Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I think you mixing up cause and effect. Rich states tend to vote Democratic. It’s not that Democratic states lead to wealth.

California was a red state until 1992.



> Rich states tend to vote Democratic. It’s not that Democratic states lead to wealth.

Drilling down further, it's more about density:

> There's a decisive break between Democratic and Republican support at a population density of 800 persons/per square mile.

* https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-01/how-the-d...

* https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/11/2020-elect...

> If you follow the red state trend lines, you can clearly see that any dense, fast-growing cities that emerge in red states will be very likely to vote blue. The few that do already exist already vote blue.

> Red state voters generally prefer low-density housing, prefer to drive cars, and are sensitive to gas prices. Once population density gets to a certain level, behaviors switch: high-density housing is the norm, public transit becomes more common, and gas use (and price sensitivity) drops. Red state values are incompatible with density.

* https://davetroy.medium.com/is-population-density-the-key-to...

Down to the county level, urban centres tend to have more economic activity:

> A similar analysis for last week’s election shows these trends continuing, albeit with a different political outcome. This time, Biden’s winning base in 477 counties encompasses fully 70% of America’s economic activity, while Trump’s losing base of 2,497 counties represents just 29% of the economy. (Votes are still outstanding in 110 mostly low-output counties, and this piece will be updated as new data is reported.)

* https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/11/09/biden-v...




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: