Blue states losing population to red states - Electoral College implications

Rings true to me. Gift link below. The video and written text seem to be the same.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/09/opinion/musk-trump-doge-abundance-agenda.html?unlocked_article_code=1.2k4.Jtgo.pZeKfeUJT5kD&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

It is hard to argue against the facts regarding cost of living.

The sobering part, to me, is the shifts in Electoral College math.

An example: we thought we were doing a good thing by moving from a pretty safe blue state to the purple state of NC. Even if we vote blue down there, if the state doesn’t turn blue, we just add to the population and help to add to the representation in the EC.

Same for you in OH, db.

jimmurphy said:

It is hard to argue against the facts regarding cost of living.

The sobering part, to me, is the shifts in Electoral College math.

An example: we thought we were doing a good thing by moving from a pretty safe blue state to the purple state of NC. Even if we vote blue down there, if the state doesn’t turn blue, we just add to the population and help to add to the representation in the EC.

Same for you in OH, db.

yeah, but OH seems to be getting worse. I had some hope in '23 when the abortion and marijuana referenda passed, but then in 24 the anti-gerrymandering amendment failed. (R's put up signs saying that voting for the amendment was a vote FOR gerrymandering. those f**kers.) and each of the last presidential elections has had the R vote increase every year.

our next governor is likely to be Ramaswamy ferchrissakes. 

jimmurphy said:

It is hard to argue against the facts regarding cost of living.

The sobering part, to me, is the shifts in Electoral College math.

An example: we thought we were doing a good thing by moving from a pretty safe blue state to the purple state of NC. Even if we vote blue down there, if the state doesn’t turn blue, we just add to the population and help to add to the representation in the EC.

Same for you in OH, db.

One lesson I've taken from the last election is that it's not enough for Democrats to be the party of normalcy and bulwark against authoritarianism and chaos. Normalcy isn't good enough, and while I think we all know that, I think many have underestimated just how short the patience in the rest of the country for real change is. But I do get pretty pessimistic at the ability of Democrats to understand that when I look at housing, where even in the most forward-thinking, empathetic, deep blue communities Nimbyism far, far outweighs Yimbyism.

I remember during the pandemic seeing houses for sale, bought, and the new neighbors immediately having a sign in their front yard opposing the construction of proposed apartments in an abandoned, under-utilized lot off a main road. Whoever moved into that house seemed intent on immediately pulling up the ladder after them. In the article they talk about politics of scarcity vs abundance, and I think that's exactly right. Whenever housing comes up, you totally here it -- fears that the schools will be too crowded, that the traffic will be too much. It's a politics of scarcity, that assumes growth is bad, that we cannot build a better, more abundant future. The school complaints always make me sad, suggesting as they do that more children are a problem.

PVW said:

One lesson I've taken from the last election is that it's not enough for Democrats to be the party of normalcy and bulwark against authoritarianism and chaos. Normalcy isn't good enough, and while I think we all know that, I think many have underestimated just how short the patience in the rest of the country for real change is. But I do get pretty pessimistic at the ability of Democrats to understand that when I look at housing, where even in the most forward-thinking, empathetic, deep blue communities Nimbyism far, far outweighs Yimbyism.

I remember during the pandemic seeing houses for sale, bought, and the new neighbors immediately having a sign in their front yard opposing the construction of proposed apartments in an abandoned, under-utilized lot off a main road. Whoever moved into that house seemed intent on immediately pulling up the ladder after them. In the article they talk about politics of scarcity vs abundance, and I think that's exactly right. Whenever housing comes up, you totally here it -- fears that the schools will be too crowded, that the traffic will be too much. It's a politics of scarcity, that assumes growth is bad, that we cannot build a better, more abundant future. The school complaints always make me sad, suggesting as they do that more children are a problem.

Agreed.  The demand for housing in the coastal states greatly outweighs supply and the only way to bring that into balance is to increase supply. 

Unsurprisingly, the locals down in and near Asheville, NC decry the outsiders coming in and driving up prices because we are creating scarcity there.

Clearly a national housing strategy is in order.

On beyond housing, but still on the economy - interesting, and distressing, thoughts on problems with how employment and inflation figures are calculated.

https://www.marketplace.org/shows/marketplace-morning-report/when-feelings-dont-match-the-headline-figures/

(it's a short listen, less than 5 min?  I don't see a transcript.)

mjc said:

On beyond housing, but still on the economy - interesting, and distressing, thoughts on problems with how employment and inflation figures are calculated.

https://www.marketplace.org/shows/marketplace-morning-report/when-feelings-dont-match-the-headline-figures/

(it's a short listen, less than 5 min?  I don't see a transcript.)

I look forward to seeing the new "shared economic prosperity" and "minimum quality of life" indices that were promised.