Dems fleeing CA for TX, but still voting Dem.. (Portland: to live, vs.)

[texasdiver]

Originally Posted by MrJester

Got it, but any hard numbers on political affiliations of those leaving California vs. California as a whole? I know you're trying to say that yes, the Californians leaving the state are liberals and that California is thus getting less liberal, but the truth is more complex than poor people are Democrats and rich people are Republicans.

And that's not considering that many Californians leaving the state are not even citizens and therefore can't vote. Or even if they are citizens, do they tend to be the most politically indifferent, non voting population in California to begin with?

I'm not trying to say anything about the political affiliations of those leaving CA. The census data that tracks this sort of thing doesn't measure political affiliation so there is really no way to know, other than anecdotal information, which is unlikely to be accurate or representative. For example, if you look at who is moving to Midland, Odessa, or Pecos it is probably mostly Republicans in the oil industry. If you look at who is moving to Austin it is probably more liberal folks in the tech industry. How that all balances out? Who knows.

My own personal guess is that MOST Americans who chose to relocate, do so for career, education, family, and economic reasons and not politics. I suspect a very small percentage of people moving in and out of any state are doing so for partisan political reasons. They are just the ones who make the most noise.

My wife and I moved to TX for education and career reasons in 2003 and we left in 2016, also for career reasons. Politics had nothing to do with either move. I think that's the case with most people.

As someone said above. If Texas wants to avoid changing demographics and politics then it should stop trying to do things like attract companies like Tesla and Space-X to Texas and all the other incentives that the state does to attract jobs. Then Texas can be like Arkansas or Mississippi and be happily stagnant and unchanging.

[R1070]

California has a larger more dense population with land restrictions due to geographical constraints. That increases the prices of doing anything. You also need higher taxes to deal with more social issues given the large population. None of that has to do with political parties.

[Lodestar 77]

Originally Posted by ChristieP

If you wanted a place that is politically like Wisconsin or Minnesota, why didn't you move to those places?

Moving to Texas, knowing full well what the political climate is here, and then trying to change it is ridiculous.

IMO it is also very disrespectful.

[GABESTA535]

This has been disproven again and again but the myth won't die. The truth is that it's transplants that are drowning out the desire of native Texans for much more liberal governance.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/poli...it-poll-shows/

https://www.ktsa.com/abbott-larger-p...native-texans/

[Hopeful for Life]

Originally Posted by As Above So Below...

California transplant and blue voter here.

What drives people out of the state has to do with costs and yes some of that has to do with the taxes that the politicians out there have enacted. However, most of what drives people out is the simple price of housing. California can get away with it because its so naturally beautiful. There is nothing like Yosemite, Wine Country, or the Southern California Riviera in Texas. Its things like that which will make people willing to pay more to live there if they have the funds. That in turn allows politicians to jack up taxes with no real consequence to the tax base. If Texas were that expensive, everyone would simply leave. Look at Illinois. They try to have crazy high taxes and people just leave because its only Chicago plus a giant cornfield in the state.

But here is what is equally a turn off for us: the socially backward policies, womens rights, the climate change denial, and tone towards immigrants that the GOP currently displays. Most of us have no issue with the economic policies of the GOP. Other than some regulation that needs to be there, I dont. But the importance of social issues takes precedence for me.

For the record too, I voted for Republicans on a local level and Democrats nationally when I lived in LA. I dont want to turn Texas into California but Id love to turn it into Wisconsin or Minnesota on a political level. I dont want a blue Texas, I want a purple one. A Texas where we can be friendly to businesses as well as LGBTQ people. A Texas that can help solve climate change because we are the energy capital of the world. Thats why I will vote blue in Texas for the foreseeable future. When it starts to become more liberal, Ill probably vote for some Republicans too. I want moderation.

I second all of what he is saying. I am a native Texan who lived in southern Calif for 15 years. The state govt values more people in society than the crazy, hate-filled TxLt Governor and Gov Abbott (to a lesser extent). Until the Repub party of Texas introduces more moderate candidates, I will not vote Republican. I would vote for someone like Rep William Hurd.

[texasdiver]

Originally Posted by GABESTA535

This has been disproven again and again but the myth won't die. The truth is that it's transplants that are drowning out the desire of native Texans for much more liberal governance.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/poli...it-poll-shows/

https://www.ktsa.com/abbott-larger-p...native-texans/

Perhaps. But I expect a lot of transplants are in those middle age ranges that also vote most heavily Republican compared to the young. If most transplants are say ages 35-55 then you would have to look at a comparable range of native voters in that same age range. Because 18-35 year old voters generally tend more liberal.

Anyway, I'm just spit balling here for reasons why the split might not actually be as dramatic as the polls cited show. Who knows.

[Foamposite]

Originally Posted by Hopeful for Life

I second all of what he is saying. I am a native Texan who lived in southern Calif for 15 years. The state govt values more people in society than the crazy, hate-filled TxLt Governor and Gov Abbott (to a lesser extent). Until the Repub party of Texas introduces more moderate candidates, I will not vote Republican. I would vote for someone like Rep William Hurd.

Lol, Abbott is a moderate. If you want RINOs like Mike Bloomberg of the 00s, what's the point of voting Republican?

[mkwensky]

States change voting patterns all the time. Over the past ten years VA and CO trended blue while MO, IA and OH trended red. We'll find out in a few days if PA, MI and WS is trending red or if 2016 was an anomaly. There's no good reason why Texas should be exempt from this. If you're not happy about the way your state is trending then just move to one of the states that are trending your way.

[texasdiver]

Originally Posted by mkwensky

States change voting patterns all the time. Over the past ten years VA and CO trended blue while MO, IA and OH trended red. We'll find out in a few days if PA, MI and WS is trending red or if 2016 was an anomaly. There's no good reason why Texas should be exempt from this. If you're not happy about the way your state is trending then just move to one of the states that are trending your way.

Exactly.

In 1988, West Virginia and Iowa were BLUE states for Dukakis. California and Illinois were RED states for Bush.

[Foamposite]

Originally Posted by texasdiver

Exactly.

In 1988, West Virginia and Iowa were BLUE states for Dukakis. California and Illinois were RED states for Bush.

To be fair, the Southern Dem voters were often socially conservative but fiscally liberal, which was still allowed in the Dem party at the time. It's not true that those (now) red states that voted blue in the 80s and 90s were liberal.