Editorial: The blue state blues

Las Vegas Review-Journal, Las Vegas Review-Journal on Jan 2, 2025

Published in Op Eds

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

Progressives are frantically sounding the alarm about blue state governance. The motivation isn’t improving quality of life but the downstream political implications.

“Bad news, Democrats: America is about to get even redder,” warned a recent New York Times opinion video. The Atlantic put it this way, “The Democrats are committing partycide.” A Newsweek headline shouted, “Democrats have a problem much bigger than Donald Trump.”

The concern is the 2030 census. Every decade, congressional seats are reapportioned based on state populations. Because the House is fixed at 435 seats, one state’s gain is another state’s loss.

This changes the Electoral College. States receive one electoral vote for each House member and senator. Because Nevada has four congressional seats, the state has six electoral votes.

“Millions of people have moved out of California, New York, Illinois and other blue states,” the Times video says. “And they’re moving to Texas, Florida, North Carolina, Georgia and Arizona — red ones.”

If the trend continues, red states could add 12 votes in the Electoral College. And those votes would come from blue states. For example, California is on pace to lose four House seats. New York could be down three.

That would be a significant advantage for future Republican presidential candidates. It would allow a Republican to become president without winning Wisconsin, Pennsylvania or Michigan. A Republican candidate would need to hold only Arizona, North Carolina, Georgia and other reliably red states.

There are lots of reasons that people move. But many Americans are flocking to red states because they’re more affordable, especially when it comes to housing.

“California, New York, and other slow-growing coastal Democratic strongholds have taken an explicitly anti-population-growth tack for decades,” The Atlantic wrote. “They took for granted their natural advantages and assumed that prosperity was a given. People willingly giving up their residencies in these coastal areas is a sign of how dismal the cost of living is.”

The Times offered up the obvious solution. “People still want to live in California and New York, but the cost of living must come down,” the video’s voice-over says. “If the Democratic governors of these states want to avoid a decade of electoral oblivion, they have one job. Make their states places people can afford to stay.”

That’s sound advice. But it isn’t random chance that California and New York have a higher cost of living than Texas and Florida. It’s the result of years of destructive liberal policies, particularly when it comes to crime, taxes and regulation.

The Times couldn’t state the obvious, so here it is: If blue states want to stop losing residents to red states, they should adopt red state policies.