They ignore states with Republican governors that have done poorly and states with Democratic governors that have done really well.

IOW: They cherry picked the intelligence.

when the "enlightened" states offered unemployment and welfare benefits exceeding those of the usual suspects. Like Castro dumping his problems back on our shores, it is always great when they can stimulate a mass migration of bottom line problems across their borders, an exodus that starts to get two way when high taxes make higher earners and businesses go the other way. It won them more money and power so far and imagining they can make that happen as a consolation prize for having "Obamacare" pass muster probably stokes their coal.

The difference is that Medicaid, health care, affects EVERY citizen of the state except the rich. The type of flight to other states would eventually make this threat seem foolish in the extreme were it to even survive political results in the here and now. That flight might also include providers and health companies.

Maybe all the faith healers would move in if there was any money left in those states.

...in states that already had the highest unemployment rates in the nation in 2010.

Statistics are easy.

The governors had nothing to do with it.

Those two are easy.

The US government is the biggest employer in this state. The biggest employer in my area is the Savannah River Site, which employes primarily government contractors. Many of them live in Georgia. Several thousand jobs were created there with Recovery Act money. The military is the second largest employer. And, while it's true that Bridgestone is expanding here, creating several hundred new jobs, those were created under and despite Gov. Loverboy, and not Nefarious Nikki.

From Brietbart article about it.

In 2010, influenced by the Tea Party and its focus on fiscal issues, 17 states elected Republican governors. And, according to an Examiner.com analysis, every one of those states saw a drop in their unemployment rates since January of 2011.

Table B. States with statistically significant unemployment rate changes
from January 2010 to January 2011, seasonally adjusted
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Rate |
|-----------|-----------| Over-the-year
State | January | January | rate change(p)
| 2010 | 2011(p) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois .......................| 11.2 | 9.0 | -2.2
Indiana ........................| 10.7 | 9.1 | -1.6
Maine ..........................| 8.4 | 7.5 | -.9
Michigan .......................| 13.7 | 10.7 | -3.0
Minnesota ......................| 7.8 | 6.7 | -1.1
Nebraska .......................| 5.0 | 4.2 | -.8
New Hampshire ..................| 6.7 | 5.6 | -1.1
North Carolina .................| 11.4 | 9.9 | -1.5
Ohio ...........................| 10.6 | 9.4 | -1.2
South Dakota ...................| 5.2 | 4.7 | -.5
| | |
Tennessee ......................| 10.4 | 9.5 | -.9
Vermont ........................| 6.7 | 5.7 | -1.0
Virginia .......................| 7.2 | 6.5 | -.7
Washington .....................| 10.0 | 9.1 | -.9
Wisconsin ......................| 9.2 | 7.4 | -1.8
Wyoming ........................| 7.6 | 6.3 | -1.3

First, they brought the numbers down compared to what? What else changed? And did whatever changed have anything to do with the party of the governor?

Second, the minuscule change is almost certainly subject to a plus/minus caveat.

Third, a one-time decline - over what period of time? - is pointless. The only value, again, considered with all other data, is what transpires over time.

Fourth, you believe these numbers?