I've written about the tendency of the derailed right to bash unemployed folks here and here. Truthfully, I still find the idea totally inexplicable. Politically it just doesn't seem right. For giggles I put this together:

Top X states for unemployment, red/blue coding of the rate based on '08's presidential election results. Obviously, this is a 'broad' look and it's not geared for detail digging, but rather was something I kicked together to see if there was a meaningful pattern there.

The two most striking things to me:

1. We know that Nevada is a highly contested race to bounce Harry Reid. Nevada also has the highest unemployment rate in the union.

2. Florida, Ohio, NC, and Indiana all broke blue in 08, but not by much---less than 5% or so. Ohio and Florida are currently toss ups (aren't they always). Indiana leans red at this point.

Doesn't it just seem counterintuitive that, where you have ---no doubt---economic induced misery to actually pound the pulpit to make what is an already very difficult situation even worse. Angle/Hatch's loud and stupid mouths aside, isn't it just a queer thing to do? It's an election year for christ's sake.

One of the things that GOP has used really effectively over the last 10 (well, more than 10, and it's not just the GOP who's doing it--but I won't go into it) are these wedge issues. Issues with invisible demons - issues that solidify an 'us' and highlight a 'them'. This doesn't even seem to have that stink to it: no doubt every single person in the states knows somebody who lost a job or a house. Pile on the unemployed folks? No voter is that much of an animal.

So I'm still at a loss on an explanation for this. It's not great policy, it doesn't serve any discernible political purpose....and maybe that can be explained:

Krugman has a thought:

But that was then. Today, American workers face the worst job market since the Great Depression, with five job seekers for every job opening, with the average spell of unemployment now at 35 weeks. Yet the Senate went home for the holiday weekend without extending benefits. How was that possible?

The answer is that we’re facing a coalition of the heartless, the clueless and the confused. Nothing can be done about the first group, and probably not much about the second. But maybe it’s possible to clear up some of the confusion.

And the money shot:

So, is there any chance that these arguments will get through? Not, I fear, to Republicans: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something,” said Upton Sinclair, “when his salary” — or, in this case, his hope of retaking Congress — “depends upon his not understanding it.” But there are also centrist Democrats who have bought into the arguments against helping the unemployed. It’s up to them to step back, realize that they have been misled — and do the right thing by passing extended benefits.

In Krugman's view maybe the point is to inflict more misery. Maybe that misery isn't so useful now, but has the potential to be the greatest ally of the GOP when they take on Obama in '12. I don't necessarily buy it - truthfully a guy who says this - is somebody you should always be cautious of. But by far, the most plausible explanation for the anti-unemployed bend the gop is on right now.