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.
I messed it up. In reality, neither state is in danger of either cultural takeover (except maybe for Austin in Texas), but I meant to ask which hypothetical event people would prefer, nationally.
Now, this thread has taken a course that is probably impossible to steer out of, and so I wouldn't mind if the thread was locked.
Thanks for clarifying what was a bit confusing [perhaps you could have been more specific]. Culturally I prefer California over Texas due it being on the cutting edge of trends and societal progress.
The only things I'd prefer about Texification are the hospitality, architecture, food...maybe a few other things, but other than that I prefer the influence of the west coast.
That is true, people don't realize this. Anne Richards should ring a bell.
Yeah, but Ann Richards did not so much win as Clayton Williams lost. He was clearly ahead in the polls until he began sticking his foot in his mouth (not knowing the particulars of important propositions, his comments about bad weather and rape, talking of "getting serviced" in Mexico when younger, etc.) He just simply self-destructed...
Quote:
ImOnFiya wrote: In terms of Democrat vs. Republican, Texas was a majority old-time blue dog Democratic state well after the "southern strategy" was imposed the Republicans after Nixon in '68. Demographical Republican supremacy came in the mid-1990s, with the swelling white "baby boomer" generation being overwhelming GOP, now (due to urban growth patterns, young whites now majority democratic, and the rise of hispanics at large) Texas grows more blue again naturally every day.
I gotta disagree here, although I can easily see how the opinion has a lot of basis. Backtracking a bit, the accurate term to describe Texas in your opening statement is "Yellow Dog" Democrat, not Blue Dog. I hasten to add I am not trying to be patronizing, because this is a common source of confusion. The "yellow dog" was associated with the original Solid South, whereas Blue Dog is a modern day term for moderate - conservative democrats and not so exclusively Southern. Intermediate between the two were the "Boll Weevils"...mostly conservative Southern democrats (lead by Phil Gramm of Texas), many of whom eventually switched to the Republican party.
At the state level you are correct that Texas remained, for quite a time, a yellow dog dem state (and in many ways still is at the local level). But at the national level it switched in tandem with other Southern states after '68. Humphrey barely won Texas that year, but only because 20% of the voters went for George Wallace and it drew off some of Nixon's votes. In '72, former governor John Connally organized Democrats for Nixon because of the heavy opposition to George McGovern with the state (in fact, before he was shot and withdrew, the Texas delegation was pledged to Wallace that year).
The last Democrat to win in Texas was Carter in '76...and a likely reason there is because he was a Southerner and campaigned in a good ol' boy populist style which appealed to Texas voters.
Anyway, while there are certain trends in that direction, I don't see Texas becoming "blue" anytime soon. Not even really a swing state. I think that is wishful thinking on the part of some (and I mean that in no note of disrespect). Or as a conservative, at least I HOPE it is! LOL
We are talking about economics and the fact that liberals are moving to conservative states for jobs now. You look at the 10 best states for job growth right now and you will see that they are fiscal conservative states. Of course Texas is number one. So maybe Alabama and Mississippi are poor now but if a city like Birmingham can be the next Atlanta someday it will not be thank you to liberal policy but conservative that will attract business, jobs and growth.
..so where do we distinguish between the number of liberals vs. conservatives that are moving to conservative states for jobs? If jobs are available, people are going to move period. Also note that most of the cities in these conservative states that are growing are the liberal cities. They may becoming more liberal now due to the influx, but most of them were always more liberal than the rest of the state. Being conservative socially and being conservative economically are two different thing, although they become intertwined. Being Soc-Lib attracts people and smaller innovative businesses, which attract more businesses and more people. Being Eco-Con attracts big business, which bring people en masse. It's a good balance and mostly what you have in the Texas cities. Any other combination is detrimental or probably unfeasible.
With that said, conservative policy will not be bringing Alabama, Louisiana, or Mississippi growth anytime soon. Actually, the only areas of these states that see any growth are the more liberal areas. Some of the most conservative states still manage to rank last in everything with the exception of those having strong liberal cities and cities like New York, Los Angeles, etc. continue to grow even with strong emigration numbers.
One thing IMO about growth from conservative policy. It tends to attract bigger companies and large corporations who are looking for the cheapest place to do business and form no connection with the area. The minute these cities go through a rough period (which it will eventually) it will be no problem for these corporations to leave you hanging high and dry. Hey, that's business though.
-----------------------
It annoys me how people let bipartisan politics get in the middle of everything, in reality too much of either is bad.
I messed it up. In reality, neither state is in danger of either cultural takeover (except maybe for Austin in Texas), but I meant to ask which hypothetical event people would prefer, nationally.
Now, this thread has taken a course that is probably impossible to steer out of, and so I wouldn't mind if the thread was locked.
Oh, ok! LOL Seriously, definitely Texification...but of course I am obviously biased!
But even if I was not a native boy, I would say the same because of a generally conservative outlook on political, social, and fiscal matters. Not so quick to embrace every trendy fad or idea that comes along, Southern manners and hospitality mixed with a free-spirited western individuality. "Gun friendly" state with laws very favorable toward individual right to protect person and property (Castle Doctrine), low taxes, right to work, small-business friendly. And did I mention great food and purty wimmin?
We are talking about economics and the fact that liberals are moving to conservative states for jobs now. You look at the 10 best states for job growth right now and you will see that they are fiscal conservative states. Of course Texas is number one. So maybe Alabama and Mississippi are poor now but if a city like Birmingham can be the next Atlanta someday it will not be thank you to liberal policy but conservative that will attract business, jobs and growth. 10 Best States for Job Growth: Should You Consider Relocating? CEOs Select Best, Worst States for Job Growth and Business | Articles | Homepage
Red states are poor in general.
If we want to blame liberal policy for the downfall of these states then I guess we can attribute liberal policy to the reason CA, NY, CT, NJ, etc are all wealthy states with massive economies.
I guess liberal policy is both good and destructive.
Yeah, but Ann Richards did not so much win as Clayton Williams lost. He was clearly ahead in the polls until he began sticking his foot in his mouth (not knowing the particulars of important propositions, his comments about bad weather and rape, talking of "getting serviced" in Mexico when younger, etc.) He just simply self-destructed...
I gotta disagree here, although I can easily see how the opinion has a lot of basis. Backtracking a bit, the accurate term to describe Texas in your opening statement is "Yellow Dog" Democrat, not Blue Dog. I hasten to add I am not trying to be patronizing, because this is a common source of confusion. The "yellow dog" was associated with the original Solid South, whereas Blue Dog is a modern day term for moderate - conservative democrats and not so exclusively Southern. Intermediate between the two were the "Boll Weevils"...mostly conservative Southern democrats (lead by Phil Gramm of Texas), many of whom eventually switched to the Republican party.
At the state level you are correct that Texas remained, for quite a time, a yellow dog dem state (and in many ways still is at the local level). But at the national level it switched in tandem with other Southern states after '68. Humphrey barely won Texas that year, but only because 20% of the voters went for George Wallace and it drew off some of Nixon's votes. In '72, former governor John Connally organized Democrats for Nixon because of the heavy opposition to George McGovern with the state (in fact, before he was shot and withdrew, the Texas delegation was pledged to Wallace that year).
The last Democrat to win in Texas was Carter in '76...and a likely reason there is because he was a Southerner and campaigned in a good ol' boy populist style which appealed to Texas voters.
Anyway, while there are certain trends in that direction, I don't see Texas becoming "blue" anytime soon. Not even really a swing state. I think that is wishful thinking on the part of some (and I mean that in no note of disrespect). Or as a conservative, at least I HOPE it is! LOL
Lord, I didn't mean to ramble on all THAT much!
I think Texas becomes somewhat purple. I don't think it becomes blue though.
..so where do we distinguish between the number of liberals vs. conservatives that are moving to conservative states for jobs? If jobs are available, people are going to move period. Also note that most of the cities in these conservative states that are growing are the liberal cities. They may becoming more liberal now due to the influx, but most of them were always more liberal than the rest of the state. Being conservative socially and being conservative economically are two different thing, although they become intertwined. Being Soc-Lib attracts people and smaller innovative businesses, which attract more businesses and more people. Being Eco-Con attracts big business, which bring people en masse. It's a good balance and mostly what you have in the Texas cities. Any other combination is detrimental or probably unfeasible.
With that said, conservative policy will not be bringing Alabama, Louisiana, or Mississippi growth anytime soon. Actually, the only areas of these states that see any growth are the more liberal areas. Some of the most conservative states still manage to rank last in everything with the exception of those having strong liberal cities and cities like New York, Los Angeles, etc. continue to grow even with strong emigration numbers.
One thing IMO about growth from conservative policy. It tends to attract bigger companies and large corporations who are looking for the cheapest place to do business and form no connection with the area. The minute these cities go through a rough period (which it will eventually) it will be no problem for these corporations to leave you hanging high and dry. Hey, that's business though.
-----------------------
It annoys me how people let bipartisan politics get in the middle of everything, in reality too much of either is bad.
I agree with this post 100%. This is basically what I was trying to say in my other post to RussianInov about Miss, Ala, and other poor Conservative states. Being Liberal will not economically kill a state, anymore than being majority Conservative would. Big-Business=Conservative, Innovation=Liberal. A balance of BOTH in one state is a PERFECT balance. Too much of one, is a BAD thing. I like this post.
If we want to blame liberal policy for the downfall of these states then I guess we can attribute liberal policy to the reason CA, NY, CT, NJ, etc are all wealthy states with massive economies.
I guess liberal policy is both good and destructive.
California is BILLIONS of dollars in debt and having serious problems with their economy.
California is BILLIONS of dollars in debt and having serious problems with their economy.
It also has the highest GDP in the nation, with a crap load of fortune 500 companies. People always leave that little snippet out.
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.
