More on people voting with their feet in the Red State / Blue State debate.

This is an observation that cannot be made enough: yes, this graph is instructive.


Yes, it in fact that graph says it all.  But I have a message to the folks doing that net migration: remember why you left your old state for your new one.  That means, among other things, that new Red State immigrants recognize that the only reason why you are not living in your new state on sufferance is probably because doing so would violate the Constitution.  The inhabitants of Texas and Tennessee and North Dakota are honestly not really interested in how you did things in your old home.  They largely assume that if those things worked you’d still be there.

Via Vodkapundit, via Ed Driscoll at Instapundit who I should send a fruit basket to.

Moe Lane

PS: Some people, reading the above, might take from that the impression that I want people who emigrate from Blue to Red to simply sit down and shut up for a few years when it comes to local politics in their new homes.

…Actually, yeah; that’s pretty much what I want them to do.  If it’s any consolation, I don’t take any glee in suggesting that.

3 thoughts on “More on people voting with their feet in the Red State / Blue State debate.”

  1. Back in college, I ticked off the lefties HORRIBLY when I suggested you shouldn’t be allowed to vote in the appropriate elections until you’d lived some place for five years or so.

  2. Funny anecdote about one of the listed five most free states. There is a person who moved to one of them a few decades back, a Democrat from out of state.
    Said person is both vocally opposed to white supremacism, and also tends to see white supremacists under the bed.
    The state’s Democratic party is not hugely different from the state Republican party, on a policy level, disregarding variation at the local level. Yes, there are some pinko leftist Democrats. There are also Democrats who were opposed to Obama because of the color of his skin, and thereby making me feel a bit soiled about opposing Obama.
    The real issue is that, from oral history and other things, the state Democratic party has a) a good deal of organizational continuity with the Jim Crow era b) has been keeping some things fairly quiet at least until fairly recently c) hasn’t really made an open and clean break with the past and d) has a fair amount of blood on its hands.
    That person I mentioned at the start? Relatively silent on the issue. That, combined with the party identification, makes me inclined to view them as objectively pro white supremacist.

Comments are closed.