The "make Democrats leave swing states and migrate to blue ones" strategy for capturing swing states

So I haven’t seen the numerical data, but I would guess that one effect of Ron DeSantis’ behavior in Florida is that it’s going to make a lot of Democrats leave the state and go to bluer ones like California. That would end up concentrating blue votes where it’s useless for Senate purposes (California and New York will always have only 2 Senate seats apiece regardless of population) and also end up making formerly swing states (Florida) get redder and redder.

The Republican strategy - whether it’s even an intentional, thought-out one or not - would be to get Republican governors elected in swing states like Florida, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, etc. and then behave as extreme as possible to make Democrats flee those states and move to bluer regions, thus making those swing states redder and redder. With this sort of approach, Republicans could essentially gain a lock on the Electoral College - a Democrat can’t really win without capturing at least a few of the following: Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona and Iowa.

And in fact, Florida and Ohio were formerly swing states.

It’s the stick and stick approach. Force the Democrats out, force everyone who sticks around to have unwanted babies.

On the other hand, they refuse to vaccinate themselves.

This really doesn’t seem like a strategy that would move the needle much. Most people can’t just up and move to a different state, unless they work remotely or are in a profession that is in high demand almost everywhere. Of the ones who can, I suspect only a small number care so much about politics that it would outweigh other factors, like weather, cost of living, proximity to family and friends, etc.

I guess it’s not politicians that polarize the population, it’s the other way around. “Force the Democrats out, force everyone who sticks around to have unwanted babies”. Yep, that’s the way to get us all talking about important issues in a civil way… Or you’re just trying to be funny.

At some point enough is enough and voters won’t cooperate regardless of their initial inclination. Elected officials still have to answer to voters. But who knows at what point enough is enough? Hopefully at least some Florida Republicans don’t want to see their state’s universities losing all reputation and credibility over political bullshit.

Florida stopped being a swing state before DeSantis was elected. In 2018 we had a massive blue wave all over the country, but the GOP swept the whole state, that’s when he got elected. The state was already lost.

Those are, in fact, precisely the issues that we’re trying to talk about. It is, admittedly, difficult to talk about uncivil policies in a civil way.

I agree. It’s much easier to label policies uncivil than it is to discuss policies in a civil way.

And it’s still easier to tell people they are being uncivil and evade discussing policies at all.

…I mean: banning abortion and attempting to ban trans affirming care are pretty uncivil things, and I think its okay to label them as such.

The easiest way is just to discuss policies with people who agree with you.

I just don’t think it’s that easy.

…I think its quite easy.

Banning abortions is uncivil. I shall label it so.

There! Done.

Fair enough. No need to discuss options, or limits (is it civil to abort a fetus that can survive outside the womb, for example).

…who said we couldn’t discuss options?

It does strike me that a deliberate “forcing people out” strategy is unlikely to pay off. As you say, people are not generally too inclined to move. So you have to piss them off a lot to make them move. And if you misjudge it, you may have just hardened swing voters against you.

In other words: the people most likely to move are the people who were least likely to vote for you, but as you push some of those people out are you simultaneously converting swing voters against you?

It would be a cleaner strategy if there were no swing voters. Perhaps people are now so polarized that this is close to the truth in some states? But by definition here we are talking about swing states where swing voters have historically mattered.

I just think it’s more productive to discuss options without having to bring in labels.

…its entirely situational. There is a time and a place to have a discussion about options. But that normally requires at least two parties that are entering the discussion in good faith. The talking point “is it civil to abort a fetus that can survive outside the womb”, for example, strikes me as a disingenuous talking point used in bad faith as an attempted counterpoint to the idea that sometimes it’s okay to use a label.

Wouldn’t the Democratic strategy be the same? Republicans flee blue states and move to redder regions, thus making those swing states bluer and bluer.

Does it happen often enough to push more common events to the bottom of the pile, or is the topic being used as a distraction?

I don’t really understand this, but I’ll back off.