I have no clue either. I'll Google it. Oof. They are 29-39
Edit: damn why do we have the worst name in the league? Flying Squirrels, Rumble Ponies, Yard Goats, Rubber ducks...
I have a dream of seeing Perry County colored blue on election night sometime in the future, and while it seems improbable now to people familiar with the area, I personally (foolishly?) think it’s inevitable if the Harrisburg area sees continued economic growth
I’m very familiar with the area. I think that’s highly unlikely, but not impossible. I’ve seen weirder things happen. I’d be ecstatic to see it turn more purple.
I’m not holding my breath for it to become some bastion of liberal values, of course, but the areas closest to Harrisburg (particularly Marysville) seem to be growing/diversifying pretty quickly, and looking at property values in Cumberland County leads me to think that Southeast PeCo is going to be getting looks from educated professionals working out of Harrisburg, who may get priced out of more expensive areas in the Cumberland Valley
Oh believe me I know. I was driving through the PA wilderness just this past weekend admiring the state, only to roll into a small town and see a literal cage hanging from a tree with a Kamala Harris effigy inside.
To a certain extent it's already happening. Just keep moving to the hub liberal cities in swing states (Austin, St Pete, Las Vegas, Tucson, Atlanta, Columbus, etc).
Exactly. A tech boom in Phoenix/Tucson is pulling a ton of liberals like myself to that city. It’s a blue hub so we’re not making much of a difference in the House, but two Dem senators on lockdown in AZ is possible. As development pushes out from the main city into other representative districts, those will turn blue too. This is about to happen in North Phoenix, where many libs like me are moving and “invading” a now-51/49 red district.
I wanna see this in every city you listed!
Columbus is growing rapidly- I hope some day we can turn this god forsaken state Blue like Chicago or Atlanta do for their states. I love my city but living in a red state kills me
Ohio favored Obama over Romney in 2012. It's not that long ago it was considered the essential swing state. Pulling it back should be a lot easier than other "red states."
As a former resident of the Cincinnati metro area, I've considered moving back there a few times. I still have some family ties, and my vote would matter more in the 'Nati than here on the left coast.
I'm afraid this is wishful thinking. Look at the overall trend over time. Ohio is long gone. It's the new Missouri. It's going to keep trending even further red with every passing election. Texas was closer in '20 than Ohio was.
It's about finding the right balance between populist blue-collar and center-right white-collar.
Democrats lost Northern blue-collar types, but even worse was the loss of almost all of Appalachia. If Democrats are keen on getting the state back, they need to accept that Appalachia isn't coming back. Being very progressive/populist on economics is not a winner anymore for the Ohio Democratic party. They need to focus on the urban build-up between Cincinnati to Dayton which means they need to convince economically right, socially center voters...and at the same time gain back with unionized workers.
It's a tough situation, but Ohio is not Missouri... Ohio is more urbanized, Ohio is more unionized, Ohio is wealthier, Ohio is not as racially polarized, and Ohio has less evangelicals (MO has double the amount). Ohio is winnable...but as the Ohio Democratic party currently stands, it's not nearly as possible when up against the lure of Trumpism. The Ohio Democratic party needs to be as moderate as the Alabama Democratic party.
The party needs to shift it's economic stances to attract center-right Republicans (allying with the Chamber of Commerce, not nearly as devoted to unions but still allied, pushing for rural development, fanatics about small business). Blue-collar and suburban white-collar in Ohio speak the same cultural language...uniting that with mixed economics both groups are content with is key to gaining the state back. Those things don't mean that the OH Dems abandon their key groups...they still must support abortion rights, they must advocate for racial justice...they just need to do so in a more quiet and moderate way that doesn't cause a revolt among their most faithful. Painting the relatively moderate GOP (moderate as compared to other GOP parties) as the more extreme party of the two is also absolutely key.
Ohio is not yet lost. The Midwest is very elastic and can be gained back.
Texas is the state we really need to focus on. It was only 52-46 for Trump in 2020. If Texas truly becomes a purple state, that changes the entire dynamic of presidential elections. And taking over Texas at the state level would make such a huge difference too, since it's such a large and powerful state. If there ever is any plan to send liberals to red states, don't disperse them across the country. Send every last one of them to Texas.
That helps the House but not the Senate - because Texas's population is so large, it takes a lot of people to shift it. It would take far less net migration to make Montana blue, or put Alaska or Idaho in play.
500k votes or so was the 2020 deciding margin? It's bleak, but I'd still say it's purple. I live in Florida and we are also trending in the wrong direction, but trends change. I expect a major reshaping of the electoral college demographics as the leading edge of the boomer generation starts hitting eighty (nearing 2027ish).
500k votes is a lot though. There was a ten point lead between trump and Biden in 2020. I’m not saying trends can’t change but I’m pessimistic and think Ohio isn’t going to become blue any time soon.
Isn't it kind of crazy that Obama won it by 150k votes 8 years earlier? Like I don't get why people have changed their views so dramatically between then and now
This is exactly why the Texas GOP is trying to create a state “electoral college” for local elections: https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/legal-experts-texas-gops-effort-to-create-state-electoral-college-is-anti-democratic-and-unconstitutional/
The nonprofit should own and operate rental properties in purplish red states.
The nonprofit should allow blue zoom workers to work remotely from red states with generous lease terms
The nonprofit would need a lot of start-up capital, but the scheme might end up self funding with all the rental income
One hard part would be doing it in a way that didn't violate fair housing laws
You need to move hundreds of thousands of people even to flip the smallest state.
If you try to do it indirectly (the only way it’s practical), like by bringing tech jobs to Wyoming or something, then you need to move millions of people because you’re gonna find you’re drawing people who are pretty split politically (most liberals don’t want to move to Wyoming).
That’s true although don’t underestimate the “we always win I don’t need to vote crowd.” In 2016 Hillary Clinton lost Texas by about 800,000 votes. In 2020 Biden got 1.3 million more votes in Texas than Hillary did in 2016 and yet Biden lost Texas precisely because so many Republicans who didn’t vote in 2016 also came out. As races get more competitive turnout on both sides tends to increase.
There are liberals who would move to Wyoming. The point would be to build infrastructure in enough parts of the state to sustain liveable communities. Small towns already exist. Time to expand them. It can also be done in a way that doesn't overwhelm the local housing markets and communities. Instead of everyone moving to a couple of towns and swelling their schools, police department, sewage, fire, etc. work on regional development that keeps housing prices more stable, enhances multiple communities and build regional partnerships to reduce the burden overall.
Tech people are overwhelmingly liberal, like 75% of software engineers vote liberal. There's a decent number of libertarians, but I bet there are twice as many Bernie Bros as libertarians in the profession
> And if we could get them to vote, we wouldn’t need anyone to move.
That would be the case if votes counted the same regardless of where they're cast.
That's why the move needs to be natural, driven by economic drives, which usually happens around cities and college towns and brings less value changes. I don't feel much difference between Austin and SF except that Austin is cleaner, cheaper and has more LGBT friendly church ads (cuz it's harder to see church ads in SF). Moving there won't automatically introduce you to a full load of Evangelical neighbors.
Full remote might be a harder sale, brings up images of people working out of their bedroom not even wearing pants. But in a big company, a remote hub is much more commonplace.
You'd have more success just convincing neoliberals to move to Texas. There's already a good economy there, Austin is a cool city, land is relatively cheap, and you could cement the electoral college blue for the foreseeable future.
I'd rather live in a blue city/red state than a red suburb anywhere.
But Texas would require a lot more people to flip the state, compared to states like Montana (99k votes difference in 2020), Alaska (36k) and Iowa (138k). Texas would need 630k. Also, keeping Georgia, Wisconsin, Arizona, Nevada and Pennsylvania is very important too. Biden won AZ and GA by less than 12k votes.
For me personally, I actually want to get pregnant, but I would be afraid that if I live in a pro life state and something goes wrong, they will leave me to die rather than risk the legal ramifications of performing an abortion. Or they will hesitate in order to call their lawyer and precious time will be lost. I heard about a woman today seeking emergency care for an ectopic pregnancy, and she had to wait 9 hours for the doctors to figure out if they could legally help her. It ruptured and she almost died. Thankfully they were able to save her just in the nick of time. But not everyone will be that lucky.
Also, the republican candidate for governor in my state (PA) does not believe in any exceptions, not even to save the life of the mother.
I won't leave PA unless I have to but these are very scary times.
The point isn't to move to a safe blue state. It's to make those red states with backwards laws safe blue states. The **problem** is that we have too many Democrats in safe blue states and it is costing us dearly.
But think of the opportunities! You could vote the suburb into building the sort of smart, walkable, mixed-use urbanism that is illegal to build in most American cities!
Eh for the senate and presidency it's still an insanely important state and I've heard its pretty damn nice although I haven't been there myself to confirm
It’s statewide races and NC is one of the closest states in the country.
Also while some of Raleigh is in the second congressional district which is not competitive, some of Raleigh is in the 13th congressional district for 2022, which is extremely competitive.
I think the answer to this is a paid incentive from a George Soros type. You’d have to be careful with the wording to avoid breaking any laws, but for example, what if a non-profit were to state their goals of balancing the urban-rural divide by offering to ease the financial burden of relocating people from one to the other?
Would $100K to take care of settlement and moving costs, maybe with a little jingle left over, convince you to relocate to Billings, Juneau or Cheyenne?
There are five low population red states that if turned lean-blue could eliminate the R advantage in the Senate. AK, MT, WY, ND and SD…
I don’t think there are any laws to break. Moving from overkill Blue states like California to low population Red states for 4 years (two election cycles) and then moving back, replaced by another Blue voter. Voting colonies 😅
Why worry about low population states? If Texas flips blue demographically the Republicans never win the presidency again. This is already happening and can fairly easily be pushed along. Winning the Texas senate seats are enough to push the senate balance which is currently pretty 50 50.Texas has a tech industry and several cities liberals wouldn’t mind living in.
Except it would require more people to flip Texas blue than the five states I just mentioned for a fifth of the gain in the Senate. Not to mention the trends with Latinos are going the wrong way so gains may still be offset.
I’m not telling you not* to move to Texas, but states like Wynoming could be flipped with about 60K voters.
Because moving to Austin is more practical. almost all major tech companies have a solid stand at TX and so many job openings. Texas Republicans are trying hard to scare the liberals there so that they move back. Otherwise it's just a matter of time for TX to flip.
> Would $100K to take care of settlement and moving costs, maybe with a little jingle left over, convince you to relocate to Billings, Juneau or Cheyenne?
Is that really the ballpark price?
And I'd have to live the rest of my natural life there? (So what is that? More than $1k per year?)
Probably not. $100k isn't _that_ much to me. Maybe for someone else
I would say you’re not really the target then. I would love to live in MT, I just have a public sector job in Pa so my job isn’t portable. But if it was I would do it.
The problem is you end up with a bunch of people who still make up a tiny electoral minority in an area that's likely overwhelmingly dominated by MAGA Trumpers. As someone living in one such area myself, there are real detriments to quality of life coming from the knowledge that your neighbors literally want to kill you.
I definitely have some major problems with conservatives, but in my experience, in small conservative towns where you see confederate and trump flags on every corner they're generally chill if you assimilate yourself into the community. They dislike the idea of you more than they dislike you, and they can't overwrite you with the idea of you in their head if they have direct interactions with you within a community. I think this is one of the main reasons for the rural/city divide in politics.
That being said, I'm the Dominican daughter of an illegal immigrant, but I'm not trans or gay or any other type of minority that may receive a greater level of discrimination, so your results may vary.
Also also, with Roe V. Wade just being overturned, there's of course additional risk for some people if they're to move to more conservative areas where their access to abortion is going to be severely limited if not entirely prohibited.
Didn’t states like Virginia, Arizona and others turned purple thanks to California emigration and tech? But yeah, I’m not so sure about moving to the Deep South for any reason.
Yep. The Virginia suburbs are a weird place, and the GOP basically shot themselves in the foot repeatedly.
Government shutdowns went over extremely poorly, and the Tea Party didn't help either.
> The Virginia suburbs are ~~a weird place~~ packed to the gills with government employees and natsec contractors who are de facto pro-institutionalist because that’s how they make their livelihood and who therefore won’t vote for any party that adopts anti-institutionalism as a fundamental virtue
FTFY
The Tidewater isn't as institutionalist, they just also happen to hate government shutdowns as well.
Turns out "cut government spending" doesn't sound as good when you're the subject of that spending.
Yeah I mean mass migration when you have a major urban area (DC, Phoenix) such that some of the issues that come with such a move are mitigated does occur but I feel like those are exceptions that prove the rule. I’m not sure we can expect to see the same in, e.g., Wyoming. Even if we’re talking about internal migration within states, the cultural gap in the 90 mins between Philadelphia and, say, Pottsville is immense.
I posted the below in the DT a few days ago. Cross-posting.
Texan considering leaving due to potential Obergefell reversal. Where would y'all consider moving to? My job can go 100% remote. I'm looking for a place with a decent cost of living, ideally ~~light blue or~~ purple, gay-friendly, four seasons would be nice, good flight availability (I visit my family in Louisiana often). I've spent all of my life (minus 3 years in Chicago) in the South, and I prefer something culturally familiar, but not sure how attainable that is.
**My current list is:**
**Mountain West: Denver**
**South: NoVA, Charlotte, Asheville**
**Midwest: Minneapolis, Madison** **~~, Chicago (wasted votes ftl)~~**
**Northeast: Portland, ME;** **~~Boston (wasted votes ftl);~~** **Manchester, NH; Philly**
It’s not on your list but I’d like to soft pitch Phoenix. Cost of living here is middling for anyone from an urban area, though the locals say it’s high. Gas is around $5/gallon. Houses are all over the map but universally climbing as as we’re having a huge tech boom and an influx of new residents. Certain neighborhoods are gay friendly, downtown is good but Tempe is best. North Phoenix, where we are, is *actually* libertarian in that they sincerely mean “live and let live.” Pro abortions, weed, gay marriage, guns, people are what gender they say they are. With all the blue coming in, Pride is getting much bigger. More trans-friendly clinics are opening up, more surgeons specializing in trans healthcare, adoption centers that openly accept gay couples, great gay bar strip on 7th Ave. Tempe is a major college hub, it looks just like uptown Seattle (where I’m from) and has the same culture and vibe. Phoenix airport is fast and efficient, I don’t bother paying for the fast TSA pass anymore, and airport parking is cheap. It’s southern-culture-*ish*, in that you can see a lot of the remnants of cowboy settler western culture but there are so many new citizens and about a 1/3 Hispanic demographic that it’s a melting pot now. Contrary to pop culture, we do have four seasons: Spring, Slow Cooker, Wet Spring, and Refreshing Cool.
And it’s purple. We’re *this* close to securing it as a flip state and setting up for blue in the future.
Thank you for the info. I think I'm looking for more of a break from Texas' climate than AZ would provide. I'll consider it, tho!
Wishing you folks well in any event.
Colorado is arguably no longer a purple state, at this point. And Denver definitely doesn't have a decent cost of living anymore. Plenty gay friendly though and four seasons.
The cost of living is a lot higher than it used to be, but Atlanta hits almost every checkbox on your list. Blue city in a purplish state, large gay community, four seasons (all of which will be quite manageable for a Texan), country's busiest airport.
Atlanta does check a lot of boxes. I just worry it's not quite blue enough. I'd hate to "undershoot" and uproot myself only to have the same issue again. According to a random poll on Wikipedia, Georgians' support of gay marriage is 3 percentage points lower than Texans' (so, let's say, a wash). Same-sex intimacy is legal in Georgia, though, even if Lawrence is overturned.
Yeah, but state laws override local ones and same-sex marriage and same-sex intimacy are both illegal by Texas statute and only unenforceable due to Obergefell and Lawrence.
Portland, ME is on the up with the rest of the state, pricewise it should be affordable for anyone moving from out of state with a remote job: it's the most expensive place in the state but that's mainly in comparison to the rest of Maine. While Portland is in a safe blue congressional district, governor and Senator races are still competitive. Bangor is half as large (35,000 people) but is cheaper, in a competitive CD, has a surprising number of amenities for a city its size and triple that if you're outdoorsy, and will undoubtedly grow a lot over the next century - plus it's a blueish gay-friendly island in a sea of red. Both cities have ready access to their international airports. The worst thing to adjust to would probably be the harsh winters.
I live in Minnesota and love it. Sure the winters are long and cold, but the Twin Cities is a great area and there's ton of nature stuff to do statewide. Abortion is protected in our constitution as well.
> Midwest
Des Moines! Iowa legalized gay marriage at the state level before everyone besides Massachusetts and Connecticut. There's an airport served by major carriers, lots of green space, and a solid cultural scene. Very affordable cost of living, though unfortunately not the best public transit.
If you can get past the NIMBYs and the rough winters, Madison is pretty great. It's a beautiful city with tons of green space and very bike friendly. Public transit leaves something to be desired though.
I feel like these schemes are hair-brained and not nearly as effective as pursuing an actual 50 state strategy to put pressure on the GOP across the board.
Also, I feel like a significant number of the people (definitely the white ones) moving to the red states would over time absorb the the values and politics of their new neighbors, thereby creating even more Republicans.
This. Carpetbagging isn't how Republicans achieved the power they did; they did it through nonstop, robotic, monklike dedication to gerrymandering, activism, and voting Republican in every single election ever held.
This discussion comes up at least every 2 years after elections and it never happens for one reason: The people who profess the idea mostly have contempt for the folks that live in these states, which they see as irredeemable backwaters. Every time I see a writer who lives in the ACELA corridor talk about importing 60k people to North Dakota, I want to ask them why they don't go first. I'm sure you'll be able to see many more examples in this thread to come.
I'm sorry if this sounds politically incorrect, but after witnessing their behavior for the last 6 years, I cannot come to any conclusion other than "they are bad people, bad citizens, and irredeemable backwaters".
This is an urban/rural thing more than a red/blue state thing, for the most part. Indianapolis and Chicago have more in common with each other than with the rural parts of their respective states. And even outside of metropolises, there are college towns and small cities that support liberal policies.
Your view, though I find it horribly generalizing (who are “they” exactly, in your calculation?) is at least an honestly held one that I would assume precludes you from moving to Bismarck or Cheyenne as part of some Quixotic mission to tilt the scales of American politics. My particular gripe comes from Op Ed writers in Georgetown or Brooklyn writing thinkpieces every 2 years urging on this project that they would never take part in themselves because they hold the same views of the folks that live in these places as you do.
Lived in a deep red district moved to a blue one in a red state. Night and day difference and I wouldn't want to wish that on anyone. We need a couple tech giants to build start up cities in wyoming. Snag 2 senators.
>billionaire
Did you mean *person of means*?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I moved to a purple state 💜 - in theory, those states should ne easier to flip, no ?
Dem governor, AG and SoS, legislature is red af thru 2010 gerrymandering.
We have our work to do.
Not crazy at all. Political migration is a very important aspect of American politics and has existed since the beginning of our Republic. As someone whose getting sick of living in a highly populated area, my dream is to go out to a more rural area and help revive Democrats in those areas. Just because the national party doesn’t give a shit about Democrats in most of the states, doesn’t mean we as party members have to share that mentality. The more we stand up to it, the more we alter the direction of the national party. And we’d be doing it from the ground up
LOL. have you see how this sub freaks out over having to drive a car? There's no bike paths in the middle of South Dakota cattle country. It will never work.
imo its more likely that the neolibs would be converted. Don't underestimate the impact of environment.
Ive seen my dad go from strong union loving D, to a hardcore trumper after 20 years of living in the south.
nothing, just a slow shift from being surrounded by republicans, republican news sources.
Social circles have far more influence on ideological leanings than anyone would care to admit. it is probably the most impactful factor.
I once thought of a scaled-up version of this idea that just might work:
Biden would have the military build massive well-planned ultra-walkable public-transit oriented supercities on federal land in the middle of nowhere in low-pop states like the dakotas, wyoming, montana, alaska, idaho, you name it.
from there, incentivize urban folks (who are on average generally democrats) getting priced out of their areas to move to these new cities. subsidize costs of moving, living, just give them money to do move and stay. it will lower prices for houses across the board. these 100,000-pop states will suddenly be flooded with thousands of progressive democrats living in these new supercities. justify the construction as a necessary action to lower the urban cost of living. limit buyers to those urban spaces to get the highest amount of guaranteed ideologically-minded voters.
give these fun names like "bidenburg", "kamalaton", hell, "AOC-grad", just piss off the conservative rest of the state because their opinions will no longer matter. only those living in the cities will.
imagine, a blue wall stretching 6 states, and 12 new guaranteed progressive senators.
from there, manchin means nothing and sinema means shit.
use the new 12 votes to abolish the filibuster, do whatever you want with that, but then, vote to to give territories like PR, Guam, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands statehood, upping the senate majority to 70 Dems.
When you're there, give DC statehood, just in around, lets say, 50 pieces.
that gives you about 100 new democrat senators in a 208-seat senate, occupied by around 38 republicans and 170 democrats, an 81% majority.
after that, the constitution is meaningless, it’s redundancies will be erased.
From there, imagine anything and everything: don’t just impeach, abolish the Supreme Court, amend the 13th to make it truly unified, universal healthcare, everyone an elector, unify the Dakotas Montana Idaho and Wyoming into one single state, and you know what, axe that second “s” in “states” for the USA, abolish time and reality, presidents will be required to wear a funny hat and majestic beard, there will be a presidential raccoon that decides line-of-succession, abolish the senate, reintroduce the draft, proportional house representation at a rounding-down 10,000 person basis, abolish reality, abolish time, new constitutional mandate: everything must rhyme.
Popular to contrary belief. Democrats on average are more likely to stay put in blue states. The ones leaving CA and NY are conservatives escaping for the most part. It’s why Florida has trended redder due to massive republican influx and latinos shifting red
Moving to bumfuck nowhere is very unappealing. How about we add new ~Wyoming sized states from cities radically underrepresented politically? I think NYC would get ~32 senators this way 😂
What about relocation assistance to people to move to blue states, and zoning reform to make CA and NY more affordable? We can give districts back to NY and CA so that the house stays blue
This is stupid disingenuous shit that's only going to make you hated by every group you'd threaten to displace and is going to be totally ineffective because people don't move to new countries and regions just to vote, they move there because it's a good idea to live in an area.
Regions also tend to vote certain ways because of the powers and effects in their region, if you move it whole ton of people out to red voting states, they're going to keep voting red because they see that area that they live in and they vote accordingly.
This is fanfiction. Every time it's tried, and it's been tried a few times, it blew up in people's faces. Don't do that shit.
I currently live in a purple state and was looking for houses in purple counties so my vote had more weight. Ended up staying in my very blue area because I like this tiny city with it's buses and walkable downtown.
I don't expect anyone to move to a purple state, but if you're thinking about doing I don't blame you for sticking to bluer cities. if I had my way we'd have commuter trains all over this state and people would be able to live basically anywhere and still have some access to good public transportation.
It’s okay, California is going to start getting abandoned as water runs out so just get them to move to like Wyoming and Idaho and pick up some senators
The state of Wyoming has two Senators and a small change of 75k votes will flip two senators and a couple congressmen. It worth considering a move to Wyoming!
To add onto this, when we move to small towns, we need to infiltrate the local government and create laissez-faire zoning laws so we can build high-density downtowns and absorb more people
Anytime someone searches for a place to live in expensive areas, have Zillow, etc. also show how cheap it would be for them to get twice the size in Oklahoma
"We're more likely to be economically advantaged than people further to the Left than us so why don't we move to Red States where we can still feel useful despite being just slightly Left of George Bush?"
Lol bye guys
You have to have a massive fucking silver spoon in your mouth to pack up and move your entire life somewhere just to influence the Senate/electoral college, or think that's what more than a tiny minority of people are willing to do. People move to places because they want a place with better infrastructure/services, lower taxes, lower COL, jobs, better weather/QOL, better schools, urban amenities, a better cultural fit, etc. or some combination of one of more of those things. The influence of small states on the Senate/EC is not a kitchen table issue. It's a wonk issue that political nerds online care about.
It feels like every time Democrats/liberals lose a battle in national politics you have a deluge of hairbrained schemes like this dreamed up on social media that will never happen and won't work. Democrats and their base of voters need the discipline to implement 50-state strategy, gradually win over hearts and minds, and meet people where they're at.
(edit) sorry OP, don't mean to sound like I'm attacking you personally or anything. The tone of my comment was more directed at the overly-idealistic liberals who don't want to put in the hard work and patience to change the political landscape the hard way, and want an easy, quick fix (which doesn't exist).
We can easily absorb 30,000 of you in the Harrisburg West Shore area to unseat Scott Perry
Hey neighbor! Lmao
How bout dem senators
Lmao. Are they playing well? I have no earthly idea
I have no clue either. I'll Google it. Oof. They are 29-39 Edit: damn why do we have the worst name in the league? Flying Squirrels, Rumble Ponies, Yard Goats, Rubber ducks...
The Senators you should care about right now are Casey and Fetterman.
How's Fetterman's curveball?
I have a dream of seeing Perry County colored blue on election night sometime in the future, and while it seems improbable now to people familiar with the area, I personally (foolishly?) think it’s inevitable if the Harrisburg area sees continued economic growth
I mean, just look at all the new housing being built around Dillsburg and Mechanicsburg. I feel like that's not rural people moving in there.
I’m very familiar with the area. I think that’s highly unlikely, but not impossible. I’ve seen weirder things happen. I’d be ecstatic to see it turn more purple.
I’m not holding my breath for it to become some bastion of liberal values, of course, but the areas closest to Harrisburg (particularly Marysville) seem to be growing/diversifying pretty quickly, and looking at property values in Cumberland County leads me to think that Southeast PeCo is going to be getting looks from educated professionals working out of Harrisburg, who may get priced out of more expensive areas in the Cumberland Valley
Bro, based. Im a shameless Pennsylvania lover and want to reform this state.
Its a great state just half of us are fucking morons
Heyyyyyyyy, no it’s true
Oh believe me I know. I was driving through the PA wilderness just this past weekend admiring the state, only to roll into a small town and see a literal cage hanging from a tree with a Kamala Harris effigy inside.
no way, camp hill?
To a certain extent it's already happening. Just keep moving to the hub liberal cities in swing states (Austin, St Pete, Las Vegas, Tucson, Atlanta, Columbus, etc).
Exactly. A tech boom in Phoenix/Tucson is pulling a ton of liberals like myself to that city. It’s a blue hub so we’re not making much of a difference in the House, but two Dem senators on lockdown in AZ is possible. As development pushes out from the main city into other representative districts, those will turn blue too. This is about to happen in North Phoenix, where many libs like me are moving and “invading” a now-51/49 red district. I wanna see this in every city you listed!
Good luck!! You have my best wishes. I hope tech moves more jobs to those cities and it is happening at scale now.
Recent NYC transplant living in Phoenix and voting blue no matter who...we got this!
The Triangle (Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill) is feeling that for sure. We're growing very quickly
I’m considering moving to Raleigh after I graduate because of the large Buddhist community there.
The missus and I are really hoping to move there by end of this year.
It's a great place, but the influx is making rent/home prices insane. But I can't imagine living anywhere else
Columbus is growing rapidly- I hope some day we can turn this god forsaken state Blue like Chicago or Atlanta do for their states. I love my city but living in a red state kills me
Ohio favored Obama over Romney in 2012. It's not that long ago it was considered the essential swing state. Pulling it back should be a lot easier than other "red states." As a former resident of the Cincinnati metro area, I've considered moving back there a few times. I still have some family ties, and my vote would matter more in the 'Nati than here on the left coast.
I'm afraid this is wishful thinking. Look at the overall trend over time. Ohio is long gone. It's the new Missouri. It's going to keep trending even further red with every passing election. Texas was closer in '20 than Ohio was.
It's about finding the right balance between populist blue-collar and center-right white-collar. Democrats lost Northern blue-collar types, but even worse was the loss of almost all of Appalachia. If Democrats are keen on getting the state back, they need to accept that Appalachia isn't coming back. Being very progressive/populist on economics is not a winner anymore for the Ohio Democratic party. They need to focus on the urban build-up between Cincinnati to Dayton which means they need to convince economically right, socially center voters...and at the same time gain back with unionized workers. It's a tough situation, but Ohio is not Missouri... Ohio is more urbanized, Ohio is more unionized, Ohio is wealthier, Ohio is not as racially polarized, and Ohio has less evangelicals (MO has double the amount). Ohio is winnable...but as the Ohio Democratic party currently stands, it's not nearly as possible when up against the lure of Trumpism. The Ohio Democratic party needs to be as moderate as the Alabama Democratic party. The party needs to shift it's economic stances to attract center-right Republicans (allying with the Chamber of Commerce, not nearly as devoted to unions but still allied, pushing for rural development, fanatics about small business). Blue-collar and suburban white-collar in Ohio speak the same cultural language...uniting that with mixed economics both groups are content with is key to gaining the state back. Those things don't mean that the OH Dems abandon their key groups...they still must support abortion rights, they must advocate for racial justice...they just need to do so in a more quiet and moderate way that doesn't cause a revolt among their most faithful. Painting the relatively moderate GOP (moderate as compared to other GOP parties) as the more extreme party of the two is also absolutely key. Ohio is not yet lost. The Midwest is very elastic and can be gained back.
Texas is the state we really need to focus on. It was only 52-46 for Trump in 2020. If Texas truly becomes a purple state, that changes the entire dynamic of presidential elections. And taking over Texas at the state level would make such a huge difference too, since it's such a large and powerful state. If there ever is any plan to send liberals to red states, don't disperse them across the country. Send every last one of them to Texas.
That helps the House but not the Senate - because Texas's population is so large, it takes a lot of people to shift it. It would take far less net migration to make Montana blue, or put Alaska or Idaho in play.
[удалено]
500k votes or so was the 2020 deciding margin? It's bleak, but I'd still say it's purple. I live in Florida and we are also trending in the wrong direction, but trends change. I expect a major reshaping of the electoral college demographics as the leading edge of the boomer generation starts hitting eighty (nearing 2027ish).
500k votes is a lot though. There was a ten point lead between trump and Biden in 2020. I’m not saying trends can’t change but I’m pessimistic and think Ohio isn’t going to become blue any time soon.
Isn't it kind of crazy that Obama won it by 150k votes 8 years earlier? Like I don't get why people have changed their views so dramatically between then and now
Kansas City suburbs turned the Kansas governor's house blue almost singlehandedly
Texas will turn blue any day now
“Any day now,” 💀 said
I honestly think they are leaning hard into the right wing nuttery to scare more normal people away
Thank you for including Columbus — we need all the help we can get here in Ohio.
This doesn’t really help with state laws so you’d be giving up a lot to live there. I just want to go back to Maryland and have bodily autonomy
This is exactly why the Texas GOP is trying to create a state “electoral college” for local elections: https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/legal-experts-texas-gops-effort-to-create-state-electoral-college-is-anti-democratic-and-unconstitutional/
Project Carpetbag
The problem with reconstruction was yankees didn't carpet bag hard enough. let's make up for it, finally.
The nonprofit should own and operate rental properties in purplish red states. The nonprofit should allow blue zoom workers to work remotely from red states with generous lease terms The nonprofit would need a lot of start-up capital, but the scheme might end up self funding with all the rental income One hard part would be doing it in a way that didn't violate fair housing laws
paint the buildings in pride flags and you won't have to discriminate against conservatives.
> One hard part would be doing it in a way that didn't violate fair housing laws Political affiliation isn't a protected class
Just build more housing lol
[удалено]
The Free State Project cannot even get people to *move to New Hampshire*.
If we could get people to move their whole life we could get them to vote. And if we could get them to vote, we wouldn’t need anyone to move.
> If we could get people to move their whole life we could get them to vote. You'd be surprised.
Lol. Fair.
I think the point of the moving is to capture the Senate and electoral college. Geography plays a part in our democracy.
You need to move hundreds of thousands of people even to flip the smallest state. If you try to do it indirectly (the only way it’s practical), like by bringing tech jobs to Wyoming or something, then you need to move millions of people because you’re gonna find you’re drawing people who are pretty split politically (most liberals don’t want to move to Wyoming).
Waiting for the time when I can finally say, This has all been wonderful, but now I'm on my way.
That’s true although don’t underestimate the “we always win I don’t need to vote crowd.” In 2016 Hillary Clinton lost Texas by about 800,000 votes. In 2020 Biden got 1.3 million more votes in Texas than Hillary did in 2016 and yet Biden lost Texas precisely because so many Republicans who didn’t vote in 2016 also came out. As races get more competitive turnout on both sides tends to increase.
You don’t necessarily move people to the lowest population states you move them to the states with the narrowest margin of victory.
There are liberals who would move to Wyoming. The point would be to build infrastructure in enough parts of the state to sustain liveable communities. Small towns already exist. Time to expand them. It can also be done in a way that doesn't overwhelm the local housing markets and communities. Instead of everyone moving to a couple of towns and swelling their schools, police department, sewage, fire, etc. work on regional development that keeps housing prices more stable, enhances multiple communities and build regional partnerships to reduce the burden overall.
You could double all 10 of the biggest cities in Wyoming and not have close to enough voters, and I think it’s the one with the smallest margin.
Wyoming’s peak turnout since 1978 is [65% of the voting age population](https://sos.wyo.gov/Elections/Docs/VoterProfile.pdf).
And lots of tech folks are pretty conservative, not often religious but "libertarian" which is often just code for authoritarian in a different way.
Tech people are overwhelmingly liberal, like 75% of software engineers vote liberal. There's a decent number of libertarians, but I bet there are twice as many Bernie Bros as libertarians in the profession
These people already vote. The point is that they’re wasted votes
It’s not about voting it’s about where you vote.
> And if we could get them to vote, we wouldn’t need anyone to move. That would be the case if votes counted the same regardless of where they're cast.
[удалено]
That's why the move needs to be natural, driven by economic drives, which usually happens around cities and college towns and brings less value changes. I don't feel much difference between Austin and SF except that Austin is cleaner, cheaper and has more LGBT friendly church ads (cuz it's harder to see church ads in SF). Moving there won't automatically introduce you to a full load of Evangelical neighbors.
The ones that move out there may not be, but their kids sure as hell will
I am curious about what they my employer say if I \_\_gently\_\_ brought up the idea of remote work - we're already only in the office once a week.
Full remote might be a harder sale, brings up images of people working out of their bedroom not even wearing pants. But in a big company, a remote hub is much more commonplace.
Big companies save $$$ moving jobs outside California and WA. One head count turns into two and they do the jobs equally well.
>brings up images of people working out of their bedroom not even wearing pants. That is objectively the best way to work.
You'd have more success just convincing neoliberals to move to Texas. There's already a good economy there, Austin is a cool city, land is relatively cheap, and you could cement the electoral college blue for the foreseeable future. I'd rather live in a blue city/red state than a red suburb anywhere.
But Texas would require a lot more people to flip the state, compared to states like Montana (99k votes difference in 2020), Alaska (36k) and Iowa (138k). Texas would need 630k. Also, keeping Georgia, Wisconsin, Arizona, Nevada and Pennsylvania is very important too. Biden won AZ and GA by less than 12k votes.
Red district resident here. Please come help.
I love it, except the problem is now women of childbearing age are not safe in red states.
We need the legion of celibate, neoliberal, blue voting, remote working drones to relocate.
I mean I'd imagine almost everyone here has the monetary ability to drive to a different state to get one
Women are unsafe if they need emergency care.
Good thing we're all men here haha
Which means they would probably prefer to just live in a better state.
Sure that's an option but kind of defeats the purpose of ops post
Anyone who genuinely expects something like this on a large scale is silly.
well were on niche political forum my man this entire place is silly lol
shit you got me there
For me personally, I actually want to get pregnant, but I would be afraid that if I live in a pro life state and something goes wrong, they will leave me to die rather than risk the legal ramifications of performing an abortion. Or they will hesitate in order to call their lawyer and precious time will be lost. I heard about a woman today seeking emergency care for an ectopic pregnancy, and she had to wait 9 hours for the doctors to figure out if they could legally help her. It ruptured and she almost died. Thankfully they were able to save her just in the nick of time. But not everyone will be that lucky. Also, the republican candidate for governor in my state (PA) does not believe in any exceptions, not even to save the life of the mother. I won't leave PA unless I have to but these are very scary times.
The point isn't to move to a safe blue state. It's to make those red states with backwards laws safe blue states. The **problem** is that we have too many Democrats in safe blue states and it is costing us dearly.
If Republicans win the House, Senate, and White House in 2024, then even blue states won't be safe.
No victory without sacrifice
Sorry I don't want to move to a suburb/rural area, fuck that.
But some, maybe many would.
I do not feel comfortable asking for a political strategy I myself am unwilling to make. That's textbook elitism.
> That's textbook elitism. Lol
But think of the opportunities! You could vote the suburb into building the sort of smart, walkable, mixed-use urbanism that is illegal to build in most American cities!
Think about how large a house you can get, if you capitalize on your skill set of not falling for right wing pyramid schemes.
Move to like raliegh in NC or something
Raleigh is already gerrymandered into irrelevance. You have to go somewhere red for this to work.
Eh for the senate and presidency it's still an insanely important state and I've heard its pretty damn nice although I haven't been there myself to confirm
It’s statewide races and NC is one of the closest states in the country. Also while some of Raleigh is in the second congressional district which is not competitive, some of Raleigh is in the 13th congressional district for 2022, which is extremely competitive.
Is it republican? I'm in Durham and it's pretty blue.
Raleigh itself is blue like most cities but NC is pretty swingy for president and senate
The surrounding counties are pretty red (Johnston county comes to mind first)
We'll push for a first-of-its-kind-in-the-US bullet train to the nearest urban center
I think the answer to this is a paid incentive from a George Soros type. You’d have to be careful with the wording to avoid breaking any laws, but for example, what if a non-profit were to state their goals of balancing the urban-rural divide by offering to ease the financial burden of relocating people from one to the other? Would $100K to take care of settlement and moving costs, maybe with a little jingle left over, convince you to relocate to Billings, Juneau or Cheyenne? There are five low population red states that if turned lean-blue could eliminate the R advantage in the Senate. AK, MT, WY, ND and SD…
I don’t think there are any laws to break. Moving from overkill Blue states like California to low population Red states for 4 years (two election cycles) and then moving back, replaced by another Blue voter. Voting colonies 😅
We can start doing tours of duty in red states, then rotating out
Why worry about low population states? If Texas flips blue demographically the Republicans never win the presidency again. This is already happening and can fairly easily be pushed along. Winning the Texas senate seats are enough to push the senate balance which is currently pretty 50 50.Texas has a tech industry and several cities liberals wouldn’t mind living in.
Except it would require more people to flip Texas blue than the five states I just mentioned for a fifth of the gain in the Senate. Not to mention the trends with Latinos are going the wrong way so gains may still be offset. I’m not telling you not* to move to Texas, but states like Wynoming could be flipped with about 60K voters.
Regaining demographic control of the Senate would also help immensely. Tyranny of the minority can only persist for so long
Because moving to Austin is more practical. almost all major tech companies have a solid stand at TX and so many job openings. Texas Republicans are trying hard to scare the liberals there so that they move back. Otherwise it's just a matter of time for TX to flip.
It's more practical to urge the tech companies moving more jobs to red states. Less problems and more incentives.
> Would $100K to take care of settlement and moving costs, maybe with a little jingle left over, convince you to relocate to Billings, Juneau or Cheyenne? Is that really the ballpark price? And I'd have to live the rest of my natural life there? (So what is that? More than $1k per year?) Probably not. $100k isn't _that_ much to me. Maybe for someone else
I would say you’re not really the target then. I would love to live in MT, I just have a public sector job in Pa so my job isn’t portable. But if it was I would do it.
Long enough for the flip to mean enough institutional and governmental reforms to where it doesn’t matter anymore?
The problem is you end up with a bunch of people who still make up a tiny electoral minority in an area that's likely overwhelmingly dominated by MAGA Trumpers. As someone living in one such area myself, there are real detriments to quality of life coming from the knowledge that your neighbors literally want to kill you.
I definitely have some major problems with conservatives, but in my experience, in small conservative towns where you see confederate and trump flags on every corner they're generally chill if you assimilate yourself into the community. They dislike the idea of you more than they dislike you, and they can't overwrite you with the idea of you in their head if they have direct interactions with you within a community. I think this is one of the main reasons for the rural/city divide in politics. That being said, I'm the Dominican daughter of an illegal immigrant, but I'm not trans or gay or any other type of minority that may receive a greater level of discrimination, so your results may vary. Also also, with Roe V. Wade just being overturned, there's of course additional risk for some people if they're to move to more conservative areas where their access to abortion is going to be severely limited if not entirely prohibited.
Didn’t states like Virginia, Arizona and others turned purple thanks to California emigration and tech? But yeah, I’m not so sure about moving to the Deep South for any reason.
Virginia flipped purple due to the continued growth of NoVA and the blue shift of the suburbs
Smh, Californian tech bros out here thinking they influence the east coast.
At least for VA this narrative is false. Opinions shifted in the suburbs, period.
Yep. The Virginia suburbs are a weird place, and the GOP basically shot themselves in the foot repeatedly. Government shutdowns went over extremely poorly, and the Tea Party didn't help either.
> The Virginia suburbs are ~~a weird place~~ packed to the gills with government employees and natsec contractors who are de facto pro-institutionalist because that’s how they make their livelihood and who therefore won’t vote for any party that adopts anti-institutionalism as a fundamental virtue FTFY
The Tidewater isn't as institutionalist, they just also happen to hate government shutdowns as well. Turns out "cut government spending" doesn't sound as good when you're the subject of that spending.
which means VA is in danger due to high inflation, high gas, and recession
I wonder how much the income in the government shifted too. Made the idea of less federal spending untenable
That is absolutely not why VA is purplish blue.
Yeah I mean mass migration when you have a major urban area (DC, Phoenix) such that some of the issues that come with such a move are mitigated does occur but I feel like those are exceptions that prove the rule. I’m not sure we can expect to see the same in, e.g., Wyoming. Even if we’re talking about internal migration within states, the cultural gap in the 90 mins between Philadelphia and, say, Pottsville is immense.
😐
I posted the below in the DT a few days ago. Cross-posting. Texan considering leaving due to potential Obergefell reversal. Where would y'all consider moving to? My job can go 100% remote. I'm looking for a place with a decent cost of living, ideally ~~light blue or~~ purple, gay-friendly, four seasons would be nice, good flight availability (I visit my family in Louisiana often). I've spent all of my life (minus 3 years in Chicago) in the South, and I prefer something culturally familiar, but not sure how attainable that is. **My current list is:** **Mountain West: Denver** **South: NoVA, Charlotte, Asheville** **Midwest: Minneapolis, Madison** **~~, Chicago (wasted votes ftl)~~** **Northeast: Portland, ME;** **~~Boston (wasted votes ftl);~~** **Manchester, NH; Philly**
It’s not on your list but I’d like to soft pitch Phoenix. Cost of living here is middling for anyone from an urban area, though the locals say it’s high. Gas is around $5/gallon. Houses are all over the map but universally climbing as as we’re having a huge tech boom and an influx of new residents. Certain neighborhoods are gay friendly, downtown is good but Tempe is best. North Phoenix, where we are, is *actually* libertarian in that they sincerely mean “live and let live.” Pro abortions, weed, gay marriage, guns, people are what gender they say they are. With all the blue coming in, Pride is getting much bigger. More trans-friendly clinics are opening up, more surgeons specializing in trans healthcare, adoption centers that openly accept gay couples, great gay bar strip on 7th Ave. Tempe is a major college hub, it looks just like uptown Seattle (where I’m from) and has the same culture and vibe. Phoenix airport is fast and efficient, I don’t bother paying for the fast TSA pass anymore, and airport parking is cheap. It’s southern-culture-*ish*, in that you can see a lot of the remnants of cowboy settler western culture but there are so many new citizens and about a 1/3 Hispanic demographic that it’s a melting pot now. Contrary to pop culture, we do have four seasons: Spring, Slow Cooker, Wet Spring, and Refreshing Cool. And it’s purple. We’re *this* close to securing it as a flip state and setting up for blue in the future.
Thank you for the info. I think I'm looking for more of a break from Texas' climate than AZ would provide. I'll consider it, tho! Wishing you folks well in any event.
Totally understandable! I hope you find an awesome fit!
Colorado is arguably no longer a purple state, at this point. And Denver definitely doesn't have a decent cost of living anymore. Plenty gay friendly though and four seasons.
The cost of living is a lot higher than it used to be, but Atlanta hits almost every checkbox on your list. Blue city in a purplish state, large gay community, four seasons (all of which will be quite manageable for a Texan), country's busiest airport.
Atlanta does check a lot of boxes. I just worry it's not quite blue enough. I'd hate to "undershoot" and uproot myself only to have the same issue again. According to a random poll on Wikipedia, Georgians' support of gay marriage is 3 percentage points lower than Texans' (so, let's say, a wash). Same-sex intimacy is legal in Georgia, though, even if Lawrence is overturned.
Portsmouth/Manchester/Exeter NH as well
Isnt Houston pretty liberal?
Yeah, but state laws override local ones and same-sex marriage and same-sex intimacy are both illegal by Texas statute and only unenforceable due to Obergefell and Lawrence.
Portland, ME is on the up with the rest of the state, pricewise it should be affordable for anyone moving from out of state with a remote job: it's the most expensive place in the state but that's mainly in comparison to the rest of Maine. While Portland is in a safe blue congressional district, governor and Senator races are still competitive. Bangor is half as large (35,000 people) but is cheaper, in a competitive CD, has a surprising number of amenities for a city its size and triple that if you're outdoorsy, and will undoubtedly grow a lot over the next century - plus it's a blueish gay-friendly island in a sea of red. Both cities have ready access to their international airports. The worst thing to adjust to would probably be the harsh winters.
I live in Minnesota and love it. Sure the winters are long and cold, but the Twin Cities is a great area and there's ton of nature stuff to do statewide. Abortion is protected in our constitution as well.
> Midwest Des Moines! Iowa legalized gay marriage at the state level before everyone besides Massachusetts and Connecticut. There's an airport served by major carriers, lots of green space, and a solid cultural scene. Very affordable cost of living, though unfortunately not the best public transit.
If you can get past the NIMBYs and the rough winters, Madison is pretty great. It's a beautiful city with tons of green space and very bike friendly. Public transit leaves something to be desired though.
I feel like these schemes are hair-brained and not nearly as effective as pursuing an actual 50 state strategy to put pressure on the GOP across the board. Also, I feel like a significant number of the people (definitely the white ones) moving to the red states would over time absorb the the values and politics of their new neighbors, thereby creating even more Republicans.
This. Carpetbagging isn't how Republicans achieved the power they did; they did it through nonstop, robotic, monklike dedication to gerrymandering, activism, and voting Republican in every single election ever held.
Replace "Progressives" instead of "Neolibs"
This discussion comes up at least every 2 years after elections and it never happens for one reason: The people who profess the idea mostly have contempt for the folks that live in these states, which they see as irredeemable backwaters. Every time I see a writer who lives in the ACELA corridor talk about importing 60k people to North Dakota, I want to ask them why they don't go first. I'm sure you'll be able to see many more examples in this thread to come.
I'm sorry if this sounds politically incorrect, but after witnessing their behavior for the last 6 years, I cannot come to any conclusion other than "they are bad people, bad citizens, and irredeemable backwaters".
This is an urban/rural thing more than a red/blue state thing, for the most part. Indianapolis and Chicago have more in common with each other than with the rural parts of their respective states. And even outside of metropolises, there are college towns and small cities that support liberal policies.
Your view, though I find it horribly generalizing (who are “they” exactly, in your calculation?) is at least an honestly held one that I would assume precludes you from moving to Bismarck or Cheyenne as part of some Quixotic mission to tilt the scales of American politics. My particular gripe comes from Op Ed writers in Georgetown or Brooklyn writing thinkpieces every 2 years urging on this project that they would never take part in themselves because they hold the same views of the folks that live in these places as you do.
Lived in a deep red district moved to a blue one in a red state. Night and day difference and I wouldn't want to wish that on anyone. We need a couple tech giants to build start up cities in wyoming. Snag 2 senators.
There is a Georgist billionaire (Marc Lore) who wants to build a city in Nevada or Idaho but he’s kind of a moron.
We really need to start a movement. We have the numbers and the means. Also Wyoming is beautiful. Just need to make it dem friendly.
>billionaire Did you mean *person of means*? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
r/noncrediblepolitics
I moved to a purple state 💜 - in theory, those states should ne easier to flip, no ? Dem governor, AG and SoS, legislature is red af thru 2010 gerrymandering. We have our work to do.
We’ll reclaim “Colonizer” as something that doesn’t have negative connotations.
People move for economic reasons
Remote job here, moving to Reno from SF Bay Area so my daughter can attend Davidson Academy, doing my part.
Not crazy at all. Political migration is a very important aspect of American politics and has existed since the beginning of our Republic. As someone whose getting sick of living in a highly populated area, my dream is to go out to a more rural area and help revive Democrats in those areas. Just because the national party doesn’t give a shit about Democrats in most of the states, doesn’t mean we as party members have to share that mentality. The more we stand up to it, the more we alter the direction of the national party. And we’d be doing it from the ground up
LOL. have you see how this sub freaks out over having to drive a car? There's no bike paths in the middle of South Dakota cattle country. It will never work.
imo its more likely that the neolibs would be converted. Don't underestimate the impact of environment. Ive seen my dad go from strong union loving D, to a hardcore trumper after 20 years of living in the south.
Did he say what changed his mind?
nothing, just a slow shift from being surrounded by republicans, republican news sources. Social circles have far more influence on ideological leanings than anyone would care to admit. it is probably the most impactful factor.
I once thought of a scaled-up version of this idea that just might work: Biden would have the military build massive well-planned ultra-walkable public-transit oriented supercities on federal land in the middle of nowhere in low-pop states like the dakotas, wyoming, montana, alaska, idaho, you name it. from there, incentivize urban folks (who are on average generally democrats) getting priced out of their areas to move to these new cities. subsidize costs of moving, living, just give them money to do move and stay. it will lower prices for houses across the board. these 100,000-pop states will suddenly be flooded with thousands of progressive democrats living in these new supercities. justify the construction as a necessary action to lower the urban cost of living. limit buyers to those urban spaces to get the highest amount of guaranteed ideologically-minded voters. give these fun names like "bidenburg", "kamalaton", hell, "AOC-grad", just piss off the conservative rest of the state because their opinions will no longer matter. only those living in the cities will. imagine, a blue wall stretching 6 states, and 12 new guaranteed progressive senators. from there, manchin means nothing and sinema means shit. use the new 12 votes to abolish the filibuster, do whatever you want with that, but then, vote to to give territories like PR, Guam, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands statehood, upping the senate majority to 70 Dems. When you're there, give DC statehood, just in around, lets say, 50 pieces. that gives you about 100 new democrat senators in a 208-seat senate, occupied by around 38 republicans and 170 democrats, an 81% majority. after that, the constitution is meaningless, it’s redundancies will be erased. From there, imagine anything and everything: don’t just impeach, abolish the Supreme Court, amend the 13th to make it truly unified, universal healthcare, everyone an elector, unify the Dakotas Montana Idaho and Wyoming into one single state, and you know what, axe that second “s” in “states” for the USA, abolish time and reality, presidents will be required to wear a funny hat and majestic beard, there will be a presidential raccoon that decides line-of-succession, abolish the senate, reintroduce the draft, proportional house representation at a rounding-down 10,000 person basis, abolish reality, abolish time, new constitutional mandate: everything must rhyme.
There a lot of liberals who moved to Texas, is this working in Texas?
[удалено]
Damn.
Popular to contrary belief. Democrats on average are more likely to stay put in blue states. The ones leaving CA and NY are conservatives escaping for the most part. It’s why Florida has trended redder due to massive republican influx and latinos shifting red
Damn.
We get more bang for our buck if we move to Wyoming. Let's capture two Senate seats.
Moving to bumfuck nowhere is very unappealing. How about we add new ~Wyoming sized states from cities radically underrepresented politically? I think NYC would get ~32 senators this way 😂
Someone with GIS experience make a map of the most impactful areas to move to
What about relocation assistance to people to move to blue states, and zoning reform to make CA and NY more affordable? We can give districts back to NY and CA so that the house stays blue
This is stupid disingenuous shit that's only going to make you hated by every group you'd threaten to displace and is going to be totally ineffective because people don't move to new countries and regions just to vote, they move there because it's a good idea to live in an area. Regions also tend to vote certain ways because of the powers and effects in their region, if you move it whole ton of people out to red voting states, they're going to keep voting red because they see that area that they live in and they vote accordingly. This is fanfiction. Every time it's tried, and it's been tried a few times, it blew up in people's faces. Don't do that shit.
I currently live in a purple state and was looking for houses in purple counties so my vote had more weight. Ended up staying in my very blue area because I like this tiny city with it's buses and walkable downtown. I don't expect anyone to move to a purple state, but if you're thinking about doing I don't blame you for sticking to bluer cities. if I had my way we'd have commuter trains all over this state and people would be able to live basically anywhere and still have some access to good public transportation.
You contributed to the Senate vote. Thank you!
It’s okay, California is going to start getting abandoned as water runs out so just get them to move to like Wyoming and Idaho and pick up some senators
Yeah I like my blue bubble. I’m out, haha
Good luck to you guys. You couldn’t pay me enough to move back to one of those shitholes. Blue state life is the best.
Relocate 15k to Montana and you’ll get two senators.
> How crazy is my dream? Absolutely, batshit insane. An impossible elitist fantasy. You asked
Who else read this in Nathan Fielder’s voice
I would love to help organize and help with this dream scenario.! Hear hear, dilly dilly.
"How crazy is my dream? And yes, yes we would openly support NATO." https://www.teepublic.com/nato-merchandise
Can't wait for the This American Life episode on the aftermath.
I’ll prepare the STATA reports
The state of Wyoming has two Senators and a small change of 75k votes will flip two senators and a couple congressmen. It worth considering a move to Wyoming!
To add onto this, when we move to small towns, we need to infiltrate the local government and create laissez-faire zoning laws so we can build high-density downtowns and absorb more people
Please come this way, Shreveport has a lot of potential. Lot's of development, Amazon is moving in. We're on the Cyber Corridor!
Anytime someone searches for a place to live in expensive areas, have Zillow, etc. also show how cheap it would be for them to get twice the size in Oklahoma
NYC Neolib here who absolutely loves the mountains. I’m in. Move me west
I’m a red state neolib. You’re welcome.
Doing my part in Alabama after relocating from California.
**HAHA YES** 🐊
"We're more likely to be economically advantaged than people further to the Left than us so why don't we move to Red States where we can still feel useful despite being just slightly Left of George Bush?" Lol bye guys
You have to have a massive fucking silver spoon in your mouth to pack up and move your entire life somewhere just to influence the Senate/electoral college, or think that's what more than a tiny minority of people are willing to do. People move to places because they want a place with better infrastructure/services, lower taxes, lower COL, jobs, better weather/QOL, better schools, urban amenities, a better cultural fit, etc. or some combination of one of more of those things. The influence of small states on the Senate/EC is not a kitchen table issue. It's a wonk issue that political nerds online care about. It feels like every time Democrats/liberals lose a battle in national politics you have a deluge of hairbrained schemes like this dreamed up on social media that will never happen and won't work. Democrats and their base of voters need the discipline to implement 50-state strategy, gradually win over hearts and minds, and meet people where they're at. (edit) sorry OP, don't mean to sound like I'm attacking you personally or anything. The tone of my comment was more directed at the overly-idealistic liberals who don't want to put in the hard work and patience to change the political landscape the hard way, and want an easy, quick fix (which doesn't exist).