I find this list to be pretty interesting. It could be considered or renamed: "The Dipsh^t Factor" or two, "We Have Gas, Do You?" I think both could apply.
I think the list is pretty accurate. Managing states with small populations is a hell of alot easier than managing large ones. Seems to me Wyoming would be fairly easy. With all the money from oil and gas and not alot of big expenditures (don't say roads, 'cause they get help from the feds and you know it), I would think that any reasonable pimplehead could run that state. Texas? California? New York? Illinois? Those states have a lot of people, and where you find a lot of people, you'll find a lot of dipsh*ts. Dipsh*ts abound. There are lot's of them in the world. It's a numbers game really. Big state populations= lot's of dipsh^ts.
It's not all about dipsh*ts...that list had a lot to do with minorities and poverty as well. Illegal immigrants, though not a criteria, helped determine the other criteria. Different state standards about what it means to have a HS diploma should be considered as well when looking at education. What a high school grad in Montana can answer on a exit exam probably looks a lot different than what their peers from Florida could do, I would imagine.
Managing a state well and living there are two very seperate things. Wyoming has some real nice spots, but the majority sucks. North Dakota on the other hand...no f.w.! I often thought Montana was so nice because republican dipsh*ts had run the state for so long. They kept our economy in the dark, thus keeping people out. Their fiscal mismanagement lead to intellectual exodus, which lead to the low wages and modest living. Which isn't so bad if you like to hunt and fish, like I do.
Last but not least...I would have to say that living in Colorado is pretty good. Not the worst, not the best...25th seems about right.