes on to extol the fertility rate in Red states...this should have elicited roars of laughter from everyone in the studio but nary a titter. Nothing like living in Texas where the age of consent is 14, yes, FOURTEEN. Nothing like a bunch of unplanned pregnancies and families overpopulating the planet and depleting resources. Yeah, that's something to brag about. Hewitt claims that volunteerism is spreading across Red states and that's an indication of "religiosity." I counter that the NEED for more charity in Red states, because of the expansion of the working poor (also known as right-to-work-for-less) is driving the need for charity. And where is most of that charity coming from? The decidedly BLUE communities of Austin, Dallas, and Houston. Seriously, folks, I don't see how anyone, except someone who exploits the regressive policies of Red state, would want to live in a Red state. By the way, remember when this country's biggest enemies were the red's? Well, they still are.

On 2013-11-01 05:42:20, Max Coscia wrote:
I like that the only state in the debate that gets presented in favor of the motion is Texas. Every other red state has little to offer in terms of education, median income, etc. Aside from this one state that I grew up in, which is most rapidly becoming blue (Austin, immigration, etc.), there is nearly nothing to recommend living in a red state.

On 2013-10-31 18:06:30, Catherine DiPietro wrote:
The subject of water didn't come up which is sad. The blue stars have water ( mostly) while red states don't. Hard to have a future without water.

On 2013-10-24 23:47:41, Bryan wrote:
Say what you want about red states, but I moved my family from the California cesspool to Idaho solely for quality of life improvement. It's amazing how different people are (in a VERY good way) a mere 700 miles away from our old house. Small town feel with larger town amenities, great weather, outdoor activities for everyone, clean air, virtually no crime, etc, etc, etc. Jobs are definitely not as plentiful, but that's expected in a smaller community. There's absolutely no way I'm ever going back to California, but I wouldn't rule out all blue states. WA and OR are nice, we just liked Idaho much more.

Not well argued for the most part. Both of those For made weak points generally whittled down to less gov't is better, therefore red states are better. Davis meandered a great deal, but his partner did an excellent job. The results were weirdly skewed, but in general the audience demographics probably correspond well with those who would see an improvement in their standard of living in a red state (upper-middle to upper class, college educated, and white). In general though, I think the population self sorting is going to be a boon for California (where I live). Let the red states take all of our Republicans, we seem to do better the less we have.

On 2013-10-23 23:25:49, Melanie wrote:
The red state side did do an excellent job making the red states sound good. They certainly had a lot of powerful rhetoric. As a human who recently moved from California to Tennessee and has spent a lot of time (recently, and for the first time) in red states like Alabama and Missouri, I can say that the work and cultural opportunities are virtually non-existent in much of "fly-over" country. Getting a good job and decent school/healthcare is infinitely easier on the coasts. The future is on the coasts. Young educated people are fleeing the middle of the country in droves.

On 2013-10-23 22:13:59, Tom P wrote:
Different debaters arguing on the against side could have won this debate easily. The debaters for the motion were much more vigorous and motivated to win compared to the attitudes of the people arguing against the motion. All four people are not seeing the forrest for the trees; where are the most people wanting to live, Georgie or New York? Blue states have much better universities and colleges, much better opportunities for work, hence why everyone wants to live there. I would concede that one should grow up and make a living in a blue state and then retire in a red state such as Florida or Texas.

On 2013-10-23 20:59:09, Vern Goehring wrote:
Gray Davis is the best you can do? He was recalled from office after 5 years and 2 elections! He's hardly a person who can make an effective case for blue states. Many Dems abandoned him because he was unable to make a case for what he believed in or even if he believed in anything.

Another voting oddity: As of yesterday(Oct 21), the online voting that sits beside the audience voting counted roughly ~40 'for' and ~140 votes 'against.' As of today, the voting counts 145 'for' and 163 'against'.

Jacob Wiencek: If it was in New York, that would tend to support my notion that the results weren't representative of a typical audience, or the argument quality. The initial vote was over 50%(!!) conservative-favoring. That alone is an indicator that something's weird. Meanwhile, I've noticed that the majority of the IQ^2 Debate live audience tends to lean slightly liberal on average. Also, there are a few other debates that IQ^2 has hosted that frame a debate separated primarily along party lines, and most of those tended to be split by thirds - relatively equal parts liberal, conservative, and undecided. Which is a pretty reasonable cross-section of the American political heart, as far as I've seen. None of that squares with '73% For' results we just saw. Particularly since the Against side did not fall on their face - They were quite compelling, with clearly supportive data and counterpoints, no matter who you ultimately agree with.

On 2013-10-22 00:45:35, Mike_K wrote:
""Red States" like Texas and Georgia and Idaho all receive more support from the Federal Government then they pay in taxes." Does this include military bases which are heavily in red states?

On 2013-10-21 19:38:28, jbenson2 wrote:
Easy answer to who won the debate. Just look at the out-of-control chaos in California, New York and Massachusetts.

On 2013-10-21 15:16:24, Jacob Wiencek wrote:
I don't see how the results were terribly skewed. If I remember correct this debate was held in New York City which is the heart of Democratic Party/Blue State support. I would argue that the people believed that the arguments presented by the Red State-ers were better. Honestly I thought the Red State side presented a better, easier to follow case. However I applaud both sides for openly recognizing the virtues of the other. It was a far more civil debate than I expected.

A good, robust debate with lots of good points and data on both sides. One of the more enjoyable. I wasn't a fan of Gray Davis' meandering "In office, I did this" and "When I was a kid" stories. But his partner Michael Lind really shined. Excellent and relevant data. Over the years, I've watched roughly 50 of these wonderful debates(I just now counted). I've gotten used to their ebb and flow, and what tends to allow one side win or lose the voting phase. Now, I did not see an overwhelmingly superior argument by either side this debate - No one clearly won. But the voting results shown are terribly skewed and unnatural. I'm disappointed that the natural results were avoided. I call foul. I don't know on who, or how, but this is not an organic result.

On 2013-10-18 23:50:42, boris wrote:
Who would have expected the types of responses seen here to a Red State / Prey State debate ? lol The left never misses the opportunity to trot out their doctored statistics and tired marxist slogans. Without hate, greed, race, arrogance and envy, what are you? Live well in your socialist , godless, racially divided, crime ridden Cities my friends and please stop migrating to our havens of prosperity and tranquility. Please keep your "San Francisco values" "and your "rich vs. poor " dogma in your Blue States..

On 2013-10-18 18:24:32, MGC wrote:
I think this is something of an unfortunate debate as each side ends up accusing the other of lacking virtue, rather than working together to address the challenges we have. I don't think either side is for promoting poverty, greed, corruption, laziness and irresponsibility. Unfortunately, this kind of debate focuses on fault and lack of virtue, rather than an honest assessment of our challenges and the values we actually share. Cards on the table--I'm in a blue state and happy about it. I will also say that as a married mother of two who very much values her family, I'm tired of hearing that I lack family values because I tend to vote democratic. I also don't want to include my friends who vote Republican ( I have a couple) of callous indifference to the poor. I believe that family values are broadly shared across the political spectrum. I think if we could start by acknowledging that both sides want strong families and strong communities, and both sides want to encourage hard work and access to economic opportunity and both sides want to encourage entrepreneurship, strong businesses and a vital economy, then maybe we could focus more on the ideas that will help us get there without insisting the party we're not affiliated with is riddled with moral failings. I did not actually get to see this debate, but I hope the debaters were able to move to a different level of discussion than is implied by the frame of the debate.

On 2013-10-18 18:07:40, Tim wrote:
Whether you think the topic was valid, invalid, or just irrelevant, the format was very good. If only presidential debates worked like this, we would all benefit from the classic debate format.

On 2013-10-18 16:06:44, Don wrote:
Maybe we need both states with services and those that don't. I know families with autistic children that have moved to states with schools that have special programs for their children. Without those programs those children might require special assistance all of their lives. J.K. Rowling wrote her first Harry Potter book while on welfare, now she's more than paid that back. Some people just want to be left alone, and i'm one of them. I'll migrate to a state that shares my values. At the end of the day i think it's more ROI than anything else.

On 2013-10-18 16:06:13, Stephan Cox wrote:
Wow. There's a heavy burden of proof for the side in favor of this. You've got less access to healthcare, abortion, social services, and--this is unavoidable--populaces who are less educated and more intolerant of others who are different from them. Good luck.

On 2013-10-18 14:19:22, Tooraj wrote:
This debate will be entertaining (like comparing national soccer teams which involves patriotic emotions mixed with some results and facts) but it will be an inaccurate topic. The reality is Blue and Red states cannot survive independently. They need to co-exist to exist. It is very important to highlight the inter-dependencies and supply chain connections such as the import/export flows of human capital, food, natural gas, technology, innovation, etc. between these states. Then I guess it would be a boring discussion and not a polarizing one since watching politics has become a sport for some of us: “Entertain us.”

On 2013-10-11 19:22:25, James Rossiter wrote:
"If you consider the nanny state preferable to individual striving and responsibility, which apparently the Gallup Hathaway poll definitions do, then you think living in blue states is better." If this is true, why do read states rely so heavily on the Federal Government? "Red States" like Texas and Georgia and Idaho all receive more support from the Federal Government then they pay in taxes. And "Blue States" Like California, New York and New Jersey pay more in taxes then they get back. So much for "individual striving and responsibility."

On 2013-09-25 12:55:08, gesh wrote:
There is no debate question here, just a description of two different sets of values. Voters are just showing their preference. If you consider the nanny state preferable to individual striving and responsibility, which apparently the Gallup Hathaway poll definitions do, then you think living in blue states is better. In a country this large, government control should be left to the states, where these regional differences can flourish. So far in our country's history nothing keeps people who are unhappy with their lot from moving to a place that will give them something else. Having lived in both, I can unequivocally state that there are different strokes for different folks, and the Left's attempts to force their viewpoint on the rest of us is stinks of childish egotistical arrogance. It is tearing this country apart and destroying what is good about it needlessly.

On 2013-09-17 23:14:26, karl green wrote:
Free market crapatalism is the phrase used to condone greed-and its not working- The gap between the 1% and 99% is as it was before the great depression. The Volkerr rule in Dodd Frank has never been implemented- The 1% know they have a free hand .

On 2013-09-06 03:46:44, Andrew wrote:
I hold those much-maligned "San Francisco values" you hear so much about from the right, and I'm proud of them. No amount of greed and callousness posturing as "rugged individualism" will convince me that government should be small when it comes to regulating corporate exploitation, but big when it comes to what we do in the bedroom or with our own bodies. If the choice was between living in Texas/Kansas/Alabama and living in Antarctica, you'd find me brushing up on my Penguin-ese.