One thing I've been pondering since the election in November is an offshoot of the "rural-urban divide" debates that have been happening. Democrats may have won the popular vote, but we lost key regional areas dominated by white, rural, less educated demographics. The loss of historically blue states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan allowed the election to tip--just barely--to Republicans. Democrats are growing in areas of the Sun Belt like Texas and Georgia, but we're not quite to the tipping point of controlling state politics there. Our numbers are concentrated in other places that put us at a disadvantage.
Perhaps my mind was already headed that direction because our family has previously considered farming--a move that would require us to move to a rural, probably conservative-dominated area--but why not sort Democrats into needed areas rather than focus on winning over rural conservative voters? We're maybe looking at the problem all wrong in thinking we need to win people over with an agenda. Just move the people.
Michigan is a great example. On the Presidential level, Trump won by just 10,704 votes. Now consider California where Hillary Clinton won by 4,269,978 votes. Surely, some patriotic Californians would be willing to move to Michigan under the right circumstances? Say 10,705 of them? You get the picture. In Pennsylvania, Trump's margin was .72%. In Wisconsin, Trump's margin was .76%. We need to better distribute the Democratic majority away from cities.
Obviously, people are not going to just pickup and move for love of country. It would help to build a network of established progressives in the destination states to guide newcomers. They need jobs. They need homes. They need to register and vote. And there are inherent risks to the system...people who wrongly claim to be progressives but not vote that way once they move. People who like living in a dominant liberal culture getting a shock moving to, perhaps, a small town. There's a little bit of the heroic personality needed like the Civil Rights era in the South. But even just a network of jobs in swing districts that are offered to left-leaning voters as a priority would be a help. We've clustered in big cities and it's hurting our political power.
My larger point is that we, as Democrats, could more efficiently place ourselves around the nation to use our greater numbers and avoid situations like 2016 where regional weakness lets a political minority achieve power. It's not just President, but Congressional districts, too. To my knowledge, nobody has talked about this kind of relocation strategy. If they have, I'd love to hear about it. Please link in the comments!
Perhaps my mind was already headed that direction because our family has previously considered farming--a move that would require us to move to a rural, probably conservative-dominated area--but why not sort Democrats into needed areas rather than focus on winning over rural conservative voters? We're maybe looking at the problem all wrong in thinking we need to win people over with an agenda. Just move the people.
Michigan is a great example. On the Presidential level, Trump won by just 10,704 votes. Now consider California where Hillary Clinton won by 4,269,978 votes. Surely, some patriotic Californians would be willing to move to Michigan under the right circumstances? Say 10,705 of them? You get the picture. In Pennsylvania, Trump's margin was .72%. In Wisconsin, Trump's margin was .76%. We need to better distribute the Democratic majority away from cities.
Obviously, people are not going to just pickup and move for love of country. It would help to build a network of established progressives in the destination states to guide newcomers. They need jobs. They need homes. They need to register and vote. And there are inherent risks to the system...people who wrongly claim to be progressives but not vote that way once they move. People who like living in a dominant liberal culture getting a shock moving to, perhaps, a small town. There's a little bit of the heroic personality needed like the Civil Rights era in the South. But even just a network of jobs in swing districts that are offered to left-leaning voters as a priority would be a help. We've clustered in big cities and it's hurting our political power.
My larger point is that we, as Democrats, could more efficiently place ourselves around the nation to use our greater numbers and avoid situations like 2016 where regional weakness lets a political minority achieve power. It's not just President, but Congressional districts, too. To my knowledge, nobody has talked about this kind of relocation strategy. If they have, I'd love to hear about it. Please link in the comments!