Posted on 01/01/2006 12:38:52 AM PST by SmithL
Red is the color of passionate masculinity. Blue is the color of depression.
That's exactly right. In our small rural community (Texas) I spoke with a nice looking newbie couple with two kids. The said they just "loved" it here, limited government, all volunteer FD and EMS (I was also volunteering for EMS at the time also), etc. I asked them, "Oh BTW, when are you going to step up to the plate and volunteer? We're short handed." They mumbled and stuttered that they were "just too busy" right now. I reminded them that we all are, they were gone within a year...
The political implications to which I was referring will be the need of elected officials to address the costs associated with an aging population. It will be a monumental dilemma.
"the need of elected officials to address the costs associated with an aging population. It will be a monumental dilemma."
You bet, it already is a huge dilemma, look at the Prescription Drug bill. My point is just that the conservative states will be better able to handle the problem. And with more political clout, perhaps they will cut down the subsidies for old dying liberals.
I'd say red is the color of the blood of the hundreds of millions international leftism has caused to be spilled. Blue is the color of calmness, clarity, and cool-headed logical reasoning, the natural Republican-Conservative color.
This trend has been going on for awhile, and it has initially helped conservatives...But eventually the migrating libs will tip it in some of the states. A lot of those states mentioned are at about 50/50. Florida, Delaware..
I don't think at the time there was any particular malice intended to "stack the deck." At the founding of the nation, most of the states were (to varying degrees) not terribly far apart in population and all were expected to grow for the forseeable future. If the Founding Fathers could realize what ended up happening, they more likely would've tied the Senate to the population (similar to the House). Most would never have endorsed a situation where Vermont (600k) gets the same representation as California (36 mil), although conversely you could make the argument that it wouldn't be fair to have all the states be overwhelmed by its largest members, either.
Colorado used to be a solid red state but Californians, fed up with high taxes, moved there in droves. Problem is these same useful fools continue to vote for the 'stuck on stupid' party. Now Colorado is becoming a swing state where a Democrat won the Senate seat vacated by Ben Lighthorse Campbell. Something about the liberal mindset requires them to soil their new nest after they've made the old one unlivable.
Colorado's problems as of late are more because of the GOP Governor having jumped the shark on Conservative issues, running an absolutely shockingly ill-prepared, inarticulate empty-suit against a well-prepared forked-tongue 'Rat pol for the U.S. Senate, and having a 'Rat-appointed judiciary foist 'Rat gerrymandered legislative lines upon the state at large. The GOP has its work cut out for them, but they can take the state back if they get back to the issues that have worked for them and get away from mimicking the liberals' failed big-government policies.
yeah, but the libs who move to colorado and other red states still continue to abort all their babies, so the impact will only be felt for a small amount of time.
Forgot to point out that Colorado has had a few brushes with looniness in the past decades. They were a Conservative state (supporting Conservative Democrats and Republicans alike - after all, this was the state that JFK selected Byron "Whizzer" White for the Supreme Court from, the last Conservative Dem appointee). After Vietnam hit its peak, the kooks started to rise, and as the GOP was doing well elsewhere, they started sending loonies like ex-RINO Floyd Haskell to the Senate, then Pat Schroeder to the House, and then Gary Hart & Dick Lamm. The GOP got a lot of what it lost back by 1980, but even in '92, the state went for Clinton. It just usually needs a brief taste of the loony to get it back on the right track again to a nice hue of Republican BLUE (lets let the 'Rats have the Red Commie color, as it was prior to '00). ;-)
Please, please, this New Yorker is tying to get a job in Tampa. I want to be part of Sunny Florida where the fact that I don't think killing babies in the womb is a good thing makes me a freak.
You are correct. As boomers age, they will become
more dependent upon the largess of the Federal Welfare
State, and therefore be more apt to become liberal
voters.
If you consider the long term demographic trends,
one could argue that the conservative core demographic
of WASPS will become such a minority that the GOP will
vanish as a political force.
That is why I feel there are only two years of
opportunity left to right our nation's sinking ship so
that the eventual demise is pushed back as far as possible.
Recently, our compassionate liberal [Flagstaff] city council passed an ordinance imposing a $2500 fine for anyone who "camps" overnight in a motor vehicle or sleeps in a cardboard box or other unauthorized bed within the city limits, making it in effect a crime to be homeless or penniless after sunset in our Oh-so-Democrat town. Thanks for that info. I van camp and will be passing through Arizona some time this spring. I will avoid your "blue" city :)
The bad news is that the five high growth states mentioned have most of their growth in the Illegal Alien category.
Don't Worry about NH, many of the Massachusetts expats in NH are Republicans, in fact the counties that are most populated by ex-Massachusetts Residents are the most Conservative in the State (ie Rockingham, Hillsbourough, Belknap and Carroll). It only voted for Kerry in 2004 because of the massive fraud done by students from Colleges in Massachusetts and Vermont that registered on the day of election and voted for Kerry.
I live in the fastest growing county in North Carolina. Union County was mostly rural two or three decades ago, save for its county seat town of Monroe. Now, however, the county, which lies on the southeastern edge of the Charlotte metro area, is exurban/suburban, and growing explosively. And yes, we have Yankees. Boy, do we have Yankees. Folks from New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and elsewhere are flooding in.
So, is Union County becoming "bluer"? Well, let's look at a couple of sets of Presidential election returns: 1980 and 2004.
1980
Carter (D) 10,073 (51.2%)
Reagan (R) 9,012 (45.8%)
Anderson (I) 487 (2.5%)
Other 116 (0.6%)
2004
Bush (R) 42,820 (70.2%)
Kerry 17,974 (29.5%)
Other 207 (0.3%)
In addition to the sharp movement toward the GOP, note that the total vote in Union County more than tripled in the intervening 24 years. I can't tell you how much of this growth is attributable to people moving in from the North, but I would venture to guess that it's well over half.
But... but... how can that be? All these people from blue states moving in, and yet Union County is getting redder? The answer is simple: we're not getting a cross-section of blue staters, but rather an atypical and largely self-selected subset. Corporate transfers, entrepreneurs, professionals, and even a sprinkling of retirees.
This is only one county, of course, and some of my "evidence" is anecdotal. But from where I sit, I'm not particularly worried about a Dem comeback in the South. Will the last Republican to leave New Jersey please turn out the lights?
My mistake. Honestly I just chose a medium sized city in the southwest off the top of my head assuming it would be representive of the rest of the region.
Loudon County, Virginia is an excellent example of this principle in action.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.