No, just a pretty common cum hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.
Ah yes, a logical fallacy.
So what are the other possible explanations for the correlation?
Without a more compelling explanation it's hard to sustain an argument of Cum Hoc.
The ten American cities with the highest poverty rates have a long and steadfast history of Democratic governance, and you would have us believe it is uncorrelated.
While correlation may not unerringly imply causation, it very often does.
In any case, I'm happy to accept that rather than sustained Democratic governance causing high poverty rates, high poverty rates causes sustained Democratic governance. Presumably, if Democratic governance was capable of reducing poverty rates it would do so and pave the way for Republican governance.
As I've already suggested, I'm sure that you and (was it?) parados are prepared to argue that somehow right-wingers are the actual casue of the correlation, but I think we need to hear something more than "True that!"
You may not agree with it, but the argument that there is a correlation between Democratic governance and high poverty rates is hardly irrational.
It may not be that Democratic governance promotes poverty (although I would argue that is the case), but the correlation certainly doesn't require a jump
to reach the conclusion that Democratic governance doesn't reduce poverty rates.