12 ms·

> Petty crime is increasing, and state laws are only enabling this - people are sick of it. I wonder if people considered voting the politicians who made these

by smsm42 7y ago

> Petty crime is increasing, and state laws are only enabling this - people are sick of it. I wonder if people considered voting the politicians who made these laws out. Judging from CA voting patterns, probably not. And then when it gets really bad, they move to another state and likely vote for the same policies that caused them to move in the first place.

cft 7y ago
They not only don't vote them out, but they double down on their voting patterns.
bronco21016 7y ago
I first heard of this phenomenon the other day from a coworker that lives south of Atlanta, near the major movie/tv production area. People, from what are typically blue areas, are moving in and radically changing the political landscape according to him. He wasn’t necessarily against liberal ideas but his complaint was that they seem to vote for taxes just for the hell of it because every tax proposed is still significantly less than where they came from. Either way, interesting times.
- jorblumesea 7y ago
  But that's not what the data shows. People from blue states are moving to blue cities in red states. Left leaning people are moving to similarly left leaning areas. Austin, Dallas, Houston, Miami, Atlanta, when was the last time these were Republican bastions? Look at the areas experiencing huge population growth. Texas might be red but the populations centers haven't been for years.
  - bronco21016 7y ago
    I think in the particular case of my co-worker the blue is spilling into the traditionally red rural areas. The population centers inevitably must expand to handle the migration.
    - megablast 7y ago
      So blue cities are expanding, as cities have always done?
      - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
        Almost all big cities are blue. The biggest red city is Mesa Arizona.
  - TulliusCicero 7y ago
    This is a good point, but it would be intellectually disingenuous not to acknowledge that they've been drawn by the policy of the red states, specifically by housing policy that's made housing costs more reasonable than the blue states. Not that I'm a big fan of sprawl, but it's undeniable that blue state housing policy that strictly limits both sprawl AND density has been an utter disaster for cost of living anywhere where the economy is good.
    - RangerScience 7y ago
      The sprawl has massive hidden costs; it's a similar situation to stadiums. The city centers end up paying for it, but not reaping the benefits in tax bases / revenue. The housing costs - while they do have a lot do with policies that prevent massive new construction - also have a lot do with a lot of people moving and wanting to move to these places. So, question for you: What about the blue state policies is that results in their economies being good, so that these problems exist in the first place?
    - JamesBarney 7y ago
      It was my understanding that most restrictive housing policy is implemented at a city and not state level.
- axaxs 7y ago
  This is a real problem, and a real concern IMO. People move from their home cities and states to nice areas with low tax, then continue voting for the same policies and ideologies that led to their home becoming awful in the first place. I live in a rather conservative area that sees an influx of New Yorkers every single year. They all seem to complain about two things: the high taxes they left, and Republicans. I'd laugh if it weren't so mindnumbingly sad. Reminds me of the saying, something like "if it smells like sh*t everywhere you go, maybe it's time to check your own shoes."
  - didibus 7y ago
    The issue is the lack of dimensionality on your axis. If the political spectrum recognized more dimensions, you would find it that high tax vs republican is only one small dimension, thus not necessarily a contradiction.
  - mint2 7y ago
    You seem to have a lot of judging and questionable assumptions in your post.
    - roenxi 7y ago
      There is a very pronounced trend of people migrating away from states that are controlled by Democrats for reasons that are potentially ideologically driven policy failures. This raises a a very real and material question for the new host community - do the migrants understand why the situation became so intolerable that they felt they should move? Migrants bring new ideas so a certain amount of discomfort and change is expected. But judgements and assumptions need to be discussed to work out if there is any merit to them. There is a risk there that shouldn't be glibly ignored. So I suppose I'd call on you to flesh that out with some alternatives that fit the facts or some challenges to the assumptions rather than just calling a spade a spade. We all know it is a spade. If the spade is inappropriate suggest a better tool instead.
      - tjr225 7y ago
        Statistically, people are moving from rural areas and to urban areas. Rural areas tend to be conservative and economically depressed. Urban areas tend to have high paying jobs and be liberal or progressive. Aside from a few state/city couplings(Omaha, NE comes to mind) a US "State" is a poor indicator of differentiated policy or ideology. People in Atlanta or Miami or LA or Seattle have a lot more in common with each other than some might think. Moreover, it seems like you're attempting to paint the picture that a typically Democratic State is somehow worse off than a conservative one. I'm positive that a person born in Washington or California almost always has a better statistical and economic outcome than someone born in the Deep South, for example. So, it seems if I were correct(and I'm almost certain I am), the spade is doing something right.
nradov 7y ago
California has largely become a single party state. I'm not trying to start an argument between Democrats and Republicans here, but we can clearly see a pattern everywhere in the world. Once single party rule is institutionalized the politicians are no longer accountable to voter interests.
- jvanderbot 7y ago
  California allows two candidates from the same party to run against eachother. Do other states not?
  - njarboe 7y ago
    It is worse than that. With the passage of the "Top Two Candidates Open Primary Act" California has open primaries (anyone can vote for anyone on the ballot in the primaries) and only the top two get to be on the main ballot. So many times only two Democrats are on the ballot with no Republican candidate at all. Not a good situation in my opinion.
    - esoterica 7y ago
      How is a jungle primary different from no primary and a free for-all-election with a run-off? Is the latter also corrupt?
      - dragonwriter 7y ago
        >How is a jungle primary different from no primary and a free for-all-election with a run-off? Majority/runoff with no primary would mean if a candidate gets an absolute majority on the first ballot, they win. You can't win at the primary in the jungle primary.
    - yongjik 7y ago
      It would actually work in favor of Republican-inclined voters, though not necessarily the party itself. By allowing anyone to vote, Democrat candidates are incentivized to be more moderate, because a vote from a Republican is as good as another from a Democrat. Without open primaries, a Democratic-only primary pretty much decides the winner, and a candidate only has to appeal to fellow Democrats.
MattyRad 7y ago
Reno resident here. Policy change is something I tend to worry about given there's been a huge influx of Californian "refugees" over past the several years. If California continues its trajectory with housing costs and homelessness, it could definitely "bleed over." Homelessness isn't as big of an issue here than it is in California (I expect in part because of the colder weather), but housing costs have definitely been affected.
- lightedman 7y ago
  "If California continues its trajectory with housing costs and homelessness, it could definitely "bleed over."" Half of our problem with homelessness comes from the other states, yours included, sending your homeless to us, one-way, and then you expect US to pay for their asses. Go kick your local politician in the ass instead of bitching about us, because we aren't where the problem lies on that particular front.
- nradov 7y ago
  Are you sure homelessness isn't as big an issue? I was in Reno last winter and the banks of the Truckee River were basically one big homeless encampment stretching for miles.
- dmode 7y ago
  There no California "refugees", because most people in California is also from another state
bsder 7y ago
So, I presume you have the legislative solution for homelessness? I'm sure lots of people would be very interested, so let's hear it.
ip26 7y ago
If Sonoma alone (or along with other small voting blocs) is bearing the brunt of state policy it may not feel in their power to change.
akhilcacharya 7y ago
Crime peaked when Pete Wilson was governor and California was a swing state. Since then, under Davis, Schwarzenegger, Brown, and now Newsom it has decreased significantly. [0] https://www.ppic.org/publication/crime-trends-in-california/ https://www.ppic.org/publication/crime-trends-in-california/
plandis 7y ago
I know quite a few fairly liberal people who moved explicitly because they wanted to do this. To a lot of people in my social circle, it seems inherently unfair that at a federal level your vote counts for more in a lot of conservative rural areas.
anon463637 7y ago
Poor people are broke and don't have good jobs with livable wages, so the average life quality is less for people at the very bottom. A fraction of people will turn to self-/other-harming-distractions like drug use, crime and mischief when things aren't good. Couple that with upstanding citizens being unarmed and helpless unless they're billionaires, judges or Laurie Smith's buddies, criminals are going to see most Californias as "easy pickin's." "Tough on crime" hasn't worked, the War on Drugs has failed miserably and hating on poor people isn't going to solve anything.

by smsm42 7y ago

cft 7y ago

They not only don't vote them out, but they double down on their voting patterns.

bronco21016 7y ago

I first heard of this phenomenon the other day from a coworker that lives south of Atlanta, near the major movie/tv production area. People, from what are typically blue areas, are moving in and radically changing the political landscape according to him. He wasn’t necessarily against liberal ideas but his complaint was that they seem to vote for taxes just for the hell of it because every tax proposed is still significantly less than where they came from. Either way, interesting times.

jorblumesea 7y ago
But that's not what the data shows. People from blue states are moving to blue cities in red states. Left leaning people are moving to similarly left leaning areas. Austin, Dallas, Houston, Miami, Atlanta, when was the last time these were Republican bastions? Look at the areas experiencing huge population growth. Texas might be red but the populations centers haven't been for years.
- bronco21016 7y ago
  I think in the particular case of my co-worker the blue is spilling into the traditionally red rural areas. The population centers inevitably must expand to handle the migration.
  - megablast 7y ago
    So blue cities are expanding, as cities have always done?
    - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
      Almost all big cities are blue. The biggest red city is Mesa Arizona.
- TulliusCicero 7y ago
  This is a good point, but it would be intellectually disingenuous not to acknowledge that they've been drawn by the policy of the red states, specifically by housing policy that's made housing costs more reasonable than the blue states. Not that I'm a big fan of sprawl, but it's undeniable that blue state housing policy that strictly limits both sprawl AND density has been an utter disaster for cost of living anywhere where the economy is good.
  - RangerScience 7y ago
    The sprawl has massive hidden costs; it's a similar situation to stadiums. The city centers end up paying for it, but not reaping the benefits in tax bases / revenue. The housing costs - while they do have a lot do with policies that prevent massive new construction - also have a lot do with a lot of people moving and wanting to move to these places. So, question for you: What about the blue state policies is that results in their economies being good, so that these problems exist in the first place?
  - JamesBarney 7y ago
    It was my understanding that most restrictive housing policy is implemented at a city and not state level.
axaxs 7y ago
This is a real problem, and a real concern IMO. People move from their home cities and states to nice areas with low tax, then continue voting for the same policies and ideologies that led to their home becoming awful in the first place. I live in a rather conservative area that sees an influx of New Yorkers every single year. They all seem to complain about two things: the high taxes they left, and Republicans. I'd laugh if it weren't so mindnumbingly sad. Reminds me of the saying, something like "if it smells like sh*t everywhere you go, maybe it's time to check your own shoes."
- didibus 7y ago
  The issue is the lack of dimensionality on your axis. If the political spectrum recognized more dimensions, you would find it that high tax vs republican is only one small dimension, thus not necessarily a contradiction.
- mint2 7y ago
  You seem to have a lot of judging and questionable assumptions in your post.
  - roenxi 7y ago
    There is a very pronounced trend of people migrating away from states that are controlled by Democrats for reasons that are potentially ideologically driven policy failures. This raises a a very real and material question for the new host community - do the migrants understand why the situation became so intolerable that they felt they should move? Migrants bring new ideas so a certain amount of discomfort and change is expected. But judgements and assumptions need to be discussed to work out if there is any merit to them. There is a risk there that shouldn't be glibly ignored. So I suppose I'd call on you to flesh that out with some alternatives that fit the facts or some challenges to the assumptions rather than just calling a spade a spade. We all know it is a spade. If the spade is inappropriate suggest a better tool instead.
    - tjr225 7y ago
      Statistically, people are moving from rural areas and to urban areas. Rural areas tend to be conservative and economically depressed. Urban areas tend to have high paying jobs and be liberal or progressive. Aside from a few state/city couplings(Omaha, NE comes to mind) a US "State" is a poor indicator of differentiated policy or ideology. People in Atlanta or Miami or LA or Seattle have a lot more in common with each other than some might think. Moreover, it seems like you're attempting to paint the picture that a typically Democratic State is somehow worse off than a conservative one. I'm positive that a person born in Washington or California almost always has a better statistical and economic outcome than someone born in the Deep South, for example. So, it seems if I were correct(and I'm almost certain I am), the spade is doing something right.

nradov 7y ago

California has largely become a single party state. I'm not trying to start an argument between Democrats and Republicans here, but we can clearly see a pattern everywhere in the world. Once single party rule is institutionalized the politicians are no longer accountable to voter interests.

jvanderbot 7y ago
California allows two candidates from the same party to run against eachother. Do other states not?
- njarboe 7y ago
  It is worse than that. With the passage of the "Top Two Candidates Open Primary Act" California has open primaries (anyone can vote for anyone on the ballot in the primaries) and only the top two get to be on the main ballot. So many times only two Democrats are on the ballot with no Republican candidate at all. Not a good situation in my opinion.
  - esoterica 7y ago
    How is a jungle primary different from no primary and a free for-all-election with a run-off? Is the latter also corrupt?
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      >How is a jungle primary different from no primary and a free for-all-election with a run-off? Majority/runoff with no primary would mean if a candidate gets an absolute majority on the first ballot, they win. You can't win at the primary in the jungle primary.
  - yongjik 7y ago
    It would actually work in favor of Republican-inclined voters, though not necessarily the party itself. By allowing anyone to vote, Democrat candidates are incentivized to be more moderate, because a vote from a Republican is as good as another from a Democrat. Without open primaries, a Democratic-only primary pretty much decides the winner, and a candidate only has to appeal to fellow Democrats.

MattyRad 7y ago

Reno resident here. Policy change is something I tend to worry about given there's been a huge influx of Californian "refugees" over past the several years. If California continues its trajectory with housing costs and homelessness, it could definitely "bleed over." Homelessness isn't as big of an issue here than it is in California (I expect in part because of the colder weather), but housing costs have definitely been affected.

lightedman 7y ago
"If California continues its trajectory with housing costs and homelessness, it could definitely "bleed over."" Half of our problem with homelessness comes from the other states, yours included, sending your homeless to us, one-way, and then you expect US to pay for their asses. Go kick your local politician in the ass instead of bitching about us, because we aren't where the problem lies on that particular front.
nradov 7y ago
Are you sure homelessness isn't as big an issue? I was in Reno last winter and the banks of the Truckee River were basically one big homeless encampment stretching for miles.
dmode 7y ago
There no California "refugees", because most people in California is also from another state

bsder 7y ago

So, I presume you have the legislative solution for homelessness? I'm sure lots of people would be very interested, so let's hear it.

ip26 7y ago

If Sonoma alone (or along with other small voting blocs) is bearing the brunt of state policy it may not feel in their power to change.

akhilcacharya 7y ago

Crime peaked when Pete Wilson was governor and California was a swing state. Since then, under Davis, Schwarzenegger, Brown, and now Newsom it has decreased significantly. [0] https://www.ppic.org/publication/crime-trends-in-california/ https://www.ppic.org/publication/crime-trends-in-california/

plandis 7y ago

I know quite a few fairly liberal people who moved explicitly because they wanted to do this. To a lot of people in my social circle, it seems inherently unfair that at a federal level your vote counts for more in a lot of conservative rural areas.

anon463637 7y ago

Poor people are broke and don't have good jobs with livable wages, so the average life quality is less for people at the very bottom. A fraction of people will turn to self-/other-harming-distractions like drug use, crime and mischief when things aren't good. Couple that with upstanding citizens being unarmed and helpless unless they're billionaires, judges or Laurie Smith's buddies, criminals are going to see most Californias as "easy pickin's." "Tough on crime" hasn't worked, the War on Drugs has failed miserably and hating on poor people isn't going to solve anything.