Florida bracing for new influx of residents fleeing blue states after Dems’ election success
The Sunshine State is preparing for a different sort of blue wave.
Continuing years of scorching population growth, Florida is bracing for a fresh batch of disgruntled citizens fed up with spiraling crime and high taxes to move in from Democratic strongholds.
Figures obtained by The Post show that through August, a record 41,885 New Yorkers already swapped their licenses for the Florida version, a commonly used indicator of demographic trends. That figure was 21,277 for California, 16,970 for Pennsylvania and 16,846 for Illinois.
Sunshine State observers said after Tuesday saw Democratic leaders re-elected or voted in — coupled with Gov. Ron DeSantis’s landslide entrenchment — they expect the exodus to Florida will continue.
“People are leaving these states for a lot of different reasons,” said Laura Gambino of Global Real Estate Advisors in Palm Beach.
“Crime, quality of life, taxes. I think with the elections going the way they did, the trend is going to continue.
“It’s good for us, for the state and its economy. It’s not so good for states that were already losing people.
New York City parent activist Jean Hahn said that her Whatsapp group of several hundred moms and dads was ablaze Wednesday morning after Gov. Kathy Hochul defeated challenger Lee Zeldin.
“A lot of people are saying that they’re hopeless at this point,” she said. “They’re already looking at listings, ways they can get out. There is just a lot of frustration.”
One member of the group, a mother of three from Brighton Beach in New York City, told The Post that she plans to exit the state whenever a move become feasible.
“For a lot of parents, the line in the sand is a vaccine mandate to attend school,” she said. “If that happens, there will be an exodus.”
Another participant, an Upper East Side parent of two, said the city is becoming “unlivable” for families — and that Hochul’s election set off frenzied searches on property website Zillow among her circle of friends.
“The crime, the mandates, the general insanity,” she said. “I think people are just looking at their lives and thinking there has to be a better place to raise their children.”
Illinois native Robert Cowhey, who left the state for Florida a decade ago said his son, who lives in Chicago, was plotting his departure Wednesday morning after Gov. J.B. Pritzker re-election.
“I talked to my son and my cousin today,” he said. “They want out. Crime is a major issue. They don’t like Pritzker, they don’t like Lori Lightfoot, they don’t like any of it. I think people are just going to continue to leave.”
Florida Atlantic University Prof. Ken Johnson, who specializes in migration trends, said he expects outside interest in the state to persist due its recent economic development and diversification.
“From what I hear on the ground, people come to Florida because it’s prospering,” he said. “It used to be the sunshine. Now it’s the sunshine and the economy.”
Billionaire hedge fund boss Ken Griffin moved his firm from Chicago to Palm Beach this year after sounding the alarm on spiraling crime in the Windy City.
In a talk with Miami Mayor Francis Suarez Monday night, Griffin described moving the finance mammoth’s operations to a Palm Beach hotel ballroom in the early days of the pandemic, according to the Real Deal.
He said 200 people worked to outfit the space around the clock, and that the effort reminded him of “when this country strove for greatness.”
“In Chicago, it takes five years to build a bike overpass,” Griffin said.
*****************************************************
The Status Quo Wins: The midterm elections were a victory for status quo centrists in both parties
The red wave may have turned out to be a red ripple but, despite inflated expectations, it’s not the Republicans who look to have been hardest hit by the midterm election results but the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Assuming that the House is captured by the Republicans, with or without the Senate, it is clear that the progressive policy agenda, the progressive theory of American partisan politics, and the progressive theory of the American constitution are now quite dead.
Let’s start with the progressive policy agenda. The economic agenda of the Democratic Party today is the “low carbon care economy.” This is a synthesis of the Green New Deal, a crash program to kill the oil and gas industries and replace them with heavily subsidized renewable energy sources, and the American Families Plan, a massive expansion of taxpayer subsidies for institutional child care, universal preschool and elder care. The jobs of the future, in this vision, are divided between a small number of gigs assembling windmills and solar panels which will replace coal, oil, and natural gas in America’s energy mix, and a much greater number of positions in federally subsidized day care centers and retirement homes.
To dramatize the low carbon care economy, the Biden White House last year issued a series of cartoon panels, “The Life of Linda,” modeled on a similar Obama administration cartoon, “The Life of Julia.” Biden’s Linda is an apparently unwed mother who works in manufacturing and has a son named Leo, who grows up to work in green energy: “Thanks to his community college training, Leo lands a good-paying, union job as a wind turbine technician.” The cartoon series explains how both Linda, the single mother, and Leo, the fatherless child, will flourish within an expanded system of cradle-to-grave welfare and education subsidies. As the fantasy world of the cartoon suggests, the progressive agenda sought to appeal to different groups of key Democratic Party supporters who do not share many economic interests. To work, the progressive vision had to unite the Democratic Party’s green donor class with overwhelmingly Democrat-supporting service sector unions like the teachers unions and SEIU as well as the “anti-patriarchal” feminists for whom husbands and fathers are unnecessary and oppressive.
Following Biden’s election in 2020, progressives hoped to use their guaranteed two-year trifecta of control over the White House, House, and Senate to ram through the massive subsidies for renewable energy and vast expansions of caregiving and education jobs at the core of their policy agenda. They planned to do this by means of the parliamentary maneuver known as “reconciliation,” which allows a bare majority in both houses to circumvent the Senate filibuster’s de facto supermajority requirement. The opposition of two Senate Democrats, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, derailed that would-be juggernaut.
The low carbon care economy is now as dead as a doornail, even if the Republicans end up controlling only one house of Congress. In the unlikely event that the Democrats win another trifecta in the next few electoral cycles, it will be difficult if not impossible, given the impacts of rising energy costs, for Congress to oppose greater extraction and use of oil, natural gas, and even coal in the U.S. Moreover, if there is a turn toward austerity to reduce inflation or the debt built up during the COVID pandemic, the money will not be there for the enormous increase in spending on day care, elder care, preschool and community college that makes up the other half of the progressive agenda. The low carbon care economy blew up on takeoff.
The boring truth is that the pendulum in American politics swings back and forth. Parties that get tired of losing sooner or later change their appeals to win over some members of the other party, making elections more competitive again.
Just as dead as the energy-and-care agenda of the progressive Democrats is their theory of American partisan politics. The Democratic left, backed by their echo chamber in the media and the universities, attributed the 2016 election of Donald Trump to racism on the part of resentful, lower-class white “deplorables,” and the supposed epidemic of “disinformation” coming from Russia and malicious saboteurs online. The party’s progressive wing took comfort in their conviction that, as immigration made Hispanics a larger share of the electorate, a “coalition of the ascendant” made up of college-educated whites and “people of color” would soon establish one-party Democratic rule at all levels of government.
Oops. Between the 2018 and 2022 midterms, the Democratic advantage over Republicans among Black women dropped 7 percentage points, while that among Black men dropped 11 points. For Hispanic voters, who were supposed to secure the Democrats their permanent majority, the advantage declined by 14 percentage points among women and 21 percentage points among men.
Racial depolarization was accompanied by educational polarization. Between the 2018 midterm and the 2022 midterm, the Republican advantage among non-college-educated white voters climbed from a 24-point margin to a 34-point margin, and Republicans even gained slightly among college-educated whites. According to CNN, from 2018 to 2022 “voters of color,” both non-college and college-educated, while mostly voting for Democrats, shifted in significant numbers from the Democrats to the Republicans.
As I have argued elsewhere, “educational polarization” is really a marker of class polarization, inasmuch as the children of college-educated parents in the U.S. are much more likely to graduate from college, making a college degree a semi-hereditary title of nobility. Underlying racial depolarization and educational polarization is the trend, seen among Western democracies in general, for “the left” to be identified with affluent, educated whites and for “left” parties to lose not only working-class whites but many minority group members to the increasingly downscale and populist parties of the right. In 2022, that trend continued in the U.S.
Last but not least is the politics of the American constitution. Anticipating a Republican tsunami that would sweep them out of both houses of Congress in 2022 and the White House in 2024, many progressive pundits and academics hysterically argued that the 2022 election might be the last small-d democratic election in American history. Before the midterms, the presidential historian Michael Beschloss warned that if Republicans won control of the government, “our children will be arrested and conceivably killed” by a MAGA regime which, to use President Biden’s phrase, was “semi-fascist.” Less apocalyptic Democrats like the pollster David Shor warned that without greater appeal by Democrats to the working class, “the modal outcome for 2024 is Donald Trump winning a ‘filibuster-proof trifecta’ with a minority of the vote.”
In spite of the alleged biases of the Senate and the Electoral College, in 2020 the Democrats won the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. When this year’s midterm votes are all counted, the Democrats may end up controlling the White House and the Senate while losing the House, the body in which Democrats should do best under the theory that the Constitution is rigged against the Democratic Party.
America’s progressives suffer from bipolar mood swings. Now, thanks to racial polarization, they predict the inevitable triumph of the Democratic Party with the help of “voters of color,” while the Republicans survive only as a permanent minority party filled with resentful whites. At the same time, according to other progressives, it is the Democrats who may forever be frozen out of the federal government, thanks to an unfair Constitution designed by slave owners that permanently advantages white supremacist Republicans who want to arrest and kill Michael Beschloss’ children.
The boring truth is that the pendulum in American politics swings back and forth. Parties that get tired of losing sooner or later change their appeals to win over some members of the other party, making elections more competitive again.
For the time being, the U.S. remains a 50-50 nation, with the political branches of the federal government going back and forth between the two national parties. The kind of generational hegemony enjoyed by the McKinley Republicans after 1896 and the Roosevelt Democrats after 1932 is unlikely to return. That is bad news for progressive Democrats, who dream of the kind of sweeping structural transformation of the U.S., led by the federal government, that can only occur through a supermajority. It is bad news as well for those on the libertarian right or New Right with ambitious schemes for public policy reform. It is not necessarily bad news for status quo Republicans or for incrementalist centrist Democrats, two factions that can flourish in conditions of divided government and narrow majorities.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/progressive-agenda-clobbered-michael-lind
***************************************************Report is slammed for referring to women as 'birthing people'
A US government funded prison report has come under fire after replacing the term 'women' with 'birthing people' and 'birthing parent'.
Experts told DailyMail.com it was another sign of 'progressive jargon' creeping into important medical literature and health advice.
The study looked at how pregnant women in female prisons are treated and was partly-funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
But an abstract of the research published on the NIH website curiously does not use the words 'women', 'woman' or 'female'.
Instead, gender-neutral terms like 'people who give birth', 'birthing parent', 'people who want to provide milk', 'birthing people' and 'incarcerated people'.
The term 'chest-feeding' is also used once in the paper.
Stella O'Malley, executive director of the advocacy group Genspect, told DailyMail.com: 'Over-the-top and elaborate efforts to be inclusive for certain groups often end up excluding other groups.
'The [National Institutes of Health] should revert to simple and clear language if they want to help the most people possible.
'People who don't speak English fluently will not be able to understand this report, and this is in itself exclusionary.'
It comes after DailyMail.com revealed 'women' had been scrubbed from official flu advice.
The report is titled 'Lactation Support for People Who Are Incarcerated: A Systematic Review', published in Breastfeeding Medicine.
It was a meta-analysis of 20 existing studies on the topic, and was carried out by experts at the University of North Carolina (UNC).
The report was led by Dr Kathryn Wouk, an adjunct professor of maternal and child health at the UNC Gillings School of Public Health.
*******************************************************
The Third Lysenkoism
The unprecedented pace of social change in recent decades just has not received the attention it is due in respect of its political impact. These changes, in tandem with the Internet, have pretty much chopped western society into two sociologically separate halves.
Now let’s take a deep breath; define Lysenkoism just one more time; and restate our thesis:
Lysenkoism is the imposition by the authoritarian left of junk science that suits their political agenda. This extends to the suppression of dissenting voices.
Now, our thesis:
Although Lysenkoism has changed profoundly across ‘the Bolshevik century,’ it hasn’t gone away, and anyone who really wants to understand contemporary left politics would be well advised to study it in detail.
So, ‘Use my preferred pronouns or be punished’ – does this sound like ‘imposition’?
‘Men can become pregnant’ – does this sound like junk science that suits ideological ends?
Could you call cancel culture ‘a suppression of dissenting voices’?
How about this:
just as the vanguard parties of the proletariat were centralised and focused on class (and indoctrinating the young), so the Internet is functioning as a sort of ‘party’ that is decentralised and focused on identity (and indoctrinating the young)?
https://www.thinkspot.com/discourse/DpudBz/post/userdurfn4u5o4/the-third-lysenkoism/WatpZpX
****************************************My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
/>
Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair
Bliss: What every woman wants: to feel safe and secure in the arms of her man. Robert Irwin and Rorie Buckey. See 
No comments:
Post a Comment