Maybe they will stop pursuing anti growth policies? Nah that’s crazy

Who is ”they”?

The origin of local power to stymie development is from the post WW2 years when freeways were mandated, but local communities they bisected were inevitably the politically weak ones.

Now, the NIMBYs include those same VCs [1] that publicly posted that America should build at scale again… just not in their town.

[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/08/marc-andre...

Municipal government exists at the pleasure of the state, and the State governments can just take back land use powers at any time. "They" here is the state Dem party, and they have an easy choice to make.

What are the anti growth policies of the Democratic party?

I don’t know about the party part (many of these date back when Republicans ruled the state), but

  - development zoning (restrict development to low density residential),
  - slowing development with required surveys (eg. CEQA)
  - permit friction
  - rejection of mass transport in growing population regions
  - mobs at city planning meetings,
  - Open Space preserves (private contracts to maintain nature in area where high demand

Is this just because people are moving out of California to other states? If so, maybe California needs to change its brand of politics to have a higher retention rate.

A bunch of people I know have moved out of the State. Mostly because housing here is completely unaffordable for an average couple. And it is doable in other states.

Unaffordable relative to wages. Even though you make more in California, you don't make enough more.

This is not just California. I live in Washington and wouldn't have been able to afford my house if I was buying today. Inflation + interest rates + price jumps.

Even in Austin my 200k house from 2007 is 4x the price today.

Wow and 2007 was height of a boom.

Just a reminder, the census made a mistake and gave extra congressional seats that belonged to GOP to Democrats states.

Citation?

I like the long-term thinking, but what about other trends? Texas was quietly (it seems to me) getting less red up until this election. America is getting more diverse and more educated, and Boomers are slowly dying off while younger people have been overwhelmingly against Trumpism. So shouldn't the Trump / Republican base start shrinking? Maybe e.g. Texas +4 isn't necessarily horrendous for Democrats.

> younger people have been overwhelmingly against Trumpism.

Young people (18-29) are the age demographic where Trump made his biggest gain from 2020 to 2024. The only demographic where Harris had gains as the oldest demographic.

So while democrats still won the young vote, the trend is in the opposite direction.

Fair point about the trend, yes. And thanks for pointing out that Harris actually made gains with Boomers; I've verified that and updated my mental model.

> Boomers are slowly dying off while younger people have been overwhelmingly against Trumpism.

Is this really the case? My understanding, based on voting data, is that Gen Z was overwhelming for Trump and Trumpism. If anything, Baby Boomers have gone way more left than they have been in previous elections.

I've seen no data showing Gen Z support for Trump, and I'm interested if you have some. I'm seeing[1] an 11 point lead for Harris among the age 18-29 group. That's much more narrow, of course, than the margins in 2016 and 2020, so I guess Gen Z is more supportive of Trump than Millenials were at the same age.

[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/exit-polls

Gen X voted Trump more than any other generation. Millenials are shifting that way.

You appear to be correct; thanks for pointing it out. I'm now seeing[1] a 10 point lead for Trump among ages 45-64, and a tie among ages 65+. My mental model was still based on the 2016 and 2020 numbers.

[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/exit-polls

and they will shift back like amnesic goldfish. rinse. repeat.

>Boomers are slowly dying off while younger people have been overwhelmingly against Trumpism.

No they aren't. Gen Z young men are all voting for Trump.

>America is getting more diverse and more educated

Diverse maybe, educated no. They're getting more college degrees than 50+ years ago I suppose, but they're not worth much compared to college degrees in the past. These days, college just makes up for utterly lousy secondary school education. Educational standards in the US have been in decline for a very long time.

> Gen Z young men are all voting for Trump.

From the exit poll data, I see a 2 point lead for Trump among men age 18-29. That's interesting, but probably also within the margin of error. (For women in that range it's an overwhelming 24 point lead for Harris, making the overall support for Harris in that group pretty strong, albeit not as strong as I thought and much weaker than in 2020 and 2016.)

> ...more college degrees...

Yes, and regardless of your opinion of them, this has been inversely correlated with support for Trump. This has not changed from 2016, to 2020, to 2024.

I think if you looked separately at white GenZ men, you'd see a much higher lead for Trump. White people are a shrinking portion of the overall population.

And yes, there's a huge gap between the sexes in political leaning, and according to articles I've read, has a lot to do with young men being sexless and angry (not that this is the women's fault). Basically, GenZ men are turning into a bunch of angry incels.

And yes, college degree attainment is inversely correlated with Trump support, in general. I never said otherwise; I was just making a side point about the country being "more educated". Sure, more people these days have college degrees than 50+ years ago, but on the other hand, 50+ years ago the US didn't elect anyone as vulgar as Trump into its highest office so it doesn't seem to have helped that much.

>Basically, GenZ men are turning into a bunch of angry incels.

This insulting and dehumanizing attitude is why they left and will continue to do so. Good work!

They're the ones calling themselves that (they invented the term, after all), so you can blame them for dehumanizing themselves, somehow. Meanwhile, they're all blaming young women for not wanting to be handmaids for them, and your attitude isn't somehow going to magically make women want to go back to the 1800s, so have fun being angry and single I guess.

> they invented the term

Wait! The term incel was already around when GenZ were still busy wetting dipers.

Only a miniscule amount of men would consider themselves incels. The vast majority just gets insulted as being one for disagreeing with people like you. But go on keep foaming at the mouth we all see how that turns out :)

How it turns out isn't going to be great for the incels: they brought this on themselves, and now they get to suffer with it. I don't live in the US, so it's not going to be bad for me, other than having to watch its society implode from across the ocean. If you really think Trump is going to make things better, you're sorely deluded.

You seem to have trouble understanding cause, effect and result.

"you are an incel for disagreeing politically" > they are not and get pushed to vote trump > Trump wins

Only one "party" is really loosing here

You seem to have trouble understanding the bigger picture, or you're really stupid enough to think that Trump is going to make things better for these people. Let me fix this for you:

"you are an incel because of your actions" > they are and get offended and vote trump > Trump wins > things for them go from bad to much worse

So when things get even worse for them under Trump, they have no one to blame but themselves, and certainly not random people on the internet that they feel offended by.

Not from what I've seen. But I get why you think that

https://www.axios.com/2024/09/28/gen-z-men-conservative-poll

Just look at the headline. But the numbers just saying "18-24 are slighyly more conservative than 24-30". While the lion's share simply say they are moderate.

So it can really swing any which way.

As another statitic:

https://i.redd.it/6sekbauh9uec1.jpeg

Only up to 2020, but for the US you see that liberalism for men only stagnated in 2020, not shift conservative.

South Korea... I have no clue what has happened.

> These days, college just makes up for utterly lousy secondary school education.

A bit questionable (I reckon lousy grade school just means less college, and college participation rates are decreasing), but I do agree that secondary education has utterly tarnished its standards. NCLB can't even explain this horrible drop.

Democrats had a trifecta but couldn't get DC and Puerto Rico statehood or voter right protections because of Blue Dog members of the party. They lost a critical election that led to some of the worst gerrymandered maps against them while most of their own gerrymandering attempts were overturned. Republicans now control the senate, house, judicial, and executive branch and can cement their power forever.

If you don't believe me just look at Mississippi. A state where demographics alone should've made it between blue and purple. Instead, 15% of all Black adults in that state are not allowed to vote. Similarly, in Florida, 10% of all adults cannot vote. Voters passed an initiative by direct democracy to allow felons to vote, but DeSantis just blocked it anyways and the courts, which he controls, backed him.

Democrats, despite winning the popular vote in all but 2 elections since 1988, are pretty much completely out of power

> Instead, 15% of all Black adults in that state are not allowed to vote. Similarly, in Florida, 10% of all adults cannot vote.

After some research it seems like this is due to felony convictions. I agree voting privileges should be restored upon completion of sentence, but dang I'm more concerned that 10% of all adults in Florida are convicted felons, what's up with that?

Look at the demographics of those convicted felons. I suspect you’ll see certain trends in who tends to be targeted for arrest—given that rates of criminality are broadly equivalent across demographic groups—that align closely with who the people in power don’t want to have any power of their own.

Mississippi is a very obvious case. The white power structure there simply does not want to allow black people to vote so they use all available means to prevent that.

What’s more, those felons still count towards the state population count, and thus, the number of electoral college votes of the state…

Sounds like taxation without representation to me

Counting for the population but not actually able to vote? Where have I heard this before...

The effects of the Fentanyl crisis is truly going to haunt the US for decades to come. absolutely unbelievable.

Uh, maybe the 1994 crime bill?

> Democrats, despite winning the popular vote in all but 2 elections since 1988, are pretty much completely out of power

It's almost as if they need a different platform that can get them a win instead of complaining that the majority of their voters live in a handful of states.

The election system is what it is.

If you want to win, you need to do something to win - not complain about the system.

This is not correct. The election system changes regularly, and in different ways all over the country.

The Electoral College was established during the Constitutional Convention… in 1787.

Sure, there have been changes since then, but it’s probably always been optimal to go for many states as opposed to the handful of biggest ones.

> Democrats, despite winning the popular vote in all but 2 elections since 1988, are pretty much completely out of power

This shit pisses me off so much. Why can't they play by the same rules? The supreme irony is, if Dems were willing to occasionally fight dirty/play to win as well, at least when they still had some power, it would have likely forced Republicans to try to govern well occasionally rather than simply always playing to win.

What would be an example dirty tactic the Dems could have used?

NY for example had a map that was gerrymandered to benefit dems. Their SC struck it down and instead we ended up with a map that slightly benefits Republicans.

This is an example of something that happens across the country. Most deep red states are heavily gerrymandered. In contrast, almost every single state that uses an independent redistricting commission is blue. This means Dems are unable to play by the same gerrymandering tactics as Republicans

I think u/mrkeen might have been referring to phony criminal charges against a political opponent, for example. Or I dunno, hundreds of thousands of ballots dropping at 4AM in some central counting location they control with 100% being for their candidate.

There are some pretty good examples on: The Alt-Right Playbook: You Go High, We Go Low on youtube

The popular vote back in, like, 2012 is irrelevant. What matters is the popular vote this cycle, which the Republicans won strongly. Excuses around gerrymandering, electoral college, blah blah blah don't work this year. Trump and the Republicans won the Presidency, Senate and House, fair and square.

An interesting note: Puerto Ricans appear to have elected a Trump-supporting Republican-affiliated governor.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/puerto-rico-governors-ra...

(I couldn't resist fixing a typo in your informative comment: s/consensus/census/. I hope that's ok!)

Reminder that all of those states were amazing for Democrats pre-1968. Everything changes with time. Many of those states are becoming unaffordable because there was so much displacement from blue states. It’s not easy to predict how voters will respond in 6 or 16 years…

That was more to do Nixon's southern strategy than any change in policy. Remember conservative bulwarks Jesse Helms and Trent Lott both started out as staffers for Democrats.

Nixon’s Southern Strategy only worked because LBJ passed the Civil Rights Act. He famously said “We have lost the south for a generation” after signing it.

No, it only worked because many white southerners were racists twats, and still were at least when I was living in Mississippi in the late 1980s. They still revere Andrew Jackson (founder of D) and hate Lincoln (founder of R), even though they are caucusing with the Republicans these days.

Tell this to everyone upthread saying democrats need to meet the voters where they are.

Honestly, some voters are so twisted they ain’t worth it.