“Democrats want to live in places with artistic culture and craft breweries, and Republicans want to move to places where they can have a big yard,” said Ryan Strickler, a political sci…
Something I think we’ve all kinda known has been happening, but interesting to see the reporting on which states are which.
Idk there’s a lot of Democrats in Texas, where they have art, craft breweries, and big yards. Naw, it’s politicians that are sorting the people into just Republican or Democratic zones; changing the shape of the zones to cover where their people are such that it comes out that there are more Republican zones, thus making it appear like states are more “red” than they really are. When zones are picked by reasonable boundaries, then the Republicans say “see, Democrats are unfairly picking their voters, too!”
In other words, Texas is more blue than it sometimes appears, and if people would vote in greater numbers, this version of Republican would be quickly eliminated in many more places.
Indeed, but the institutional hurdles (requiring IDs and moving/closing polling sites, to call out just a couple) placed by Republicans make that “if people would vote in greater numbers” not as easy as stated.
That goes the other way too: California is more red than it appears. Reagan was governor of California, and OC has an airport named after John Wayne. The farmlands, and area around Sac can vote Republican too.
I really don’t see a point in this increasing tribalism, where we attempt to sort out people into two camps and root for them like it’s some kind of sports game. I think it’s way more productive to focus on policies and specific issues: there are Republicans who support abortion (see: the abortion referendums in red states), and there are Democrats who don’t. Reality is much more nuanced than this article implies.
Idk there’s a lot of Democrats in Texas, where they have art, craft breweries, and big yards. Naw, it’s politicians that are sorting the people into just Republican or Democratic zones; changing the shape of the zones to cover where their people are such that it comes out that there are more Republican zones, thus making it appear like states are more “red” than they really are. When zones are picked by reasonable boundaries, then the Republicans say “see, Democrats are unfairly picking their voters, too!”
In other words, Texas is more blue than it sometimes appears, and if people would vote in greater numbers, this version of Republican would be quickly eliminated in many more places.
Indeed, but the institutional hurdles (requiring IDs and moving/closing polling sites, to call out just a couple) placed by Republicans make that “if people would vote in greater numbers” not as easy as stated.
That goes the other way too: California is more red than it appears. Reagan was governor of California, and OC has an airport named after John Wayne. The farmlands, and area around Sac can vote Republican too.
I really don’t see a point in this increasing tribalism, where we attempt to sort out people into two camps and root for them like it’s some kind of sports game. I think it’s way more productive to focus on policies and specific issues: there are Republicans who support abortion (see: the abortion referendums in red states), and there are Democrats who don’t. Reality is much more nuanced than this article implies.
Cool both sides take. One side is credibly accused of attempting to overthrow the republic.