> the number of people in blue states moving to red states.

Blue states losing the "best and brightest" to red states would tend to reduce disparity, which is not what actually seems to be happening. If blue-to-red migration drives increasing disparity, it means that the loss to the blue state is less than the gain to the red state. Either those migrants became less productive in the process, or they were a net drag all along. Was that the point you meant to make?

California is bleeding, on average over the past 10 years, 60,000 people per year to Texas and that number is growing. California's total population continues to climb though (Texas is growing faster still though by about 2.5x). At the same time it appears Texas GDP per capita is growing twice as fast as California and will surpass California before the next census.

None of the data present, in either the article or the comments, align with Texas or California. Together those two are about 20.6% of the total US population. While there probably is a growing divergence exactly as the article claims it appears the described cause of that divergence is completely out of alignment with what the article claims.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_and_territories...

Would (say high net-worth) people moving from blue to red states upon retiring match "become less productive in the process" scenario? This seems like a likely case (moving on retirement), but I'd suspect if this is true that there are some less affluent families that are moving to red states in order to "do more with less" which also seems likely to me.

"...number of people in blue states moving to red states." Citation needed. If you live in one of those blue areas, it sure doesn't seem like it. More people just keep showing up.

At least in the case of California, the web abounds with statistics showing net domestic outflow. My guess is that any population increase in CA is due to foreign nationals.

> It didn’t get mentioned in the article but a huge reason of this over the last 10 years is just the number of people in blue states moving to red states.

Huge reason for what? Income growth is happening in blue districts not red.

> It is no question that trump is winning again.

Last I checked he's getting crushed in polls by almost every major dem candidate.

He got crushed in the polls in 2016. He also lost the popular vote. But he could once again easily win the electoral vote and lose the popular vote.

Due to more gerrymandering I believe he could lose by up to 8 million or so votes and still win because of the electoral college. It's pretty depressing when you think about it.

Gerrymandering doesn’t have anything to do with the presidential elections. Gerrymandering refers to state legislations drawing districts to have an advantage in state and house elections. Electoral college votes are strictly determined by the census.

>Last I checked he's getting crushed in polls by almost every major dem candidate

Last time I checked too, but it's been a few years since I checked...