The States People Really Want to Move to (Post-Recession)

[RINO Tom]

Actually people typically move to places with similar ideologies. That's a false idea that migration turns red states blue. That isn't happening.

Absolutely correct.

Just look at, for example, 1976 and 2008 Colorado!

Not sure what your point is.  Yes, migration into formerly red states like Vermont and Colorado absolutely did turn them blue ... but on the flip side, migration (during the 1950s, 1960s and especially the 1970s) into formerly blue states like Virginia, Texas and Florida slowly turned those states red (during the 1980s and 1990s).  Of course, now the opposite is happening again with those states (well, at least pushing them in Democrats' direction in the case of Texas and Florida), but I think his point was that migration into a state itself does not inherently spell trouble for Republicans ... it just is right now in most battleground states.

[muon2]

Actually people typically move to places with similar ideologies. That's a false idea that migration turns red states blue. That isn't happening.

Absolutely correct.

Just look at, for example, 1976 and 2008 Colorado!

Not sure what your point is.  Yes, migration into formerly red states like Vermont and Colorado absolutely did turn them blue ... but on the flip side, migration (during the 1950s, 1960s and especially the 1970s) into formerly blue states like Virginia, Texas and Florida slowly turned those states red (during the 1980s and 1990s).  Of course, now the opposite is happening again with those states (well, at least pushing them in Democrats' direction in the case of Texas and Florida), but I think his point was that migration into a state itself does not inherently spell trouble for Republicans ... it just is right now in most battleground states.

Any attempt to look back more than 20 or so years to determine the effect of migration on politics is meaningless. The parties have shifted their positions and base voters too much since the 70's and 80's.

In any case domestic migration between states is dominated by economic reasons: jobs and education.

[Nyvin]

Actually people typically move to places with similar ideologies. That's a false idea that migration turns red states blue. That isn't happening.

Absolutely correct.

Just look at, for example, 1976 and 2008 Colorado!

Not sure what your point is.  Yes, migration into formerly red states like Vermont and Colorado absolutely did turn them blue ... but on the flip side, migration (during the 1950s, 1960s and especially the 1970s) into formerly blue states like Virginia, Texas and Florida slowly turned those states red (during the 1980s and 1990s).  Of course, now the opposite is happening again with those states (well, at least pushing them in Democrats' direction in the case of Texas and Florida), but I think his point was that migration into a state itself does not inherently spell trouble for Republicans ... it just is right now in most battleground states.

Migration didn't turn southern states to the Republicans in the 80's and 90's....the Democrats stopped catering to southern conservatives and took up civil rights issues as a policy position.   That was poison to all the southern white voters.    

Initially they voted third party but later migrated to the Republicans.

It started with them voting Republican in presidential elections and worked it's way down to Congressional races later and local elections after that.

[Asian Nazi]

I'd say migration definitely helped the Republicans in Florida/Virginia/South Carolina for a time.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Actually people typically move to places with similar ideologies. That's a false idea that migration turns red states blue. That isn't happening.

Absolutely correct.

Just look at, for example, 1976 and 2008 Colorado!

Not sure what your point is.  Yes, migration into formerly red states like Vermont and Colorado absolutely did turn them blue ... but on the flip side, migration (during the 1950s, 1960s and especially the 1970s) into formerly blue states like Virginia, Texas and Florida slowly turned those states red (during the 1980s and 1990s).  Of course, now the opposite is happening again with those states (well, at least pushing them in Democrats' direction in the case of Texas and Florida), but I think his point was that migration into a state itself does not inherently spell trouble for Republicans ... it just is right now in most battleground states.

Migration didn't turn southern states to the Republicans in the 80's and 90's....the Democrats stopped catering to southern conservatives and took up civil rights issues as a policy position.   That was poison to all the southern white voters.    

Initially they voted third party but later migrated to the Republicans.

It started with them voting Republican in presidential elections and worked it's way down to Congressional races later and local elections after that.

Ah, liberals' favorite fantasies.  Notice he named the three Southern states that drifted Republican well before the rest of the South and well before the civil rights era.

[Nyvin]

Actually people typically move to places with similar ideologies. That's a false idea that migration turns red states blue. That isn't happening.

Absolutely correct.

Just look at, for example, 1976 and 2008 Colorado!

Not sure what your point is.  Yes, migration into formerly red states like Vermont and Colorado absolutely did turn them blue ... but on the flip side, migration (during the 1950s, 1960s and especially the 1970s) into formerly blue states like Virginia, Texas and Florida slowly turned those states red (during the 1980s and 1990s).  Of course, now the opposite is happening again with those states (well, at least pushing them in Democrats' direction in the case of Texas and Florida), but I think his point was that migration into a state itself does not inherently spell trouble for Republicans ... it just is right now in most battleground states.

Migration didn't turn southern states to the Republicans in the 80's and 90's....the Democrats stopped catering to southern conservatives and took up civil rights issues as a policy position.   That was poison to all the southern white voters.    

Initially they voted third party but later migrated to the Republicans.

It started with them voting Republican in presidential elections and worked it's way down to Congressional races later and local elections after that.

Ah, liberals' favorite fantasies.  Notice he named the three Southern states that drifted Republican well before the rest of the South and well before the civil rights era.

Then why did he say during the 80's and 90's???

Also if you start talking about before the civil rights era you're basically talking about completely different political parties...so any comparison is meaningless.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Actually people typically move to places with similar ideologies. That's a false idea that migration turns red states blue. That isn't happening.

Absolutely correct.

Just look at, for example, 1976 and 2008 Colorado!

Not sure what your point is.  Yes, migration into formerly red states like Vermont and Colorado absolutely did turn them blue ... but on the flip side, migration (during the 1950s, 1960s and especially the 1970s) into formerly blue states like Virginia, Texas and Florida slowly turned those states red (during the 1980s and 1990s).  Of course, now the opposite is happening again with those states (well, at least pushing them in Democrats' direction in the case of Texas and Florida), but I think his point was that migration into a state itself does not inherently spell trouble for Republicans ... it just is right now in most battleground states.

Migration didn't turn southern states to the Republicans in the 80's and 90's....the Democrats stopped catering to southern conservatives and took up civil rights issues as a policy position.   That was poison to all the southern white voters.    

Initially they voted third party but later migrated to the Republicans.

It started with them voting Republican in presidential elections and worked it's way down to Congressional races later and local elections after that.

Ah, liberals' favorite fantasies.  Notice he named the three Southern states that drifted Republican well before the rest of the South and well before the civil rights era.

Then why did he say during the 80's and 90's???

Also if you start talking about before the civil rights era you're basically talking about completely different political parties...so any comparison is meaningless.

Yeah, they were opposite, HAVEN'T YOU HEARD?!

[RINO Tom]

Actually people typically move to places with similar ideologies. That's a false idea that migration turns red states blue. That isn't happening.

Absolutely correct.

Just look at, for example, 1976 and 2008 Colorado!

Not sure what your point is.  Yes, migration into formerly red states like Vermont and Colorado absolutely did turn them blue ... but on the flip side, migration (during the 1950s, 1960s and especially the 1970s) into formerly blue states like Virginia, Texas and Florida slowly turned those states red (during the 1980s and 1990s).  Of course, now the opposite is happening again with those states (well, at least pushing them in Democrats' direction in the case of Texas and Florida), but I think his point was that migration into a state itself does not inherently spell trouble for Republicans ... it just is right now in most battleground states.

Migration didn't turn southern states to the Republicans in the 80's and 90's....the Democrats stopped catering to southern conservatives and took up civil rights issues as a policy position.   That was poison to all the southern white voters.    

Initially they voted third party but later migrated to the Republicans.

It started with them voting Republican in presidential elections and worked it's way down to Congressional races later and local elections after that.

Ah, liberals' favorite fantasies.  Notice he named the three Southern states that drifted Republican well before the rest of the South and well before the civil rights era.

Then why did he say during the 80's and 90's???

Also if you start talking about before the civil rights era you're basically talking about completely different political parties...so any comparison is meaningless.

I said they TURNED RED in the '80s and '90s (which they did).  They didn't vote for Clinton either time, unlike the Southern states of KY, TN, AR, LA, GA and WV.  My point is a bunch of Northern Republicans moved to the Sun Belt during those decades and slowly changed the politics of those areas.  Republican support in the South stemmed almost EXCLUSIVELY from Northern transplants who brought their fiscally conservative views and GOP-voting habits with them.  All the CRA did was make it clear that there was no longer going to be a party that catered specifically to segregationists.  Look at the 1976 and 1980 election maps.  Ford and Reagan excelled in the NEW South (emerging suburbs, states with the most Northern transplants) while Carter won the rural counties both times.

And completely different =/= opposite.  The GOP of the 2010s is completely different from the GOP of the 1980s and the GOP of the 1980s is completely different than the GOP of the 1950s ... but all four stood to the right of the Democrats, especially on economic matters.

And my ONLY point I was making is that migration does not always mean Democratic advantage.

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

I'm noticing people move to Republican states a little more than Democrat states.

[hopper]

Actually people typically move to places with similar ideologies. That's a false idea that migration turns red states blue. That isn't happening.

Absolutely correct.

Just look at, for example, 1976 and 2008 Colorado!

Not sure what your point is.  Yes, migration into formerly red states like Vermont and Colorado absolutely did turn them blue ... but on the flip side, migration (during the 1950s, 1960s and especially the 1970s) into formerly blue states like Virginia, Texas and Florida slowly turned those states red (during the 1980s and 1990s).  Of course, now the opposite is happening again with those states (well, at least pushing them in Democrats' direction in the case of Texas and Florida), but I think his point was that migration into a state itself does not inherently spell trouble for Republicans ... it just is right now in most battleground states.

Texas? No.  Vermont-Yeah migration from NY and MA turned it Dem.

[hopper]

People move where the jobs are, everything else comes second.  I mean, hell, people have been moving to North goddamn Dakota in droves for the past umpteen years, and it's not because it's pretty or hip.

Yeah Fargo that's polar bear weather which is too cold for me!

Umpteen?  Only since 2009 and that's definitely over for the time being.  

One silver lining about the out-migration in Minnesota is that the bulk of it is 50+ people moving to warmer climates.  The state is gaining in the 25-40 categories.  But also a bad sign is that many leave the state for college and don't return... at least for quite a while.

In any case... the bulge of baby boomers is shrinking while the younger population grows which will lessen the blow as baby boomers continue to age into retirement.  Minnesota is also one of the states that generally has positive total migration because international migrants outweigh the negative domestic migration.

Yeah MN is +35,651 in total migration covering the Census Period from 2010 to 2015.