Texas population boom fuels growing backlash

[Bailey]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Correct.

Some writers/professors have claimed that Perot didn't actually foil the election because exit polling found a surprising 50/50 split party for self-proclaimed Perot voters. Accepting that as a tidy explanation omits several other factors, one being that the incumbent Bush had not one but two people beating up on him - Perot and Clinton weren't wasting much energy attacking one-another.

How in the WORLD did Perot split the vote and cause Bush to lose it and Clinton to win it???

He won ZERO states!?!?

The US presidential Election is NOT a popular vote...you have to win states... PEROT WON ZERO.
Did he really have that much impact?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_U...ntial_election

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by ATXboom

LOL blue collar workers are not snapping up $1M+ houses in one day... this is IN the city though. Far flung suburbs or exurbs are defininately growing via blue collar-particularly other parts of the state outiside the Austin Metro. City of Austin is just a posh overgrown ski resort town. I think where there's a disconnect is state migration vs migration to Austin proper. Austin proper is definately a well to do crowd. At a state level its blue.

Lol. Yes, they're all 1 million dollar houses.
Meanwhile, your median home sales say something else.

What percentage do you think are actually buying houses with 1 million in one day.
I doubt its even 1 percent.

Texas boosters are something else.

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by Docere

When will Texas start voting to the left of Florida? Should happen this decade I think.

Don't hold your breath!

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

I'll pass on joining the flood. There are four reasons I have no desire to live in Texas: June, July, August, and Greg Abbott.

I prefer a snowy winter, but judging by the census shifts, that is literally an unpopular opinion.

You forgot about May and September. Things are set to heat up here by the end of the week with temps teasing 100 degrees. This summer is looking to be a beast.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Bailey

Born in Sullivan but John Kirby and his Augustus Allen had moved to, and were businessmen from, New York City before moving to Mexico and then becoming Texians.

He started advertising their new city, Houston, to NYC soon after Texas won their Independence hoping to gain from the National popularity of Sam Houston.

William Marsh Rice was from Massachusetts but somehow ended up murdered in New York City. I don't know the full story but somehow the University he created, Rice University, owned Yankee Stadium for a little while so there is another NYC link plus we all know the NY Yankees are a horrible baseball team that has yet to beat the Houston Astros in the postseason...ha.

I root for both the NYY and the Astros but the Astros have only 1 WS titles and the Yankees have...27.

RE: Kirby Brothers. As someone from near where they were born, we will claim them.

[ATXboom]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Lol. Yes, they're all 1 million dollar houses.
Meanwhile, your median home sales say something else.

What percentage do you think are actually buying houses with 1 million in one day.
I doubt its even 1 percent.

Texas boosters are something else.

Cool... use the median then. Still the same reaity - Austin in-migration does not equate with Texas in-migration. But by all means assume the out of towner knows more than those that actually live there. Not debating your state level POV BTW.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by ATXboom

Cool... use the median then. Still the same reaity - Austin in-migration does not equate with Texas in-migration. But by all means assume the out of towner knows more than those that actually live there. Not debating your state level POV BTW.

Median home price in Austin is 620k. That's not California numbers. Why would I take your word over a simple stat?

This subject is about Texas, anyway.
I didn't make it about Austin.

I said most people leaving California are likely who are seeking lower cost of living. There's numerous articles about this. It's you Texans trying to convince the world its a bunch of rich people

And a higher cost of living isn't even good for your state. People moved there for cheaper values. If it's not there, they'll move somewhere else.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Median home price in Austin is 620k. That's not California numbers. Why would I take your word over a simple stat?

This subject is about Texas, anyway.
I didn't make it about Austin.

I said most people leaving California are likely who are seeking lower cost of living. There's numerous articles about this. It's you Texans trying to convince the world its a bunch of rich people

And a higher cost of living isn't even good for your state. People moved there for cheaper values. If it's not there, they'll move somewhere else.

I think many tend overinflate ATX housing prices. They are a lot for Texas but compared most of coastal CA, they are still a bargain. I have to move out to the Bay Area and the rents there are outrageous and want to eventually come back to Austin (same company) where cost of living is much cheaper.

[Gantz]

Originally Posted by Docere

When will Texas start voting to the left of Florida? Should happen this decade I think.

I am old enough when they were saying that Florida will be solid blue after Bush due to demographics. Obama carried Florida twice. Yet here we are. This is the reddest Florida has been since like the late 1980s.
Hispanics are already starting to trend to the right. If Republicans are smart enough to launch Fox News or other media in Spanish its a wrap.

The current Democratic coalition seems to be upper class professionals/government employees, African Americans, white single women and wine moms, and college youth. None of those demos are set to increase in size as proportion of the population.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Bailey

How in the WORLD did Perot split the vote and cause Bush to lose it and Clinton to win it???

He won ZERO states!?!?

The US presidential Election is NOT a popular vote...you have to win states... PEROT WON ZERO.
Did he really have that much impact?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_U...ntial_election

The logic is that all of Perot's votes would have otherwise gone to Bush. Under that assumption, Bush would've easily won re-election. But I don't think that's a realistic assumption to make.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Bailey

How in the WORLD did Perot split the vote and cause Bush to lose it and Clinton to win it???

He won ZERO states!?!?

The US presidential Election is NOT a popular vote...you have to win states... PEROT WON ZERO.
Did he really have that much impact?

Absolutely. Bush, the incumbent ("super-incumbent", actually, since he had served as VP for eight years prior), was forced to run with a primary election strategy in the general election. This made him much more vulnerable than he would have been otherwise.

Remember, in our presidential elections, if there is no incumbent, the candidates first fight for their party's nomination without knowing who their ultimate opponent will be. When there is an incumbent, the nominees in the opposing party are able to strategize from Day 1 against him. Meanwhile, Bush's actions during his first (and only) term were structured toward an eventual Democrat opponent.

All of that was thrown out the window when Mr. Perot funded his own campaign. Instead of a single and predictable Democrat opponent in Bill Clinton, three months before the general election, Bush was forced to throw out his game plan to adapt to Perot's rogue effort. I seem to recall that Perot caused a bunch of drama by backing out and then rejoining the race a week later.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Gantz

I am old enough when they were saying that Florida will be solid blue after Bush due to demographics. Obama carried Florida twice.

Florida is Trumpist, but not really GOP. It loved Trump for the idiocy and hatred, but not really for any policy. So FL's long-term political fate is questionable. It's very pro-choice, voted to raise minimum wage and worker standards, voted to tax themselves to fund public education and environmental causes, etc. But it also loves to hate (non-Cuban/Venezuelan) immigrants and drop bombs on the libs. It's a weird place.

[lio45]

Question for Texans, what explains that the lower RGV is so much poorer per capita than both the state and country? I’m looking to diversify and I’m considering investing over there. Looks like a decent winter haven destination for me (close to comparable to my FL neck of the woods, at least by Canadian standards). Plus I’m fluent in Spanish. (Pretty much mandatory over there, AFAIK.)

I’ve been to the Gulf coast a bit south of Corpus Christi (beaches there were fine) but never went to the Brownsville/Point Isabel area yet.

[Gantz]

Originally Posted by lio45

Question for Texans, what explains that the lower RGV is so much poorer per capita than both the state and country? I’m looking to diversify and I’m considering investing over there. Looks like a decent winter haven destination for me (close to comparable to my FL neck of the woods, at least by Canadian standards). Plus I’m fluent in Spanish. (Pretty much mandatory over there, AFAIK.)

I’ve been to the Gulf coast a bit south of Corpus Christi (beaches there were fine) but never went to the Brownsville/Point Isabel area yet.

Its mostly agricultural with very little high value added businesses.
I don't think much is going on in Brownsville besides SpaceX moving in.

[Crawford]

RGV is generally ugly, poor and really freaking hot. It's also like 95% Mexican descent, so culturally pretty uniform.

Wouldn't be high on my list unless there were family or professional lures.

I could probably do El Paso, which is obviously totally different. Still cheap border living, but military and university presence, cools down at night, pretty, and a bit diverse. But El Paso is basically New Mexico.

[mhays]

nm

[TexasPlaya]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Absolutely. Bush, the incumbent ("super-incumbent", actually, since he had served as VP for eight years prior), was forced to run with a primary election strategy in the general election. This made him much more vulnerable than he would have been otherwise.

Remember, in our presidential elections, if there is no incumbent, the candidates first fight for their party's nomination without knowing who their ultimate opponent will be. When there is an incumbent, the nominees in the opposing party are able to strategize from Day 1 against him. Meanwhile, Bush's actions during his first (and only) term were structured toward an eventual Democrat opponent.

All of that was thrown out the window when Mr. Perot funded his own campaign. Instead of a single and predictable Democrat opponent in Bill Clinton, three months before the general election, Bush was forced to throw out his game plan to adapt to Perot's rogue effort. I seem to recall that Perot caused a bunch of drama by backing out and then rejoining the race a week later.

"Read my lips, no new taxes". Helped him in 1988 but hurt him in 1992.

[TexasPlaya]

It's not California, but it's definitely getting far more crowded and expensive here. I rented a nice garden apartment for $650 in 2010 in Montrose Houston. Those were the days.

People bringing their West/East Coast wealth to central Texas is just supercharging the housing market.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Docere

When will Texas start voting to the left of Florida? Should happen this decade I think.

That depends who’s moving there. Just because the new arrivals come from blue states doesn’t make them Democratic voters. They could just as well be right-leaning people who want to move from California to Texas partly for that reason.

[LA21st]

7th

Originally Posted by TexasPlaya

It's not California, but it's definitely getting far more crowded and expensive here. I rented a nice garden apartment for $650 in 2010 in Montrose Houston. Those were the days.

People bringing their West/East Coast wealth to central Texas is just supercharging the housing market.

This is happening all over the country.
It has nothing to do with California or NYC.

It's happening in Chicago. I guess all the west coast people are the problem too. I saw a tik tok of some small city in the south and people in the comments said its the Californians raising the rents..lmao.
It's gotten to the point of absurdity.

And again, its not the wealthy leaving. How many articles do you need?