Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First, this is not a political post. If you are happy w/ the election, that's fine, but this is for liberals that wish to relocate. No one is going to change anyone's minds.
I've looked at most parts of the US, and for a liberal that wants affordability and a not-too-high cost of living, well, good luck! I am currently in St Pete, Florida and it's pretty liberal, but the development pace is bringing in a lot of investors and 1%ers, so it is rapidly changing.
New Mexico is attractive as it is Democratically controlled, but my memories of Albuquerque are of high crime, poverty, a low level of education, a bit of a disconnect between the local Latino population and the Anglos, a full on crazy police force that is currently under federal oversight due to trigger happy officers, and quite a few rude east coast people. Tucson was worse in some regards, better in others.
In short, I have no idea where to go, and may as well stay here because it seems better than anywhere else I have lived. For now. I looked at Panama and the negatives far outweigh the positives. Costa Rico sounds nice, and I've thought of it for ages, but it does not appear to be affordable in the safer areas anymore. Hawaii, while still a US state, is so culturally different it may as well not be, but having lived there off and on since 1992 I know about the racism and cost of living issues.
So where is anyone else thinking of going? Or IS there anywhere else that might be affordable, liberal and liveable? Or are you just going to stand pat and stay where you are?
Last edited by JMT; 11-15-2016 at 06:47 AM..
Reason: Discussing moderator actions is against the TOS.
People say they're going to move (some even out of the country) after elections all the time. Very, very rarely do people actually move for political/ideological reasons.
To be sure...I think what happened last Tuesday was a national disgrace unlike any we've seen in a generation; but this is still a dumb mindset.
PLUS....if all liberals move into cities/areas that are already liberal....that gives the conservative voting blocs more power on a federal level....
Let me get this right...when a power mongering self centred person like Bruce Jenner is declared woman of the year....and so called conservatives still believe he is a man...then that perturbs the progressives and now they want to flee the conservatives oppressors for thinking in terms of true reality? That is just one example of avoidance that progressive practice.
Maybe so called liberals should concentrate on liberating the conservatives who they have tied and bound with rash political correctness?
You do not need to move...just adapt to the fact that not everyone is going to be like you.
PLUS....if all liberals move into cities/areas that are already liberal....that gives the conservative voting blocs more power on a federal level....
That's already a reason why Democrats are at a disadvantage with House and state legislature elections - you have (usually urban) areas that are 80+% liberal while it's less common for an area to be overwhelmingly conservative by similar margins. Democrats have their votes concentrated in areas they're already safe, which leaves a greater number of districts (compared to the population at large) that are majority Republican.
A similar phenomenon affected this year's Presidential election - Clinton's supporters were disproportionately located in safe (both blue and red) states, but Trump had more supporters in states that were projected to be toss-ups or even leaning Democrat whose turn-out was great enough to tip the Electoral College to him despite her winning slightly more popular votes.
You do not need to move...just adapt to the fact that not everyone is going to be like you.
To be fair, if someone, due to the post-election environment, didn't feel safe in their current locale due to being trans, or Muslim, or an immigrant, I'd most assuredly advise them to move somewhere more accepting. But otherwise, if you're serious about your politics, you should "colonize" a swing state, not hide away somewhere that everyone will be exactly like you.
That's already a reason why Democrats are at a disadvantage with House and state legislature elections - you have (usually urban) areas that are 80+% liberal while it's less common for an area to be overwhelmingly conservative by similar margins. Democrats have their votes concentrated in areas they're already safe, which leaves a greater number of districts (compared to the population at large) that are majority Republican.
A similar phenomenon affected this year's Presidential election - Clinton's supporters were disproportionately located in safe (both blue and red) states, but Trump had more supporters in states that were projected to be toss-ups or even leaning Democrat whose turn-out was great enough to tip the Electoral College to him despite her winning slightly more popular votes.
Lol apparently half the reason they are at a disadvantage is because they are so intolerant of other view points, that they only elect to live next to each other.
That's already a reason why Democrats are at a disadvantage with House and state legislature elections - you have (usually urban) areas that are 80+% liberal while it's less common for an area to be overwhelmingly conservative by similar margins. Democrats have their votes concentrated in areas they're already safe, which leaves a greater number of districts (compared to the population at large) that are majority Republican.
A similar phenomenon affected this year's Presidential election - Clinton's supporters were disproportionately located in safe (both blue and red) states, but Trump had more supporters in states that were projected to be toss-ups or even leaning Democrat whose turn-out was great enough to tip the Electoral College to him despite her winning slightly more popular votes.
IIRC the structural advantage that the Republicans have in the House due to democrats self-segregating in urban areas is only in the range of a few percent. Gerrymandering plays a role too.
Still, it's true you'd have the issue even without gerrymandering. Looking at my own state of Pennsylvania, for example, the Republican gerrymander resulted in a 13R-5D map. A neutral map would have had more Democratic seats, but probably would still be about 10R-8D at best - even though in most years the Democrats win the majority of the congressional vote.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
