Because the frequent threats and remarks based on my perceived group identities that I’ve experienced in some of those locales are a giant flashing NO sign.
Because there are not enough conservatives to do that. Remember, they lost the last popular election. As current trends in demographics go, they will be diluted out in a decade or so. Well, if we still have constitutional government.
There’s no such thing as a popular election.
Quit being pedantic. It’s obvious that they meant the popular vote. How about actually contributing to a thread rather than doing nothing more than picking nits?
Yeah, right. I’m fixin’ to move from here in Hawaii to North Dakota any day now. Not!
I can’t see anyone except maybe an idealistic youth moving to a place simply to have an influence on their politics. And there’s no guarantee the person’s politics would stay the same if they did move. What may have seemed an important issue in Brooklyn may not be as important after living for a few years in Mississippi. Your social circle back in Brooklyn may be all no compromises, go big or go home and pick the real liberal candidate or else. Then, in Mississippi, you might see things differently as you see what a huge lift it would be for even the most moderate candidate to even have a prayer of winning.
They could achieve the same effect but in a different way.
If several million conservatives left California and New York and all emigrated to, say, Texas, they would simultaneously swell Texas’ Electoral College representation while also stripping CA and NY of electors. This would also prevent Texas from flipping blue.
The downside is that the effect wouldn’t be felt until the next Census kicked in.
We’re all here to learn. I want to learn WHY you ask this question. To save time, you may choose from this list:
(A) CastletonSnob is sincerely curious why “liberals” prefer to live in “liberal” states.
(B) CastletonSnob is offering sincere advice to “liberals” who want to improve the U.S.
(C) CastletonSnob thinks this is some ‘Gotcha’ that exposes “liberal” hypocrisy.
(D) Other. ____________
I DO hope you respond. My question is sincere, whether yours is or not.
You really don’t know? It’s hard to tell if any of your questions are in good faith.
Wyoming has nothing in it except extreme weather, the Rocky Mountains, range cattle, and resource extraction. It has fewer people than Vermont. Please try to imagine why this would be.
Not to mention, y’know, Wyomingites. Like Dick Cheney.
B.
It’s beautiful when you put it that way!
As an aside: If you live in a place with a lot of liberals, you’re likely to be liberal. If you live in a place with a lot of conservatives, you’re likely to be… still liberal. The people who are likely to be conservatives are those who live in places with few liberals or conservatives.
Quite a few people from PR moved to Florida after Hurricane Maria and they are probably not voting for Trump.
There are a lot of black Democrats in red state America And the GOP goes to great lengths to suppress their votes. If red state America had free and fair elections, a lot of it would already be blue.
We’ll see.
Also, television is illegal there. Or it would be if Wyoming had electricity.
Meaning what–that there’s always a loser to every election? That’s true, but not very insightful.
I’ve often thought about the idea of putting in a city at the tri-state area on North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana.
Get a few million people in that city, and it turns those three states blue, and if the metropolitan area extends south enough, could start to turn Wyoming as well.
Maybe put in data centers and massive work from home capability? Not sure exactly how to draw people in, even if you can finance its construction.
Maybe global warming will make that area more enticing in the future.
I think the (pedantic) point is that the Presidential election isn’t a popular vote (at least, not on a national level), which is, of course, true.