Real Talk - the 19th

sturg33 said:
Everything i advocate for (including national divorce) is an effort to stop such conflicts from ever happening
Click to expand...
you can't take back your fantasy warlust so easily now that you realize you might end up on the losing side...i want to see California/New York take on Texas/Florida
 
we do have a no assholes policy...it is probably the most important reform instituted by our current department chair

we have applied it to all recent hires...we currently have a job search for a tenure-track finance position and it will continue to be one of the most important considerations

we would like to think it is politics neutral...but it might end up being one of those implicit biases thangs
 
nsacpi said:
you can't take back your fantasy warlust so easily now that you realize you might end up on the losing side...i want to see California/New York take on Texas/Florida
Click to expand...
### Overview of Military Recruitment by Political Lean
US military recruits are disproportionately drawn from states that typically vote Republican (often called "red states"), particularly those in the South. This disparity has persisted for decades and is influenced by factors like the presence of military bases, cultural traditions of service, economic conditions, and recruitment targeting. Data from the Department of Defense (DoD) shows that while exact percentages for "red vs. blue" states vary slightly by year and definition (e.g., based on 2020 or 2024 election results), red states consistently contribute a larger share relative to their population.

Red states are generally those won by the Republican presidential candidate in the most recent major election (2024: Trump-won states). Blue states are those won by Democrats (Harris-won states). Swing states like Georgia (red in 2024) or Pennsylvania (blue) can shift classifications, but the pattern holds.

### Key Percentages from Recent Data
- **Overall Split**: Approximately **50-55%** of new military recruits come from red states, while **45-50%** come from blue states. This is not proportional to population—red states represent about 40% of the US youth population (ages 18-24) but provide 50-55% of recruits.
- **Per Capita Perspective**: Red states contribute about **20% more recruits** than expected based on population share, while blue states contribute about **20% fewer**.

These figures are derived from DoD's annual *Population Representation in the Military Services* reports, which track "accessions" (new enlistees). The most consistent data comes from fiscal years 2013-2020, with similar trends in 2022-2024 analyses.

#### Breakdown by US Census Region (FY 2013-2020 Data)
Regions align closely with political lean: South (mostly red) and Midwest/West (mixed, but red-leaning areas dominate recruitment). Northeast is predominantly blue.

| Region | % of US Youth Population (18-24) | % of New Recruits | Representation Ratio* | Political Lean |
|-----------------|----------------------------------|-------------------|-----------------------|---------------|
| **South** | 36% | 44% | 1.22 (over-represented) | Mostly red |
| **West** | 24% | 24% | 1.00 (proportional) | Mixed (red/blue) |
| **Midwest** | 22% | 19% | 0.86 (under-represented) | Mostly red |
| **Northeast** | 18% | 13% | 0.72 (under-represented) | Mostly blue |

*Ratio = (% recruits) / (% population). A ratio >1 means over-representation.

- **South's Dominance**: The South alone provides ~44% of recruits despite 36% of youth, driven by states like Texas (10-11% of all recruits), Georgia, Florida, and South Carolina. All top-5 states for per capita enlistment (Georgia, Alaska, South Carolina, Texas, Alabama) are red.
- **Blue State Under-Representation**: Northeastern blue states (e.g., New York, Massachusetts) contribute the fewest per capita. California (blue, largest state) provides ~13-17% of raw numbers but only ~1.0 ratio due to its huge population.
- **Recent Trends (2022-2024)**: The South's share rose to ~43-45% of recruits, with red states like Texas and Florida leading in volume. Blue states' share dipped to ~12-13% from the Northeast. No major shift post-2024 election.

### Why the Disparity?
- **Military Culture and Bases**: Red/Southern states have more bases (e.g., Fort Bragg in NC, Fort Hood in TX), fostering family traditions—80% of recruits have a relative who served.
- **Economics**: Higher poverty/unemployment in some red states makes enlistment appealing for benefits like education and steady pay.
- **Recruitment Focus**: Recruiters target rural, lower-income areas, which skew red.
- **Not Ideology Alone**: Enlistees' personal politics mirror their home states, but the military as a whole leans slightly conservative due to this geographic skew.

For the latest DoD data, check their annual reports. If you need breakdowns by specific states or years, let me know!
 
in the end economic mass and technological superiority would allow blue states to win (with one hand tied behind their backs)....it would be no contest

it is true blue states don't enlist in the same proportion...you need to think why...it is because the opportunities for young people are so much better
 
sturg33 said:
Can they start using those tools to get the homeless off the streets?
Click to expand...
sure when red states start regenerating all those teeth that have prematurely fallen out

believe me...California/NY will wipe Texas/Florida off the map...it would not be a fair fight

California/NY have 3% more population but 50% more GDP! The differential would grow if Texas/Florida were cut off from the fiscal transfers and technological spillovers that currently exist.

The tech sector in Texas would shrink 50% absent spillovers and financing from California.

Red states are so bad at producing scientific talent they would have to import Chinese and Indian immigrants on a mass scale to keep what little technology they would have left running.
 
Last edited:
I don't know what you mean. New York and California have been setting the pace for culture, technology and innovation for a very long time. If they have a problem they fix it. Red states in contrast stick to the same old same old and comfort themselves with sensationalist videos of NY subways. Hey, if that's what it takes to make them feel good about themselves who am I to judge.
 
I’m not sure anyone with a functioning brain would think FL/Tx would get beaten by anyone in an all out battle.

That’s a ridiculous notion and not based on anything concrete
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaw
nsacpi said:
I don't know what you mean. New York and California have been setting the pace for culture, technology and innovation for a very long time. If they have a problem they fix it. Red states in contrast stick to the same old same old and comfort themselves with sensationalist videos of NY subways. Hey, if that's what it takes to make them feel good about themselves who am I to judge.
Click to expand...
What does a view of a subway that doesn’t affect you matter to anyone anywhere else
 
sturg33 said:
I've made 3 points in this thread:

1. Society functions exclusively because of men, yet men hold less political power
2. Men seek to understand more than women, yet women hold more political power while understanding less
3. Women's political power threatens everything men care most about, and at some point, men will not tolerate that anymore

I haven't seen a counter argument to any of those yet... mqt said "no." Zito says we're all the same. thethe I believe is responding with his heart
Click to expand...
Making points doesn't mean they're valid

1. This is patently false and you know it. Even looking at all the data, if men held less political power then Rs wouldn't hold any power. Woman are more of the population and vote at a higher clip for Ds than men do for Rs based on historical exit poll data.
2. How do they hold more political power? If they did we'd havea democrat in the white house and a democrat controlled congress all the time.
3. What do you mean by this. What do men care about most?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top