Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

With so much flooding in Florida, why is it a Republican state?

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
I really don't think it has to do with the Jewish population in Florida. First off the state is 70% Christian and only 3% Jewish, but northern Florida is a southern state. Most of the liberals are in the southern tip of the state (Miami area) and the rural areas tend to be demographically similar to the rural areas of other southern states.

In the US there are more people registered Democrat than Republican, but Democratic voters tend to be less reliable. Republican voters tend to be older and whiter, two demographics who tend to vote in off year elections. There are 36 states that have their gubernatorial elections in off years (non-presidential election years), 12 that have them in presidential election years, with 2 that do it in odd numbered years. Turnout in non-presidential election years is always lower than presidential elections and the more reliable voting demographics have more sway in those off years.

In 2010 the Republicans developed a deep strategy to take over as many state governments as possible. Because they had more conservative voters turning out anyway, extra effort put a lot of Republicans in office in a lot of states. This included governors, other statewide offices, and legislatures. After the results of the 2010 census came in and it came time to redraw districts for elected offices in both legislatures and Congressional districts, these Republican majority legislatures drew up district boundaries that were easier for Republicans to win and harder for Democrats.

With control of the legislatures Republicans were able to rig the elections to favor turnout for Republicans and make it harder for Democrats to vote. This included voter ID laws that allow ID Republicans are more likely to have like concealed carry permits, but not allow ID Democratic voters might have like school ID cards. They also rigged things to make it harder to get IDs in areas that tend to vote Democratic (closing DMVs for example), have fewer polling places per capita in areas that vote Democratic, and purged voting rolls of names who might be dead or felons, though tend to concentrate on people who live in more Democratic areas.

Back many years ago, Democrats were known to play similar games to discourage Republican voting. The era of the poll taxes and literacy tests in the South were during a time when the white Democrats controlled things and African Americans tended to vote Republican. The Democrats in Chicago were also know to put their thumb on the scale in various ways.

But in the last 25 years or so, the numbers are on the Democrats side. When turnout is high, Democrats tend to win and when it's low they often lose. When California redistricted using the system used by Washington State for the 2012 election (which redistricts using a bipartisan commission and districts have to be along normal boundaries), California's Congressional delegation and state legislature got more Democrat.

Florida was one of the states that the Republicans gained seats in Congress and in the state legislature as well as statewide offices. Since then the thumb has been on the scale to favor Republican candidates.

Florida is a very diverse state. There are sharp differences in political views between regions of the state and other demographics. Cuban-Americans have been a reliable Republican voting block for 60 years because Kennedy was in office during the Bay of Pigs (though the plan was developed during the last days of the Eisenhower administration). Younger Cuban-Americans are less likely to vote Republican, though I think they still vote more Republican than other Hispanic groups. Like a lot of states, the cities are more liberal than the rural areas, but Florida has a fair bit of the state is rural and conservative.

In short, it's complicated.
 
?..


In short, it's complicated.
All the evidence I have seen suggests your description is spot on. I'd add one major point. When Lyndon Johnson aggressively promoted the Civil Rights Act he was quoted as saying "I'm delivering the South to Republicans for generations". That might be apocryphal but the fact was correct. There is a deep core of Republicans who still retain the traditional views of the slave holding South. Just as the Texians were supporters in the 1850's even though they mostly had no slaves, there remain a deeply jingoistic, nationalistic and anti-scientific populace that reject any government actions other than military and anti-social laws. That core continues the 'western' pioneer attitudes of the mid-19th century today. They really have not changed during the last 150 years.

The perineal problem of the USA is how to reconcile the people of the paragraph above with the traditionally well-educated 'eastern' people. That conflict, lest we forget, gave us the makeup of the US Congress with the democratically constituted House of Representatives and the anti-democratic Senate. It gave us the Mason-Dixon Line. It gave us the House Committee on Un-American Activities. It also has given us the Trump Adminstration.

The problem for us is to understand what effect all that will have on TSLA and on the search for energy efficiency. If past US history is a guide, there will be little long term negative effect on TSLA. The future of US civil society is much less clear.

These are my observations as an avid reader of US history and a believer in long-term investment strategy. In that respect one cannnot ignore these developments, but it is unwise to conclude "the sky is falling" because the US seems always to correct excess, sometimes at incredible cost. This should not be an exception with recent events indicating that the cost will be unusually high in terms of damage to civil society and economic well-being. I remain long TSLA.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: dhcp
When California redistricted using the system used by Washington State for the 2012 election (which redistricts using a bipartisan commission and districts have to be along normal boundaries), California's Congressional delegation and state legislature got more Democrat.

So when Democrats are in control, they use a bipartisan commission and try to draw fair district lines, but when Republicans are in control they try to gerrymander as much as possible in their favour?

That seems like a losing strategy for Democrats. They should draw lines that favour Democrats as much as possible and hope for someone / something (SCOTUS?) to somehow end gerrymandering once and for all.
 
So when Democrats are in control, they use a bipartisan commission and try to draw fair district lines, but when Republicans are in control they try to gerrymander as much as possible in their favour?

That seems like a losing strategy for Democrats. They should draw lines that favour Democrats as much as possible and hope for someone / something (SCOTUS?) to somehow end gerrymandering once and for all.
Actually California is an outlier, as it always is. As partial proof of that, I was born there:eek:. When Democrats have been in less strong positions than are those of California they have chosen gerrymandering also. Factually, politicians normally act to perpetuate themselves. They are the perfect illustration of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs; survival comes before all else!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lloyd
I think more and more coastal Floridians are gradually becoming aware that their homes and businesses are at risk from rising sea levels, given the many occurrences over the past few years of "king tides" and storms resulting in municipal drainage systems backing up and seawater inundating people's yards and the surface streets. This used to be rare, it no longer is. The Miami city government is concerned about it.

But denying reality when it does not conform to one's personal biases is something humans are very good at.

I expect that within a decade it will become obvious that investing in Florida coastal real estate is not a rational economic decision. At that point building values will start to collapse because insurers won't issue flood insurance, which will devastate the economy in Florida.
 
I expect that within a decade it will become obvious that investing in Florida coastal real estate is not a rational economic decision. At that point building values will start to collapse because insurers won't issue flood insurance, which will devastate the economy in Florida.
Yep, that's a great point.

It's one thing I 'comfort' myself with (& have upset people vocally with) - seaside property is usually owned by rich people who have typically contributed more to global warming. Said property will drop in value thanks to said global warming. Karma of sorts, but not much really in the greater scheme of things.