A Brilliant fix in 3 parts ?

Um, Sky, as convenient as it is to point fingers, this still doesn't explain the high rankings of Republican states & counties being poorest nationally, though. And getting the highest percentages of federal help.

Instead of political mudslinging, it's probably better, more useful, and more accurate to address blighted industries & historical poverty instead of party lines. As in what was Mississippi's best employment era & what tanked when to render it a long-standing example of pervasive Deep South poverty.

Local economy counts a lot more than just a dismissive politically biased wave of the hand does, it really does. Let's take my home state (Florida) as an example. Republican-led state, complete shithole to live in without a LOT of money. In fact, merely ask ATF about this, we both know firsthand how rough it is there. We're on opposite sides of the political spectrum, so it's relatively pointless to blame one party or the other, because we know it's not solely political. It's economic. There just isn't much Florida has to offer beyond geriatric care, tourism & retail. It's not called God's Waiting Room for nothing.
Florida has never been an industry juggernaut. The best we eeked out of it was Big Sugar & Disney World. It is solidly a tourism & retirement state, and one that is extremely expensive for the native-born to call home. If tourism numbers drop, so does the money coming in. Past that, it should be fairly obvious how the dominos fall in relation to workers -- not in their favor.

This is a good overview of the richest & poorest towns in the US, taking numerous factors into consideration. It's illuminating in that it is a better reflection nationally. Focusing on metros only shows so much. Focusing on that and the smaller areas shows a truer picture of who is floundering where and who is flourishing where. This would be a fun exercise in connecting the regional dots on the map and finding the common threads between metro & small town economic FUBAR issues. I'm too lazy to do that, though. Consider both areas, otherwise, you're just looking at poverty through biased, rosy glasses.

Looking in to the economies of these areas makes it quite clear that politics in general has little to do with their poverty numbers. This is essentially a comparison of areas where employers WANT to be, and where they DON'T want to be.

The first list after the intro is the Richest list.
247wallst.com/special-report/2016/05/09/americas-richest-and-poorest-towns/

The Poorest list begins here.
247wallst.com/special-report/2016/05/09/americas-richest-and-poorest-towns/7/

Look objectively at the economic issues in the places listed. Compare them with the ones on the Richest list. Politics doesn't really fit in too well. Otherwise, the Republicans have just as much to answer for as Democrats do for why poverty & federal assistance is consistently so high in Red states, right? ( < -- big, fat hint: this is a facetious question that is meant to encourage reflecting on beliefs, not bolster the blame game)