Well, my idea is to combine low population with being a nice place to live, so in addition to being politically powerful it would be an attractive place to go to. I am betting the libertarians tend to look at places like Wyoming and Idaho in part because their climates are so inhospitable, largely so they could laugh as they pass by the frozen bodies of those who did not personally prepare adequately for winter every year.
MS could experience a tremendous shift to the left and still be more right leaning than NC, by virtue of starting out as the more conservative state.
My point, though, is that as a practical matter, your recruitment drive has been unconvincing. Is political frontier-taming is supposed to be a selling point? Because a daily struggle for ideological supremacy sounds tiring. If Hawaii or Oregon was controlled by an oligarchic cabal, it might be worth the effort to immigrate 'n liberate, but only because those are appealing places to live. Why should I haul all my shit down to Mississippi and get the stinkeye from everybody except other (likely pretty smug) people who also just moved there? I like frogs and trees more than most people, but we’ve got them elsewhere.
Conventional wisdom suggests that a progressive political environment is better for poor people, but, by itself, that amounts to an “everybody knows” argument. Provide concrete examples of laws and stuff that would be changed for the betterment of all.
The assumption that improved economic conditions for the poor and a more progressive social climate will cause people to reverse their stance on moral issues may be unfounded, as well. Can you show anywhere in the US where poor conservative people changed their minds on social issues due to economic prosperity?
The (anecdotal) instances I know of where a sudden influx of progressive transplants came to a poor conservative area resulted in an entrenchment of opinions and an increase in us vs. them mentality on both sides, regardless of economic improvement. These are primarily vacation areas, so perhaps class envy is part of it, but “big city liberal elitist invasion” leading to rampant “Californication” is a common complaint among certain people I know.
Sell me on why MS is so special that it’s worth the hassle.
As I understand it, polling data suggest that the vast majority of Americans favor marijuana legalization – no other drugs are under consideration. So there is no moderate base of support for the War on Weed either. I honestly have no idea why Obama pursues the War on Drugs given his personal history with pot, other than fear that conservatives would use any move to legalize pot on his part as a way to rouse the rabble … but once again, polls indicate the rabble to be roused is a tiny portion of the electorate. So I’m honestly puzzled here.
My idea is that the lefties move in in sufficient numbers to take over the state legislature, in which case, guess who’s in charge of gerrymandering?
And perhaps, more specifically, laws that can be enacted at the state level.
In their most recent poll on the subject (Oct 2011), Gallup measured nationwide support for marijuana legalization at 50%.
In November 2012, CBS measured it at 47%.
It sounds like exactly the sort of issue where the left and right’s bases are entrenched, and candidates fight over the middle.
I thought gerrymandering was bad though.
And if they can take over the state legislature, they don’t need to gerrymander.
It’s been awhile since I read it, but wasn’t this a big plot point in The Harrad Experiment? (besides the free loving of the '60s). The liberals / progressives were going to take over a sparsely populated state by locating lots of people there, taking over the state legislatures and passing all kind of “unusual” laws. I think it was either Idaho or Montana - does anyeone know?
I remember articles in the early 1970s advocating all the liberals move to one state in Rolling Stone, Playboy and the Whole Earth Catalog. But it was generally Maine or Vermont, and I’ve often wondered if Bernie Saunders is the legacy of that attempt.
The basic idea was that if you could get a million people at Woodstock, you could get 100,000 dedicated people into one state and change it.
Florida, then; see post #75. Not “low population,” but a swingable population.
Who you calling liberal? Massachusetts, ok, but you don’t get to paint New Hampshire, Vermont, or Maine with that broad brush.
Or we could just sit back and watch while a chosen few spend billions to bribe redistricting in key states. A little pricey…certainly unethical…but effective. And in the long run it will purchase an entire nation.
Then we can move to Colorado.
But if you get the required force, please start in Texas.
Florida it is. Didn’t pay enough attention to “swingable” but Florida would be a GREAT place to live. I’ll spread the word through the “usual channels.”
Wait, isn’t Vermont pretty liberal? It’s the only state with a socialist Senator.
Oh, I don’t think Pubs in state legislatures need to be bribed to do that. The dirty money in that business is the money spent on elections.
IT’S WORKING!!!
We’ve already dragged those bastards into the 19th Century!
Let’s fast forward 5 years, pretend that enough people actually go through with this, and pretend that it actually works. That some how you manage to create a slightly warmer version of Canada.
What’s to stop every degenerate from Arkansas, Tennessee, Alabama and Louisiana from declaring their residence in your fine state and going on the dole? Or pogie as we say in Canada.
If this concept shocks or baffles you, it’s a very real problem/concern in the EU. And even though EU citizens are free to live and work anywhere within the EU, each individual country is allowed to ask a person to leave if they aren’t working.
Alberta’s former Premier Ralph Klein was famous for giving welfare recipients one way bus tickets out of the province.
Does it happen now that people move to go on welfare in the more prosperous states already? I don’t really think so…what’s the difference? The south is the welfare, republican states as-is, I don’t see people on the dole moving to Oregon and WA and other progressive states now.
edit: BTW I object to you characterizing people on welfare as “degenerates”. There are plenty of degenerates not on welfare, and plenty of good people on it.
Read again, I did not characterize people on welfare as degenerates. I object to your insinuation that I did.
But if given the opportunity, do you believe that degenerates would not try to score some free government money? You do realize I listed the states bordering Mississippi right?
I’m also curious to know if people move within the US to places that have better social services. Like you said, there are states with better social safety nets, what stops people from moving there?
Hasn’t that happened in New York, Massachusetts, and Oregon?