# Blue states lose population - 2010 census



## Patrick2 (Jul 24, 2011)

*People are fleeing high-tax blue states (here, ironically portrayed in red) to low-tax red states, and taking some congressional seats with them:*







Florida is an exception, too many northeast leftwingers retire there, but a 1.5% vote switch would have tipped it into the GOP column, and undoubtedly will in 2012.


----------



## Mr_Rockhead (Jul 24, 2011)

Patrick2 said:


> *People are fleeing high-tax blue states (here, ironically portrayed in red) to low-tax red states, and taking some congressional seats with them:*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And each one of those congressional seats is an Electoral Vote.


----------



## editec (Jul 24, 2011)

The migration from the NE to the South and West has been happening for the last 200 years.

This development accelerated greatly post WWII.

State taxes are certainly one of the motivators.

But seeking better weather is, I suspect the primary reason for this development.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jul 24, 2011)

Patrick2 said:


> *People are fleeing high-tax blue states (here, ironically portrayed in red) to low-tax red states, and taking some congressional seats with them:*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wait a minute...

...northeastern liberals moving to Florida increases the odds that Florida will vote Republican?

Waaaa?????


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jul 24, 2011)

editec said:


> The migration from the NE to the South and West has been happening for the last 200 years.
> 
> This development accelerated greatly post WWII.
> 
> ...



And not necessarily a bad thing.  New England and the Middle Atlantic states currently have, as regions, the lowest unemployment rates in the country.  If people were pouring INTO these regions, fighting over a finite number of jobs, that would not make things better.

Florida's UE rate is well above the national average.


----------



## editec (Jul 24, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > The migration from the NE to the South and West has been happening for the last 200 years.
> ...


 
Yup.

But that in part, I think because so many people here (particularly young people who CAN move easier than those of us in our later years) moved (until recently) because the South and West offered more employment and lower costs of living.

Basically the NE was EXPORTING its unemployed.

Now, of course, with this meltdown of the economy that job picture appears to be changing.

Maine's population had been rising somewhat as more and more retired migrated here to take advantage of the low cost of housing and the low crime.

But Maines kids tend to leave in droves seeking both a place where being young isn't a crime, and a place where they can find jobs to start out their careers.

Maine is something of a Geritocracy.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jul 24, 2011)

Patrick2 said:


> *People are fleeing high-tax blue states (here, ironically portrayed in red) to low-tax red states, and taking some congressional seats with them:*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Must be due to the fact that the red states get so much more back from the feds on a per capita basis.  This just means more tax dollars will be funneled from blue states to red.  The red states pay less in taxes but get more back, yet they bitch about how much they pay.  Gotta love it.


----------



## Truthseeker420 (Jul 24, 2011)

Patrick2 said:


> *People are fleeing high-tax blue states (here, ironically portrayed in red) to low-tax red states, and taking some congressional seats with them:*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No thanks to Reaganomics they have to move to the desert. And Ohio is a Republican state.


----------



## The Infidel (Jul 24, 2011)

auditor0007 said:


> Must be due to the fact that the red states get so much more back from the feds on a per capita basis.  This just means more tax dollars will be funneled from blue states to red.  The red states pay less in taxes but get more back, yet they bitch about how much they pay.  Gotta love it.




Care to try proving that BS?

The red states - especially Tx - have lower tax rates for business, and "usually" no state income tax... therefore, there are more jobs and more money to be made. Simply bc, who in their right mind would start a business in a state that takes more of your capital?
This is bringing more work and more people to the red states.

Thats my .02


----------



## RadiomanATL (Jul 24, 2011)

auditor0007 said:


> Patrick2 said:
> 
> 
> > *People are fleeing high-tax blue states (here, ironically portrayed in red) to low-tax red states, and taking some congressional seats with them:*
> ...



Except Texas pays more to the feds than they receive. And it looks like thats where most people are Going according to the graph.

So I guess that shoots your theory all to hell and back.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Jul 24, 2011)

I'd rather live in a state with higher taxes and a great quality of life versus a state with low taxes and basically no quality of life.


----------



## Dick Tuck (Jul 24, 2011)

You leave too much out in your analysis.  How many moving to Texas, Arizona, Nevada, and Florida are Hispanic?  How about the birthrate differential between whites and Hispanics?  How many people from the cold weather North East are moving to milder climates, due to the Boomers beginning to retire?  What too much speculation to take your conclusion seriously.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jul 24, 2011)

The Infidel said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Must be due to the fact that the red states get so much more back from the feds on a per capita basis.  This just means more tax dollars will be funneled from blue states to red.  The red states pay less in taxes but get more back, yet they bitch about how much they pay.  Gotta love it.
> ...



The Red/Blue Paradox - Reason Magazine

TaxProf Blog: Red States Feed at Federal Trough, Blue States Supply the Feed

Ezra Klein - The red state ripoff

Red-State Moochers: Federal Taxes Favor Those Who Complain the Most About Federal Taxes « SpeakEasy


----------



## Leweman (Jul 24, 2011)

Wow breaking it down by states is soooooooooooo accurate.  I wonder who the people are in the Blue States paying all the money.  I wonder who the people are in the red states recieving it.  HAHA Dumbass use youre head.


----------



## Patrick2 (Jul 24, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> Patrick2 said:
> 
> 
> > *People are fleeing high-tax blue states (here, ironically portrayed in red) to low-tax red states, and taking some congressional seats with them:*
> ...



Florida went for obama in 2008 - a 1.5% vote shift would have given it to McCain.


----------



## Patrick2 (Jul 24, 2011)

Truthseeker420 said:


> Patrick2 said:
> 
> 
> > *People are fleeing high-tax blue states (here, ironically portrayed in red) to low-tax red states, and taking some congressional seats with them:*
> ...



Oh, is that why Ohio went for obama in 2008?


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 24, 2011)

I live in Missouri cause the taxes were too high in Arkansas. I don't see that on the map. Many people leave to seek work, not just lower taxes.
Unless you asks every single person why they moved, the poll or story is no completely true and accurateasto the reason for their leaving.


----------



## percysunshine (Jul 24, 2011)

RadiomanATL said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Patrick2 said:
> ...




My theory is that liberals enjoy global warming....but I could be mistaken.

.


----------



## Patrick2 (Jul 24, 2011)

editec said:


> The migration from the NE to the South and West has been happening for the last 200 years.
> 
> This development accelerated greatly post WWII.
> 
> ...



And I guess that explains why californians have been deserting the state in droves (more than made up for by illegal aliens there to cash in on the largess from libs who are bankrupting the state).


----------



## Patrick2 (Jul 24, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > The migration from the NE to the South and West has been happening for the last 200 years.
> ...



Florida's hgh unemployment rate is probably due to the fact that it got especially hard hit by the collapse of the housing market.


----------



## Patrick2 (Jul 24, 2011)

Moonglow said:


> I live in Missouri cause the taxes were too high in Arkansas. I don't see that on the map. Many people leave to seek work, not just lower taxes.
> Unless you asks every single person why they moved, the poll or story is no completely true and accurateasto the reason for their leaving.



One hopes that at some point, you will be able to grasp the connection between high taxes and few jobs.


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 24, 2011)

Patrick2 said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > I live in Missouri cause the taxes were too high in Arkansas. I don't see that on the map. Many people leave to seek work, not just lower taxes.
> ...



I have. maybe some day you will become aware that not all ideas apply to all areas. My taxes for 43 acres and a 2400 sq. ft. house is 420 dollars, in Arkansas I had a 1000 sq. ft. house and my taxes was 900 dollars. Both states were run by democrats.


----------



## Patrick2 (Jul 24, 2011)

editec said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...


----------



## bodecea (Jul 24, 2011)

RadiomanATL said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Patrick2 said:
> ...



So people are leaving the United States to go to Texas.....sounds like a win/win to me.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 24, 2011)

Patrick2 said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > The migration from the NE to the South and West has been happening for the last 200 years.
> ...



How odd...I wish we could see the result of that on our freeways....but alas, they are as crowded as ever with commuters.


----------



## Patrick2 (Jul 24, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Patrick2 said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



I live here, and the freeways seem much less crowded than they were say ten years ago.  Since democrats drove away so many businesses, probably people drive more to hold down two or three MacJobs.  Plus, note that I didn't say the overall population was going down by actual body count, but rather citizens.   There are about 5 million illegal aliens just in southern california.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 24, 2011)

Patrick2 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Patrick2 said:
> ...



I live here too and they cannot build freeways enough to keep up with the traffic.


----------



## Patrick2 (Jul 24, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Patrick2 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



We'll have to agree to disagree on that.  Eg - the 405 into orange county at evening rush hour.  Use to be a dead crawl for tens of miles - now there are only a few sticky places.  And once again, I said there are more ILLEGALS,  so you might have more on say the 5 between santa ana and LA, etc


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 25, 2011)

auditor0007 said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...



*That's a GREAT article in Reason magazine*, and explains the "mindset" of those who wish to exploit the subject for political points (i.e., the OP). People move because they *have to* (job change, family situation, personal finances) or because they *want to *(weather, retirement, family situation), not in order to expand on the electoral base of said state(s).


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 25, 2011)

Patrick2 said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > I live in Missouri cause the taxes were too high in Arkansas. I don't see that on the map. Many people leave to seek work, not just lower taxes.
> ...



Really? I live in Vermont where the individual income tax rate (before deductions) is 10.2%, eighth highest in the country, but we have a 5.4% unemployment rate. Imagine that. *JOBS* in various areas of the country depend more on what industry is most productive. In Vermont, it's tourism.


----------



## Mr Natural (Jul 25, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> Patrick2 said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...




And yet in Florida, a state that also largely depends on tourism, the unemployment rate is 10.6% and they have no individual income tax.


----------



## Patrick2 (Jul 25, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> Patrick2 said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



Vermont, which used to be a conservative state, was  screwed up by lots of rich liberal yuppies who turned places like new york, new jersey, and connecticut into shitholes, and then fled to the northeast.


----------



## Ame®icano (Jul 28, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> Patrick2 said:
> 
> 
> > *People are fleeing high-tax blue states (here, ironically portrayed in red) to low-tax red states, and taking some congressional seats with them:*
> ...



I wouldn't say that... 

I think majority of those that are moving are seeking work or seeking lower taxes.
Those on welfare don't care to work and aren't paying taxes anyways, so why would they move?


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 28, 2011)

Patrick2 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Patrick2 said:
> ...



Sorry, but I actually live here (born here, spent my formative years here, and returned from CA in 1989 permanently), and I can guarantee the "rich" flatlanders are hardly liberal. They move here to escape the hustle and bustle of metropolis regions, the clean air and simple life, but soon discover they miss every road not being paved, can't handle septic tanks and wells and demand sewer lines be extended to their wilderness acreage, join school boards to use budgeted monies for new cheerleading outfits for their girls instead of new textbooks, and the list is endless. Before you know it, the natives can't afford to pay the increased taxes which result from all their demands and some wind up losing their homes of generations. 

You were saying?


----------



## hortysir (Jul 28, 2011)

I can't wait until we get Bill Nelson replaced next year!!


----------



## Patrick2 (Jul 28, 2011)

Ame®icano;3924375 said:
			
		

> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Patrick2 said:
> ...



Maybe because leftwing policies have devastated their lives?  The wretched urban ghetto schools, the uncontrolled crime, the disappearance of civil institutions.


----------



## Patrick2 (Jul 28, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> Patrick2 said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



No libs, huh?  Then why does a place that sent Calvin Coolidge to DC 90 years ago send leftwingers Sanders and Leahy there now?  Nothing changed?


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 28, 2011)

bodecea said:


> Patrick2 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



The more they build, the more cars that will use them. It's counterproductive. Force people to use alternative transportation, build drop-off stations and car pool, build a fast lane if necessary, but not an entire freeway. Just look how easily people found alternatives when the 405 was closed. Panic turned into solutions. No problems.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 28, 2011)

Mr Clean said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Patrick2 said:
> ...



Maybe the reason is the tourism industry in Florida doesn't bring in enough of a tax base to support all the retired people who don't partake in the popular recreation spots anyway? Vermont's tourism industry could be different simply because of its geographic makeup. Even the big ski areas are close enough to the largest cities that all the surrounding areas benefit from tourists that flock to the mountains. Most are within 20-30 minutes away, with little hamlets all along the way catering to the snow lovers. We also have GREAT lake activities in the summer both on Lake Champlain and also there are tons of small, crystal clear lakes dotted all over the state and Mom & Pop businesses that support boating and camping.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 28, 2011)

Patrick2 said:


> Ame®icano;3924375 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh please. Anyone living on the Upper East Side of New York and can afford a second home in Vermont isn't devasted, and they can well afford the taxes they pay.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 28, 2011)

Patrick2 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Patrick2 said:
> ...



I didn't say there were no "libs" here. By your definition, I'm a "lib" too. Vermont is extremely nonpartisan when it comes to its elected officials, and has been for decades. When Richard Snelling (a Republican) died and Howard Dean took over (a Democrat), there was no screaming and hollering by ANYONE because those two were of like mind. They both did what they considered best for the STATE, not for their respective party ideologies. Last year, a Republican governor Jim Douglas didn't seek reelection, and a Democrat was elected. So? Nobody hardly blinked. Republicans and Democrats know how to work together to get things done. They don't sit around wasting time taking jabs at each other. As for Sanders and Leahy, all you have to do is look at their reelection numbers and you would know that they too are extremely popular among the natives because they're not insanely partisan.


----------



## Richard-H (Jul 28, 2011)

Oh Bullshit!

The reason for the population shift is that the people in the blues states are too dumb to figure out how to use a condom.


----------



## Patrick2 (Jul 28, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Patrick2 said:
> ...



No  - they stayed home for two days. Do you want them to stay home forever?


----------



## Patrick2 (Jul 28, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> Patrick2 said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight - Leahy votes straight leftwing and has an ADA rating of 100.  No partisanship _there_.


----------



## EriktheRed (Jul 28, 2011)

Richard-H said:


> Oh Bullshit!
> 
> The reason for the population shift is that the people in the *blues* states are too dumb to figure out how to use a condom.



Uh...you sure that's what you wanted to say?


----------



## rdean (Jul 28, 2011)

You don't want to be in Chicago in the winter without a job.  zero degrees with a wind chill of twenty below?  No thanks.  If you are going to be unemployed, then it's better where it's warm.


----------



## Ame®icano (Jul 29, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> Patrick2 said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;3924375 said:
> ...



Who's talking about them?


----------



## Vast LWC (Jul 29, 2011)

editec said:


> Yup.
> 
> But that in part, I think because so many people here (particularly young people who CAN move easier than those of us in our later years) moved (until recently) because the South and West offered more employment and lower costs of living.
> 
> ...



Retirees move south.  That's just the way it is.

The population is aging, thus more people are retiring, thus more people are moving south.

This isn't brain surgery here.

And, yes, retirees are in fact "unemployed".  That is pretty much the point of "retiring".


----------



## Vast LWC (Jul 29, 2011)

Richard-H said:


> Oh Bullshit!
> 
> The reason for the population shift is that the people in the blues states are too dumb to figure out how to use a condom.



And you officially win the prize for dumbest post of the thread.  Congratulations.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jul 29, 2011)

editec said:


> The migration from the NE to the South and West has been happening for the last 200 years.
> 
> This development accelerated greatly post WWII.
> 
> ...



It's gonna be a bitch once the water runs out in the south.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jul 29, 2011)

Patrick2 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



Interesting how there could be a housing collapse with all those people moving there.  Guess they must not need anywhere to live.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jul 29, 2011)

rdean said:


> You don't want to be in Chicago in the winter without a job.  zero degrees with a wind chill of twenty below?  No thanks.  If you are going to be unemployed, then it's better where it's warm.



I remember those days.  Almost every winter, we had a couple of weeks when the actual temperature was twenty below and I'd have to get up every three hours to start both cars and let them run for twenty minutes so that they would start the next morning.


----------



## lehr (Sep 10, 2011)

patrick2 said:


> *people are fleeing high-tax blue states (here, ironically portrayed in red) to low-tax red states, and taking some congressional seats with them:*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



all it takes is republicans split their vote or useless republicans pick another communist like mc cain and obama will win in a land slide !


----------



## Missourian (Sep 10, 2011)

For the record,  Missouri's population grew by seven percent...it just wasn't enough to keep from losing a congressional seat.





> *[SIZE=+2]Census Reveals 7% Population Growth in Missouri - But Not Enough to Prevent Loss of Congressional Seat  [/SIZE]*
> 
> Missouri's population grew by 7 percent to nearly 6 million in the last  decade, according to 2010 Census data released recently by the U.S.  Census Bureau.  The Census, required every 10 years by the U.S.  Constitution, reveals the total population of the United States and each  state. The information is used to determine the number of Congressional  seats in each state, as well as the amount of federal aid each state  receives.
> 
> http://memphisdemocrat.com/2011/news/110106_census.shtml


----------



## Truthseeker420 (Sep 10, 2011)

Patrick2 said:


> *People are fleeing high-tax blue states (here, ironically portrayed in red) to low-tax red states, and taking some congressional seats with them:*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Mexicans don't like cold weather.


----------



## hippie2049 (Sep 11, 2011)

My prediction for the future:


----------



## editec (Sep 11, 2011)

I doubt there are many established families who undertake a move based on taxes.

People move (grown ups I mean, kids starting out are another kettle of fish) for work first and foremost.

Every region has its own story, I suspect.


----------



## JamesInFlorida (Sep 13, 2011)

Patrick2 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



That's part of it for sure.

Another huge hit to us, is the economy of other states suffering too. One of the first things people do when in tough financial times is not go on vacation, cut back how much they spend. I for one have noticed in the past 4 year or so a sharp decline in tourism. That's a lot less money going into our sales tax (which is a major way we get by with not having a state income tax).


----------



## konradv (Sep 15, 2011)

Patrick2 said:


> *People are fleeing high-tax blue states (here, ironically portrayed in red) to low-tax red states, and taking some congressional seats with them:*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's right.  We're invading.  Won't be red for long!!!


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Sep 15, 2011)

editec said:


> I doubt there are many established families who undertake a move based on taxes.
> 
> People move (grown ups I mean, kids starting out are another kettle of fish) for work first and foremost.
> 
> Every region has its own story, I suspect.



But the jobs are moving to the tax friendly states and taxes are a consideration when moving.  When I moved to Charlotte from Boston, I chose to live in South Carolina, just over the state line, rather than in North Carolina, because the taxes are lower in SC and I'm still a reasonable distance from my office in uptown Charlotte.


----------



## Polk (Sep 15, 2011)

People are fleeing to "red states", but they're also making them bluer in the process. It's almost like people have a preference for warmer weather.


----------



## Mr Natural (Sep 15, 2011)

Polk said:


> People are fleeing to "red states", but they're also making them bluer in the process. *It's almost like people have a preference for warmer weather*.



We are, afterall, tropical animals.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Sep 15, 2011)

Polk said:


> People are fleeing to "red states", but they're also making them bluer in the process.



Are they?  From what I've seen the south has been getting steadily more Republican over the last 30 years, not less.


----------



## Dr.House (Sep 15, 2011)

Polk said:


> People are fleeing to "red states", *but they're also making them bluer in the process.* It's almost like people have a preference for warmer weather.



Do you have any facts / statistics to back up this claim?


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Sep 15, 2011)

Dr.House said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > People are fleeing to "red states", *but they're also making them bluer in the process.* It's almost like people have a preference for warmer weather.
> ...



No, because it's not true.  The election trends show exactly the opposite, but Polk isn't the first one to make this assumption.  They assume that because people are leaving Democratic leaning states that it is Democratic leaning people that are moving south bringing their politics with them, but that's not what's happening.  Conversely, if you look at the northeastern states, they've been getting more difficult for Republicans to win, over the long term.


----------



## Polk (Sep 15, 2011)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > People are fleeing to "red states", but they're also making them bluer in the process.
> ...



That's a social relic. Look at the period after realignment. The faster growing areas of the South are also the ones trending more Democratic.


----------



## Dr.House (Sep 15, 2011)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



Over the long term, perhaps, but there have been good gains in the NE for the right side...  PA elected conservative Toomey and conservative Corbett... Twitter Boy's seat going R for the first time since the 20's...  NJ's governor Christie...  Kennedy's seat going R...  Not sure if that's a trend or just moderates who are really pissed at 0bama and the far leftists...

From what I see, you don't get those same gains for the blues in the South...  TX is popular for people to move to, but it's still solid red...


----------



## Dr.House (Sep 15, 2011)

Polk said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



Link?


----------



## Polk (Sep 15, 2011)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



I don't assume anything. I looked at the hard data. I've actually been involved in academic research on the topic (caveat: it only examined the 11 southern states, defined as those who were part of the Confederacy). In 10 of the 11, population growth from 1990 to mid-2000 was a strong predictor of Obama's 2008 vote share relative to Gore and Kerry. That trend also held within states (the fastest growing counties in a significant state had a much larger swing toward Obama than the state as a whole).


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Sep 15, 2011)

Polk said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...



The south had long been dominated by Democrats, for well more than a hundred years.  The state legislatures in all of the southern states have only recently flipped to Republican majorities.  Mississippi and Arkansas are still under Democratic control.  All of these states have again only recently begun electing Republican governors.  Southern Democratic members of Congress are becoming extinct.  They are not growing in numbers.  More and more of them are losing their seats each election cycle to Republicans.  My congressman, Mick Mulvaney, who just got elected last year, is the first Republican to ever hold this seat in upstate South Carolina.  I assure you, the southern states are not becoming more Democratic.  They have shifted far in the opposite direction.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Sep 15, 2011)

Dr.House said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > No, because it's not true.  The election trends show exactly the opposite, but Polk isn't the first one to make this assumption.  They assume that because people are leaving Democratic leaning states that it is Democratic leaning people that are moving south bringing their politics with them, but that's not what's happening.  Conversely, if you look at the northeastern states, they've been getting more difficult for Republicans to win, over the long term.
> ...



It wasn't that long ago that Pennsylvania had Rick Santorum either.  As for Corbett, PA has flipped back and forth between a Republican and Democratic governor every eight years since the 1970s.  The last two years have shown a bit of a Republican resurgence in the northeast, but that's only been because of Obama's growing unpopularity.  The long term trend is that the GOP is losing ground in the traditional blue states.

Up until 2007, Connecticut had more Republican members of Congress than Democratic.  Now they're all Democrats.  20 years ago, Republicans used to hold half the U.S. House seats in New York.  Now, they have only about a third of them and that is only because they picked up six last year in the GOP wave.  They only had three seats for a couple years there.  Up until 2003, Republicans controlled the Vermont state legislature.  Now they are a very small minority.  Republicans lost control of the New Hampshire state legislature for the first time since statehood in 2006.  Granted, they won it back last year, but the long term trend is that NH is becoming less reliable for the GOP.  Massachusetts hasn't had a Republican in the U.S. House since the mid 90s.

The red is getting redder and the blue is getting bluer.


----------



## Polk (Sep 15, 2011)

I prefer the hard data over anecdotes.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Sep 16, 2011)

Polk said:


> I prefer the hard data over anecdotes.



There is nothing anecdotal about what I said.  It's all factual.


----------



## JamesInFlorida (Sep 17, 2011)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > People are fleeing to "red states", but they're also making them bluer in the process.
> ...



The south entirely went for Bush in 04. North Carolina, Florida, and Virginia all went for Obama in 08...........


----------



## chikenwing (Sep 18, 2011)

Moonglow said:


> Patrick2 said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



Your doing fine in ether state,try NY 7 acres,1500 sq. 4800 in taxes,people are leaving here because of that,along with the total disfunctionality of Albany.


----------



## editec (Sep 18, 2011)

The cost of living especially the cost of real estate or rentals is higher in the NortheEast and MidAtlantic states than most of the rest of the nation.

Additionally, the average incomes aren't higher in the NE quatrant of the nation, either. In fact many folks inform me that they are lower than hereabouts

Retirement and the WEATHER are the other major factors that have been shifting the population to the South and West.

Local taxes have, I suspect, damned little to do with that shift in population.


----------



## chikenwing (Sep 18, 2011)

Local Taxs most certainly factor into a persons decision to relocate south or west.


----------



## chikenwing (Sep 18, 2011)

As mentioned cost of living,jobs are at top of list, school /real estate tax's are the straws that breaks the camels back.


----------



## MiddleClass (Sep 20, 2011)

Blue states are moving to the south and watering down red states with blue state liberal ideologue, so that means red states are becoming less red and more blue. By 2025, red states will be populated with the largest Hispanic voting populous in the nation. Red States are losing their rightwing dominance with every blue stater who moves there, and with every Hispanic who emigrates. The younger generations are becoming more and more liberal, and moving the nation to the left as they start to vote more. Red States know they may have won the battle in 2010, they are losing the war in the long run.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Sep 20, 2011)

JamesInFlorida said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...



2008 was an off year across the board.  Florida has always been a swing state, but the GOP has been gaining the edge there.  Furthermore, you're only looking at presidential elections, not the large picture.


----------



## JamesInFlorida (Sep 21, 2011)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> JamesInFlorida said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



Fair enough, I think most people know what presidential elections are different than state/local elections. However with regards to Florida (obviously state's politics I'm most familiar with), I agree it is a swing state-it's not fair to say it's GOP or DEM.

I would argue though that the GOP is losing ground here. The governor elections have all gone for GOP lately, but with each election it gets closer and closer. Scott won by a hair against Sink. 1/2 of our US Senators is D (Nelson). And quite frankly Marco Rubio won because he's not a regular GOP candidate. He won for two reasons:

1. Meek stayed in the race.
2. He got a larger percentage of the hispanic vote than most GOP candidates do down here.


----------

