This is an interesting discussion. I assume that the better polls take into consideration demographic shifts resulting from migration, but it could nevertheless add an additional layer of complexity to an election cycle that already has unusual cross-currents.
For example, the other day a prominent Nevada pundit said that he was less confident in predicting the outcome of his state's presidential race because of recent in-migration that undercut the Democrats' traditional voter-registration advantage.
I would be cautious about drawing too many conclusions about in-migration in the absence of decent polling. For example, a Montana newspaper recently reported that for every two Democrats moving to the state there were three Republicans. That may help explain why a long-time Democratic U.S. senator is looking increasingly like he may lose his reelection bid -- and potentially swing the Senate to Republican control.
By the same token, I read somewhere that Idaho's in-migration appeared to be primarily helping Republicans. However, I get the impression from local Reddit discussions that this can play out in complex ways, e.g., what is considered "conservative" in southern California can look somewhat different in rural Idaho.
Partisan sorting may be occurring at the state level to some degree, but I suspect that the urban/rural divide may be just as important. As a case in point, all of the west coast states have deep blue urban areas surrounded by deep red rural areas. The suburbs tend to be more purple -- and determine state-level elections.
I live in Washington state. What I've noticed is that the pandemic helped to accelerate population growth in some rural parts of the state such as on the Olympic Peninsula. This was partly spurred by people in urban areas such as Seattle who were now able to telecommute, but there has also been a wave of retirees from California. A number of communities have had blue shifts in recent elections, but I don't know to what degree that has been influenced by in-migration.
I offer the above example because I wonder if migration might end up being a partisan mixed bag over time, perhaps to the degree that the blue versus red urban/rural divide could be reduced in at least some parts of the nation. For example, a rural community with relatively low housing prices, appealing recreation amenities and good broadband could gain an influx of younger and more liberal residents who can telecommute.
A real PDF piece (pretty damn fascinating)! Significant data weaves forming a strong pattern to follow. That said, what strikes me the most about this year's election is that it will be decided by an extremely small number of voters-= and that is truly concerning!
This is an interesting discussion. I assume that the better polls take into consideration demographic shifts resulting from migration, but it could nevertheless add an additional layer of complexity to an election cycle that already has unusual cross-currents.
For example, the other day a prominent Nevada pundit said that he was less confident in predicting the outcome of his state's presidential race because of recent in-migration that undercut the Democrats' traditional voter-registration advantage.
I would be cautious about drawing too many conclusions about in-migration in the absence of decent polling. For example, a Montana newspaper recently reported that for every two Democrats moving to the state there were three Republicans. That may help explain why a long-time Democratic U.S. senator is looking increasingly like he may lose his reelection bid -- and potentially swing the Senate to Republican control.
By the same token, I read somewhere that Idaho's in-migration appeared to be primarily helping Republicans. However, I get the impression from local Reddit discussions that this can play out in complex ways, e.g., what is considered "conservative" in southern California can look somewhat different in rural Idaho.
Partisan sorting may be occurring at the state level to some degree, but I suspect that the urban/rural divide may be just as important. As a case in point, all of the west coast states have deep blue urban areas surrounded by deep red rural areas. The suburbs tend to be more purple -- and determine state-level elections.
I live in Washington state. What I've noticed is that the pandemic helped to accelerate population growth in some rural parts of the state such as on the Olympic Peninsula. This was partly spurred by people in urban areas such as Seattle who were now able to telecommute, but there has also been a wave of retirees from California. A number of communities have had blue shifts in recent elections, but I don't know to what degree that has been influenced by in-migration.
I offer the above example because I wonder if migration might end up being a partisan mixed bag over time, perhaps to the degree that the blue versus red urban/rural divide could be reduced in at least some parts of the nation. For example, a rural community with relatively low housing prices, appealing recreation amenities and good broadband could gain an influx of younger and more liberal residents who can telecommute.
A real PDF piece (pretty damn fascinating)! Significant data weaves forming a strong pattern to follow. That said, what strikes me the most about this year's election is that it will be decided by an extremely small number of voters-= and that is truly concerning!