I am calling it now.
With the blue wave going into Texas will trigger a massive influx of typically red voting republicans to Nashville.
Democrats basically destroyed California with high tax rates and its hate for the business men who initially built it. "California has been winning for too long,” Musk said. “And I think they’re taking them for granted a little bit” (“them” being business people and innovators).
Texans who want their vote represented in future elections will have an incentive to leave Texas for Nashville TN. With the influx of tech salaried employees all the Texas real estate can be sold for a big gain, and they can comfortably move to Tennessee with their conservative valued government.
TLDR:
Buy real estate in Nashville Tennessee. It will be the next hot market.
Edit: I was a few too many drinks deep when I wrote this. Take with a grain of salt.
"Texans who want their vote represented in future elections will have an incentive to leave Texas for Nashville TN"
So that an already red State is more red? Bumfuck logic here.
You're probably right but not anything significant. Nashville is already booming anyway. Plus anyone who would move states literally just for the sake of the color of the party who's in power is definitely not making over 50K a year so that wouldn't move the needle on real estate prices
edit: didn't mean this to be a reply
Also why would they leave a state with more electoral votes to fight for to one that has less?
(Not the person you asked above). I'm also interested in politics but the opinions written online and seen in the news are the 1% who care most about these things. 99% of Americans do not consider for one second how many electoral votes a state has when deciding where to live.
I was not considering electoral votes I was looking at representation at the municipality level.
Local municipalities, and cities will have a change in legislation. I did not even consider electoral votes.
Serious question: do you think a significant (as in quantifiable) amount of people move just to sway elections? The Californians moving out of suburban & rural areas to red states were already republicans and many of them realized that they don't get a lot of benefits for being here (high paying jobs), while still facing the downsides (regulations, taxes, etc.)
I seriously doubt people pay huge commissions to realtors to sell their homes, buy another home, pay thousands to move their stuff, etc, etc. just to have sway in a vote. No doubt the southern cities & their metros are booming and will continue, but I'm skeptical that it's because of any significant movement of people related to voting.
Full disclosure: I'm moderate-right leaning in CA.
Good luck, I'm rooting for you from a similar situation.
Doubt it.
You'll have to do some analysis on the type of people who moved to TX from Cali and how they're likely to vote in TX.(wondering if I can collect some data on this... send a mass online survey somehow?) To really tell though.
Even if they're blue, that doesn't mean they're the same woke SJWs who's turning Cali into a shithole. All SJWs vote Democratic but not all Democratic voters are SJWs.
Not super related, but what are your thoughts on having a more fractured political party system (i.e. not these big tent parties but like a legitimate party for SJWs, a centrist Democratic party, centrist Republicans, etc.)? Of course that would require a reworking of the electoral process that results in a two-party system, but just for the sake of argument, is that something you think could work well?
I think it'd be a better idea than having 2 very established big tent parties that are so entrenched into our system.
More parties likely means 2 things IMO - 1) more nuanced voices can be properly heard since parties along the similar political spectrums will have to differentiate themselves (or are formed as a result of nuanced disagreements); and 2) parties will be forced to work together and find common ground if they ever want to get anything passed.
Why the two might be good?
1) Every issue in the US seems to boil down to eventually having 2 sides. But any decently smart person should know that's not really the case.
If there are more than 2 parties, and each party "assumes" a specific position then more nuanced discussions will come forth and that will dictate the tone of the public discourse, the material that the masses get exposed to, etc...
I believe that this would help create a better informed masses, which would help more qualified individuals get elected. People would actually be focusing on approaching issues as technical problems, not ideological or moral ones.
Take gun control for example. Right now most people seem to think that it's either completely banning guns or letting everyone have guns. And the two parties are associated with each stance. Imagine now that there are 4 major parties and each party stands for - banning guns, requiring strict background checks, imposing gun licenses, and just letting everyone buy guns. How would an average voter make his decision on what party reflects his views? All of a sudden it's not just about getting rid of guns or the other way around. He'll have to learn about the implications of each stance a little more carefully and think about what that might mean for him.
2) Essentially, having 3+ major parties would turn a 0 sum game we have woth the 2 party system into a complex semi-collaborative game that would probably lead to better results.
Right now the biggest political objective for each party is "can we take the more than 50% of the seats in both houses of the Congress?" If they can accomplish this task, then they're not gonna give two shits what the other party says.
Well, what if there are 3+ major parties? All of a sudden this objective becomes near impossible. Even if parties of one spectrum win majority, legislators are now less likely to condone details that they don't like (ie. A moderate Democrat and a progressive might agree on imposing "gun control" but they might disagree on the degree of gun control) because they're not going to be afraid of going against the "party-line" (well they won't be in the same party so why should they?).
If they ever want to get anything passed, then they'll have to work closer together.
The 2 party system prevents collaboration because they can just blame each other for not getting anything done and use that rhetoric as a way to win majority next election.
Check out this interview with the Texas Governor. 3 different polls showed majority of the people who moved from California voted for Ted Cruz or are conservative.
Also exit polls in 2018 showed that non-Texans are more likely to vote Republican than native Texans. I believe this is largely because in the past, Republicans were more likely to move to Texas while Democrats are more likely to move to NYC, SF, LA, etc. However, this could be changing now if Austin becomes the next Silicon Valley.
https://www.cnn.com/election/2018/exit-polls/texas/governor.
Tucker Carlson's face in this vid makes laugh.
Voluptas molestiae atque esse consequatur quia. Eligendi aliquid recusandae nostrum amet. Odio quis alias quaerat et eaque. Quia ad repudiandae hic assumenda velit hic voluptates.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...