I think you may be overestimating the effects of recent cultural "sorting" in creating red and blue, that is non-swing, states. Many deep red and deep blue states are that way because of legacies arising from the long-resident population. This is particularly visible in the white south, whose current deep red loyalty in most states refle…
I think you may be overestimating the effects of recent cultural "sorting" in creating red and blue, that is non-swing, states. Many deep red and deep blue states are that way because of legacies arising from the long-resident population. This is particularly visible in the white south, whose current deep red loyalty in most states reflects, I suspect, less "red home seeking" in-migration than members of long-resident white families and their historical religious and racial attitudes. Likewise, long-red states that have become "swing" states--Georgia and Arizona, but also Virginia and Texas to some extent (though not in this election) have become swing states because liberal-leaning knowledge worker types have been migrating there for economic reasons, not because they're looking to live in a state governed by liberals, which GA, AZ, VA, and TX historically, and mostly still, are not. Similarly, the in-migration that has turned California deep blue has happened in strong measure for economic reasons, though that the Pacific coast as a whole may be a region where cultural sorting plays a specially strong role.
I think you would see more cultural sorting on the county level--but again this may have as much to do with economics and urban-rural divides, as with liberals seeking other liberals to live with, and so on. On general principles, it's also worth quoting a line attributed to James Carville: "What state lies between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia? Alabama."
In 2020, there were concerns about the legitimacy of some votes. Some people felt that the left didn't want to investigate where all the votes at 5:00 am came from. They believed that if the situation had been reversed, the right would have felt the same way. They also felt that the left always gets what they want, while the right gets labeled as racists, xenophobes, and weirdos. The power of large metropolitan cities, which are predominantly held by Democratic leaders, is stronger than many people realize. Even though there may be 30-40% of voters who are moderates or right of center, they feel that their participation in local governments is almost non-existent because they believe it's a hopeless waste of time to try to bring about any change. 80% of Americans live in large urban areas. The space between Philly and Pittsburgh called Alabama has 20% of the population.
The issue is actually about the size of the counties. Big counties are generally big cities (Dem), small counties are rural (Rep). The election was won as Adam points out in 5 counties. The Counting was critical in just 5 places and supervised by a handful of people.
I think you may be overestimating the effects of recent cultural "sorting" in creating red and blue, that is non-swing, states. Many deep red and deep blue states are that way because of legacies arising from the long-resident population. This is particularly visible in the white south, whose current deep red loyalty in most states reflects, I suspect, less "red home seeking" in-migration than members of long-resident white families and their historical religious and racial attitudes. Likewise, long-red states that have become "swing" states--Georgia and Arizona, but also Virginia and Texas to some extent (though not in this election) have become swing states because liberal-leaning knowledge worker types have been migrating there for economic reasons, not because they're looking to live in a state governed by liberals, which GA, AZ, VA, and TX historically, and mostly still, are not. Similarly, the in-migration that has turned California deep blue has happened in strong measure for economic reasons, though that the Pacific coast as a whole may be a region where cultural sorting plays a specially strong role.
I think you would see more cultural sorting on the county level--but again this may have as much to do with economics and urban-rural divides, as with liberals seeking other liberals to live with, and so on. On general principles, it's also worth quoting a line attributed to James Carville: "What state lies between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia? Alabama."
In 2020, there were concerns about the legitimacy of some votes. Some people felt that the left didn't want to investigate where all the votes at 5:00 am came from. They believed that if the situation had been reversed, the right would have felt the same way. They also felt that the left always gets what they want, while the right gets labeled as racists, xenophobes, and weirdos. The power of large metropolitan cities, which are predominantly held by Democratic leaders, is stronger than many people realize. Even though there may be 30-40% of voters who are moderates or right of center, they feel that their participation in local governments is almost non-existent because they believe it's a hopeless waste of time to try to bring about any change. 80% of Americans live in large urban areas. The space between Philly and Pittsburgh called Alabama has 20% of the population.
The issue is actually about the size of the counties. Big counties are generally big cities (Dem), small counties are rural (Rep). The election was won as Adam points out in 5 counties. The Counting was critical in just 5 places and supervised by a handful of people.
See my other response to the article later today.