And utterly irrelevant and not in the slightest a useful response to the poster’s point.
Hi! I’m happy to see you’re still around and posting. Could you take a moment to address your incorrect statements about tear gas not being used against protesters in those threads where you spread that? Not here, of course, because I’m not trying to hijack this thread. Thanks in advance!
As to this thread, I have a job and family here in NJ/NY, so it would be difficult for me to up and move, and even more difficult to convince a few hundred thousand of my closest friends to move as well. Of course, if I were really persuasive, we’d make NY and NJ red states and have to move back anyway.
Is this really a serious thread?
So your goal in this thread is to help the Ds’ electoral chances. Thank you!
It’s an obstinate crew here, and I’m not sure they’ll listen. Better would be for you to contact your local Democratic Party, and offer to lick envelopes, walk precincts, whatever. Cash donations are also appreciated! What does the Congressional race look like in your District? Is it a close race where the Ds need your help?
Oh – well duh. To belabor that obvious fact is myopic.
Every. Single. Other. Election. IS----a popular vote.
The electoral college was the framers’ number one fuck-up. And they knew it, at the time. Most states are neither “red” nor “blue.” They just get reduced to that in popular discourse because of how we select a president.
This is contradictory. By definition, those conservatives - the “lot of conservatives” that you mention - are themselves surrounded by conservatives, yet they haven’t turned liberal.
This is like saying, “If you are at Lambeau Field in Green Bay, you are likely to be a Packers fan; if you are at Soldier Field in Chicago, you’re still likely to be a Packers fan.” Then who are those 70,000 other fans at Soldier Field clad in Bears gear, and why haven’t they become Packers fans?
No, IMHO: IAN Chronos and cannot speak for him, but I read his remark as just making a basic point about the demographics of high- versus low-population areas.
Namely, any place in the US that has “a lot” of people, relative to the average, is likely to trend liberal.
So “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.” just means that any place that has what could be called “a lot” of conservatives is likely to have even more liberals, therefore the average resident is likely to be liberal.
The counter-statement you’re groping for would be something along the lines of “If you live in a place with widely scattered relatively small numbers of conservatives, you’e likely to be conservative.”
Right. I first noticed this effect when looking at Ohio county-by-county election returns. The county with the largest number of Trump voters was my native Cuyahoga (Cleveland and suburbs), which was also the county with the greatest proportion of Clinton voters. Republicans are a lower percentage here, but there are enough people in Cuyahoga that even that low percentage adds up to a lot of people. The correlation actually holds quite strongly, with the only places that are even close to being outliers being college towns, which are liberal despite low populations.
The question doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Why would anyone deliberately choose to live in a place where they’re unhappy if they have the option of living someplace where they would be happy? If you have a choice between living someplace where the political climate matches your political views and someplace where the political climate doesn’t match your political views, you’re going to pick the one that matches (assuming other factors are equal). This applies regardless of what your political views are.
But that statement still doesn’t make sense.
Proportionally, someone in Cleveland is surrounded by far more liberals than conservatives. 200,000 Republicans is a large number, but 1 million Democrats is even larger yet. It therefore stands to reason that his political views are being affected much more by the liberals around him than the conservatives around him.
And I don’t get what you are trying to insinuate either. It’s like you’re saying that the presence of liberals draws one to become liberal, but the presence of conservatives…repels one into becoming liberal.
No. There’s still lots of jobs that are definitely location based. Eugene, Oregon might be your dream location politically on the left or nearby Springfield on the right, but if you want to work in the financial markets or aerospace engineering, you might not find any reasonable job opportunities
Again not qualified to speak for Chronos,* but I think you’re still overthinking this. It’s not about whether the political views of people around you are “affecting” your own political affiliation. It’s simply about the average person in a high-population-density area being more likely to be liberal than conservative, demographically speaking.
- I get paid 4x the standard Doper salary to explicatize misunderstood posts 'cause I scored really high on the reading comprehensions.
The presence of people draws one to become liberal. Living in a bubble, away from significant human contact, draws one to becoming conservative.
That would be the other factors I mentioned. But the OP seems to be based on the premise that people have the ability to move if they choose to.
Okay, I guessed wrong. I was about to post that your previous remark may have been a reference to gerrymandering and how some states might produce conservative election results but have a liberal majority.
Wyoming has about the same population as Staten Island.
The main problem is one that’s been alluded to already, but not expressly stated, I think. It would take millions of people to move to make any appreciable difference in all but the smallest states. There’s simply no reason millions of people want or need to move from one particular state to another.
In 2018 about 86,000 people moved from California to Texas, and that’s probably one of the biggest blue to red flows.
I’ve mused along the lines of the OP. But if you look at the 2016 presidential results, you’ll see the magnitude of the problem. I looked a couple of days ago, but IIRC no traditional red state had a margin of less than 100k. That’s A LOT of dem voters to move, for a couple of electoral votes.
My impression was that the states with the SMALLEST margins, were those battleground states that went blue. I think that the idea of moving 100k+ voters is FAR more challenging than shoring up traditional bases in purple states, and turing purple states bluer. Motivate the voters that are already IN states like Mich, Wisc, Penn, Ohio…
Wisconsin? And almost New Hampshire?
The US 80 million years ago, and maybe again if we melt all the ice.
https://deeptimemaps.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/wiscretcam6.png
More or less this. Hillary’s Blue Wall (including MI, WI, PA) would have been enough to seal victory for her, it’s just that her blue wall crumbled. Had she shored it up it would have been her ticket to the presidency.