How do we get liberals to move to MT/WY/ND/SD?

[Santander]

If a political party could magically change a million Californians' minds and get them to up roots and move to a completely different part of the country, away from their families, friends, jobs, and homes, they could change a million Texans' minds on which party to vote for and flip Texas.

[Battista Minola 1616]

If a political party could magically change a million Californians' minds and get them to up roots and move to a completely different part of the country, away from their families, friends, jobs, and homes, they could change a million Texans' minds on which party to vote for and flip Texas.

...and would still do the former because it brings more Senate seats.

Of course neither will happen, yeah.

[Beet]

What I don't get is whenever someone brings up moving to [Insert State outside NY/CA/DC], it's "woe is me, I can't move somewhere just because of politics, that's too much to ask" but after every election, you hear a legion of liberals promising to abandon the country to move to Canada or other places where they don't even have passports or work visas, or even some places where they don't speak the language.

Like hello? You're willing to make a harder move to abandon your country but not an easier move to save it?

[pikachu]

Block new development and create a property tax system that creates a housing shortage, leading to a higher cost of living which encourages emigration from said states?

[Santander]

Block new development and create a property tax system that creates a housing shortage, leading to a higher cost of living which encourages emigration from said states?

If that's the strategy, Democrats seem to be trying pretty hard.

[Karpatsky]

Don’t worry, the Western dominos are going to fall sooner or later.
Alaska and Utah will be first, then Idaho, then Montana, and maaaaaybe North Dakota although I doubt it.
South Dakota is a lost cause though, nobody wants to live there.

The thought of political lebensraum is really disturbing and I can't believe some people on this website think that is okay.

The main problem is America's electoral system which arbitrarily gives people more political power based on where they live. You can't blame people for trying to take advantage of that system to improve their representation - conservatives had a similar plan for New Hampshire at one point. The better option to avoid these sorts of schemes is to create a political system where each citizen has equal political power, regardless of where they live.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

Like hello? You're willing to make a harder move to abandon your country but not an easier move to save it?

It's tribalism, ain't it? You'd rather go to where you think your kind already exists than elsewhere. In many respects, other countries have more in common with the aforementioned liberal strongholds than other parts of the US, which says quite a lot about us.

[Florida Man for Crime]

Government agency HQs should be moved to those states, and incentives should be given for private companies of the right sort of kind to move there. For example, Federal incentives for tech companies to move to Wyoming could be made under the guise of "rural development."

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Telework seems like the key, but as a personal preference I find the idea of leaving the entirety of my family/friends/community to live in isolation because the fishing/hiking is good to be supremely unattractive.

Not to mention, mass-colonization by (no doubt wealthy) outsiders trying to influence change will be massively unpopular and produce an insane amount of animosity. We've seen this demonstrated throughout the west (and other places too! You can find examples of this in the upper midwest and New England). A RMPB journalist recently did an outstanding travel/interview series where this was a consistent theme. It's gentrification but without the veneer of ignorance due to the obviousness of its intent.

Better idea seems to be to... idk, convince these people that your party actually cares about them rather than treating them like bum-ass hicks who are better steamrolled into submission than persuaded.

The juxtaposition of WY and CO has always struck me as fairly amazing.  I mean they're almost the same size and shape.  The transcontinental railroad actually went through WY not CO. The main East-West Interstate goes through WY not CO. KS and NE don't have much disparity in population and yet CO has 10X the population of WY.

Denver is key. WY has never had a population center of appreciable size to draw in urbanites. Once Denver was in place, aside from more regional commerce or state-level admin there wasn't any reason for urbanites to move to Cheyenne (or elsewhere). The rich got richer.

Also worth noting that geographically the CO block of the Rockies is much denser than the WY block, meaning less capacity for resorts (outside of Yellowstone, the one dense block of mountains in the state is the NW corner, which of course has Jackson Hole). Otherwise WY had a lot fewer mountains (although the ranges they have are hidden gems) and correspondingly more plains for farming (east) and ranching +/ drilling (west).

[Florida Man for Crime]

Not to mention, mass-colonization by (no doubt wealthy) outsiders trying to influence change will be massively unpopular and produce an insane amount of animosity. We've seen this demonstrated throughout the west (and other places too! You can find examples of this in the upper midwest and New England). A RMPB journalist recently did an outstanding travel/interview series where this was a consistent theme. It's gentrification but without the veneer of ignorance due to the obviousness of its intent.

In the short term there would be some backlash, but it would eventually die down given sufficient time. Additionally, Democrats have only so many votes to lose from potential backlash. Many of the people most susceptible to backlash are likely already voting Republican.

Anyway, your focus on the local population, the "natives" if you will, makes me think... States can be made more Democratic not only by having more Dems move there, but also by encouraging Republicans to leave those states and by changing the local economies in those states from more GOP-leaning industries to Dem-leaning industries.

So perhaps in addition to encouraging people to move to those places, the existing residents could be encouraged in various ways to move away to other states, like California. This could be done by using both carrots and sticks. Perhaps there could be positive incentives to move from Wyoming to states like California (for example, free college tuition at California state universities for anyone born in Wyoming). As far as I know there is also nothing stopping states setting up universities in other states, so for example UC Berkeley could be demolished and rebuilt in Cheyenne. On the sticks side, perhaps GOP-leaning industries such as ranching could be banned or else discouraged in various softer, nudgier ways, but that risks greater backlash.

[JA]

Isn't the tribalistic nature of our current politics only increasing the self-segregation of politically and culturally like-minded people, therefore likely leading to a worsening of state polarization - particularly between states with more rural cultures and economies oriented towards blue-collar work? I don't claim to be above tribalism myself; I've lived my entire life in census tracts that vote heavily Republican, but would much prefer not to do so. The politics of a state also play a significant role in many important factors when weighing the pros/cons of relocating to a new state. What liberal wants to move from California to Idaho, for example, if they prioritize issues like legal marijuana, gun regulations, LGBTQ acceptance, a robust safety net, etc... Sure, Boise may be a booming spot and you may find a nice place with many like-minded people, but statewide laws can certainly deter you if you simply don't have a strong enough pull factor.

If these states begin to transition their economies towards white-collar work in healthcare, education, technology, and so on, then they'll certainly begin to experience demographic changes. But that begins with local leadership shifting resources and their focus away from existing industries towards a diversification of their economy; most politicians are complacent and, so long as profits for local industries remain positive, they're not too keen on making such changes.

[Orser67]

Don’t worry, the Western dominos are going to fall sooner or later.
Alaska and Utah will be first, then Idaho, then Montana, and maaaaaybe North Dakota although I doubt it.
South Dakota is a lost cause though, nobody wants to live there.

The thought of political lebensraum is really disturbing and I can't believe some people on this website think that is okay.

The main problem is America's electoral system which arbitrarily gives people more political power based on where they live. You can't blame people for trying to take advantage of that system to improve their representation - conservatives had a similar plan for New Hampshire at one point. The better option to avoid these sorts of schemes is to create a political system where each citizen has equal political power, regardless of where they live.

I believe you're referencing the Free State Project, which (ironically given some of the criticism in this thread) is actually a libertarian movement and still has an active website

[Urbanbluedog]

You don't.

[LabourJersey]

You need to provide a little more justification than Senate seats, for one.

If you want to play a game like this, the rational thing would be to look at what policies you can use to encourage growth in small/medium-sized cities in small Republican states. Can you send government departments to offices in Harpers Ferry or Charleston, West Virginia? Could you bring more government jobs to Anchorage or Fargo? Maybe, I guess?

The only way this would happen is if you encourage sustainable growth of a city with the infrastructure to grow or expand, and that growth starts a cycle where the city is seen to be desirable, and that brings more people to it. However you do have to keep in mind the reactions from the long time residents, and how this growth can make politics more polarized in the state.

Personally I see this strategy being much more effective in Rust Belt cities losing population, but still having infrastructure for metro areas larger than their current size. Why not bring government jobs and funding to Cincinnati, Columbus and Cleveland? help those cities grow, and maybe bring enough people that fit into the Democratic base to make it more competitive these days.

[DINGO Joe]

Yeah, MT/WY/SD/ND are relatively stable to modestly growing states while a place like WV and other rust belt areas are in a demographic freefall

[dead0man]

Block new development and create a property tax system that creates a housing shortage, leading to a higher cost of living which encourages emigration from said states?

I see what you did there

[7,052,770]

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

Don’t worry, the Western dominos are going to fall sooner or later.
Alaska and Utah will be first, then Idaho, then Montana, and maaaaaybe North Dakota although I doubt it.
South Dakota is a lost cause though, nobody wants to live there.

Good, please stay away from this "wasteland".

[It’s so Joever]

Don’t worry, the Western dominos are going to fall sooner or later.
Alaska and Utah will be first, then Idaho, then Montana, and maaaaaybe North Dakota although I doubt it.
South Dakota is a lost cause though, nobody wants to live there.

Good, please stay away from this "wasteland".

I mean, yes every state has its benefits...but none of the benefits other West states have that would attract liberals would at all apply to SD.
Don’t worry, I don’t judge states (except Florida) I judge precincts.

[DINGO Joe]

Don’t worry, the Western dominos are going to fall sooner or later.
Alaska and Utah will be first, then Idaho, then Montana, and maaaaaybe North Dakota although I doubt it.
South Dakota is a lost cause though, nobody wants to live there.

Good, please stay away from this "wasteland".

You have nothing to worry about.....except for your Governor

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

Don’t worry, the Western dominos are going to fall sooner or later.
Alaska and Utah will be first, then Idaho, then Montana, and maaaaaybe North Dakota although I doubt it.
South Dakota is a lost cause though, nobody wants to live there.

Good, please stay away from this "wasteland".

You have nothing to worry about.....except for your Governor

Nothing to worry about there, she isn't forcing me to do anything.

[Former President tack50]

What I don't get is whenever someone brings up moving to [Insert State outside NY/CA/DC], it's "woe is me, I can't move somewhere just because of politics, that's too much to ask" but after every election, you hear a legion of liberals promising to abandon the country to move to Canada or other places where they don't even have passports or work visas, or even some places where they don't speak the language.

Like hello? You're willing to make a harder move to abandon your country but not an easier move to save it?

If you genuinely believe that the US are irredeemable, and think that your best decision is to move out of the country, that is a decision that you make by yourself. You really need just 1 person to move (yourself). Maybe 3-5 if you are bringing your family with you.

Meanwhile to change the country in the way that the OP described, you need no less than 200 000 people moving, which needless to say is several orders of magnitude bigger than 1 person.

It is just much easier to flee than to stay and fight

[Battista Minola 1616]

What I don't get is whenever someone brings up moving to [Insert State outside NY/CA/DC], it's "woe is me, I can't move somewhere just because of politics, that's too much to ask" but after every election, you hear a legion of liberals promising to abandon the country to move to Canada or other places where they don't even have passports or work visas, or even some places where they don't speak the language.

Like hello? You're willing to make a harder move to abandon your country but not an easier move to save it?

If you genuinely believe that the US are irredeemable, and think that your best decision is to move out of the country, that is a decision that you make by yourself. You really need just 1 person to move (yourself). Maybe 3-5 if you are bringing your family with you.

Meanwhile to change the country in the way that the OP described, you need no less than 200 000 people moving, which needless to say is several orders of magnitude bigger than 1 person.

It is just much easier to flee than to stay and fight

But 200,000 starts from 1?

If you really, really, care about this, just freaking move to Missoula or Fargo or Sioux Falls or whatever (and convince others to do the same).

[DC Al Fine]

What I don't get is whenever someone brings up moving to [Insert State outside NY/CA/DC], it's "woe is me, I can't move somewhere just because of politics, that's too much to ask" but after every election, you hear a legion of liberals promising to abandon the country to move to Canada or other places where they don't even have passports or work visas, or even some places where they don't speak the language.

Like hello? You're willing to make a harder move to abandon your country but not an easier move to save it?

If you genuinely believe that the US are irredeemable, and think that your best decision is to move out of the country, that is a decision that you make by yourself. You really need just 1 person to move (yourself). Maybe 3-5 if you are bringing your family with you.

Meanwhile to change the country in the way that the OP described, you need no less than 200 000 people moving, which needless to say is several orders of magnitude bigger than 1 person.

It is just much easier to flee than to stay and fight

But 200,000 starts from 1?

If you really, really, care about this, just freaking move to Missoula or Fargo or Sioux Falls or whatever (and convince others to do the same).

Sir, this is Atlas. We don't do concrete action or self sacrifice.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Those are oil states, oil and gas is going obsolute to solar and electric and nuke energy helping us get around transportation wise