Do you think it is people moving or do you think it is people moving and then voting in people to enact the same policies as the location they moved from?
If person A leaves a location because of crap/idiotic policies/laws, moves to a new location, then votes in people that will institute those same crap/idiotic policies/laws the just fled again, is person A not the problem?
Off the top of my head, Texas. Texas was a majority solid red for a long time. Now a massive influx of has made multiple seats that historically have been safely red, competitive, or even flip to blue.
Look at the places people are moving to in Texas then look at those locations elections.
I understand that there is a demographic shift in urban centers outside of the coasts. I meant: can you point to any policy changes after these demographic shifts which have lead to an up-tick of NIMBY/anti-housing regulations in these areas like what is seen in SF?
I honestly don't pay close attention to NIMBY/anti-house regulations anywhere outside northern California to notice. I should have been more clear I was not specifically talking about that.
In this case I was thinking primarily of crime and some of the DA in Texas's big cities. Dallas in particular I remember a DA was elected that pissed off a lot of people on the right by stopping prosecution of lesser offences and setting low bails. The right argues that leads to more crime until its a common place.
If person A leaves a location because of crap/idiotic policies/laws, moves to a new location, then votes in people that will institute those same crap/idiotic policies/laws the just fled again, is person A not the problem?