Thursday, September 06, 2018

Trading Texas for New Germania

As Ted Cruz fights for his political life in Texas--and the day the state flips reliably blue at the presidential level draws nearer--it's worth noting that even had he lost Texas, Trump would've had a plurality of the electoral college:


The Lone Star state is the only change

I'm fond of saying he would've won even without Texas. In actuality, that's not a foregone conclusion. The rogue electoral votes in blue states probably would've went with Clinton if it meant anything more than virtue-signaling. And if not, throwing the election to the House--even under Republican control--would not have guaranteed a Trump presidency. The compromise candidate was ready!

On the other hand, if Evan McMullin hadn't played spoiler in Minnesota, Trump could've won there and thus indisputably won the presidency.

That's the lesson to draw here. If the GOP is able to pick up the upper Midwest, excepting Illinois, it can afford to lose Texas, which it is going to do short of Operation Wetback 2.0 beginning yesterday. If that doesn't happen, there won't be another Republican president, ever.

The realignment will make the implicit native-born whiteness of the Republican party more explicit and the explicit foreign-born non-whiteness of the Democrat party even more obvious than it already is.

There should be a Trumpian 2018 mid-term map highlighting the congressional districts and senate seats where Trump Republicans--with non-Trumpian Republicans conspicuously excluded--are on the ballot in November. Trump should be utilizing his direct access to tens of millions of voters to push said map on a regular basis from now through November.

Nothing like that is happening, though, because Trump is a transitional figure rather than a truly transformational one. He has widened the political Overton Window and he has provided a template for electoral success, but it's clear he is not going to be much involved in actually putting the political infrastructure in place to ensure Trumpism outlives Trump.

There are people doing so of their own initiative, however. Kris Kobach, Brian Kemp, and Rick DeSantis were outspent and out-endorsed by the party establishments of their states. Without money but with the Trumpian message, they won their primaries and are modestly favored to win their respective governors' races.

The old guard isn't going to voluntarily adopt to the new reality nor willingly step aside to allow it to occur. Their chamber of commerce money, their desire for perpetual war, and their favorable major media treatment is simply going to have to be overwhelmed and overcome at the electoral level.

36 comments:

Reg C├Žsar said...

"would've went"?

Civilization is crumbling.

IHTG said...

You're overstating things. Cruz is unpopular. Governor Greg Abbott, who is no cuck and has namedropped George Soros, will win reelection easily.

In any case, it's premature to talk about Texas when you have Arizona and Florida coming up first.

A Texan said...

I don't like Cruz all that much. He really is a neo con douchebag, but since it's between him and Beto, I'll have to vote for Cruz. Cruz has shaped up a bit since Trump bitch slapped him around, but I don't think highly of him.

Anonymous said...

I have yet to hear a positive comment on Cruz from anyone who knows him well. Comes across to me as slick and unprincipled, a Democratic version of Bill Clinton.

216 said...

A sustainable strategy would try to split the states, and then use the Senate majority to force a French style "cohabitation" by refusing to confirm Cabinet nominees unless there was a power sharing agreement.

This has the fig leaf of being "constitutional".

Even better would be a DSA splinter party, allowing us to win elections without a majority.

The GOP can't ignore Illinois, which is demographically favorable compared to the Southwest. The same with New England. Hard to say how much gains are possible there? Our birth rates are awful, and mixed individuals are given incentives to not identify with or as white. We just aren't that tribal, 35% of us voted against Reagan, 30% of Hungarians voted for the left-wing parties, and the National Party never exceeded 2/3rds of the white vote during apartheid.


Belarus or Bust

216 said...

Another comparison: Poland

At something like 95+% Polish, its a virtual ethnostate, which is atypical in the 1000+ years of Poland. Multikult insanity is quite visible next door in Germany, and among the diaspora in the UK.

Still, PiS and K15 don't have an overwhelming majority in the polls or in the results of the last election. All of the other parties except Russia-sympathizing ex-communist SLD will buckle to whatever Brussels/Mutti/Macron ask of them. Eastern Europe doesn't have "magic identitarian dirt", even Romania has businesses complaining about labor shortages.

And its questionable to doubt the endurance of the Eastern Euro nationalist governments if/when the EU development funds are cut off. In any case, the EU should redirect development funding to the Third World to prevent migration via bribery and PRC style infrastructure projects.

Anonymous said...

In the top map, Texas is 36 and in the bottom map, Texas is 38.
Also 265-227 is 38 and 304-268 is 36. Ignore if I am wrong here.

Anonymous said...

sorry, I forgot about the rogue electors who messed up the electoral votes...

thekrustykurmudgeon said...

AE - I've been skeptical of texas flipping blue. It's possible but it could be awhile. The hispanic population is not as radicalized as that in california - and the white population is overwhelmingly scots-irish old stock americans - not much of the pre-WWI "great wave" whites that are more open to voting for democrats.

216 said...

Krusty,

See the election results for Fort Bend, Harris, Dallas, Collin, Bexar, Travis and Tyler counties. That trend is not our friend. Cruz's troubles is rooted in his offensive nature to "white college" voters, and to top it off the Texas government has been doing its utmost to induce these people to move from other states. Texas boomercons frequently complain about California movers, but they imply that these people are white liberals.

Part of the reason why Texas Hispanics are less liberal than the national average is because many of them are white, and many work in the oil industry. Texas opinion is also hostile to environmentalism outside of the Austin Hill Country, California geography is more scenic and fragile. That means endless suburbia in Texas, and NIMBY in California. Somewhat surprising to many is that Texas and California have similar history and reserves of oil. But the environmentalist shift in CA blocked drilling, and deprived the state of severance tax revenue, meaning that "Tax the rich" was the only viable option.

--

https://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/2018/09/07/atlantic-writer-proposes-reform-lets-see-if-the-wealthy-would-adopt-refugee-families/

This is an interesting reaction, Ann is wrong to think that "foreign policy" isn't the reason for the refugee invasion. Trade/Immigration policy is designed to curry (heh) favor with Third World leaders/populations by remittance flows and the growth of a diaspora lobby. A common leftist response is that increasing Western xenophobia will lead to a Third World communist blowback.

thekrustykurmudgeon said...

I might also add that Texas was historically a very dem state. The state senate was held by democrats until 1997 and the state house was held by democrats until 2003. The seat Ted Cruz occupies was actually held by Lloyd Bentsen from 1971-1992, who was a democrat. Bentsen was actually Dukakis's running mate.

216 said...

Vermont was a historically GOP state, Leahy is actually the only Dem to represent them in the Senate ever. The state has a GOP governor, and the GOP nearly won the House seat that Sanders vacated in 2006. Those facts are also irrelevant outside of context, Vermont isn't about to realign due to a demographic shift of incoming Belarusian immigrants.

Lance E said...

I'm amused at the suggestion that democracy is going to save us from democracy. At this point the only viable outcomes are a military coup, a somewhat-peaceful secession, or a bloody civil war.

Issac said...

Your demos didn't vote for population replacement. The oligarchy demanded it and the kritarchy blessed the result as constitutional.

216 said...

Issac,

As embarrassing as it might be for us to admit it, the "Refugees Welcome" phenomenon was a genuine grassroots effort, in addition to being directed from above by the Soros Foundation and other NGOs.

Polling indicates that the average Western European and US/Canadian favors mass immigration, while they may not have in 1965, there have been plenty of elections to have their voices heard. Anti-immigration sentiment spiked in 1994, 2001 and 2010, no changes were made either time thanks to the feckless GOP, the public subsequently endorsed the traitors at the next election.

The Swiss have had several referendums on immigration, and we've lost a few of them, the ones that we won were often ignored by the government. The public has a tendency to indicate skepticism about immigration in polls, and sometimes in referendums, but only in Hungary/Poland has an explicit nationalist party won an outright majority in Parliament.

The French had a clear-eyed choice in 2017, globalist Rothschild Macron vs nationalist Le Pen. Scared Boomer pensioners went the hardest for Macron, but no demographic gave Le Pen a majority of their vote, only two departments of France voted Le Pen, Corsica was close only because the separatists boycott the elections. Strangely enough, Le Pen did better in the non-white and Muslim parts of overseas France than in the least foreign parts (Bretagne, Pays De Loire) of France. Macron is collapsing in the polls, but this is apparently considered "normal" in France, and I'll be surprised if his Thatcherite reforms don't cause an increase in growth that gives him re-election. Le Pen is actually no longer the most popular far-right leader (Nicolas Dupont-Aignan is), and she's facing being locked up in prison for heresy (surprisingly not some financial shenanigans)

Philippe le Bel said...

i think indeed Minnesota AND New Hampshire could easily came to the trumpian side. And if Texas AND Arizona came to the dark side, Trump still win. But Florida has to stay in Trumpland.

https://nsa39.casimages.com/img/2018/09/08/180908024634837249.png

What is this Wetback 2.0 ? I would ge greatly curious to know about it. As DJT at least decide to began the great deportation ???

Audacious Epigone said...

IHTG,

Republicans are more popular as governors generally. Look at a governor map by state and by party compared to Senate seats by state and by party.

By 2024, I'd guess Texas is within 5 points and by 2032 it's blue.

Texas is closing faster than Arizona or Florida are. In 2000, Bush won Texas by 21 points. Trump won it by 9.

Arizona, in contrast, was won by Bush in 2000 by 6 and Trump in 2016 by 4.

Same with Florida, which Bush won by 0 and Trump won by 1.

216,

Agree regarding Illinois over the longer term. The state's obligations are disastrous, so a big shift isn't entirely implausible.

Anon,

Yeah, those rogue EC delegates are obnoxious. It makes talking about this in person without the aid of a digital source a real pain.

krusty,

Is that a blessing or a curse, though? How much stronger can white solidarity in Texas get? I suspect it's going to start swinging in the other direction. Tons of growth in Travis county (Austin). Very blue whites there and more are coming.

Lance E,

Pithily well put. Stealing it!

Issac,

Right. Every time we've been 'asked' (via a legislative amnesty) over the last three decades, we've clearly said "no".

216 said...

AE,

When considering a partition of the country, the Rust Belt states would seem to benefit as they are comparable to the Mediterranean countries of the EU. The Great Lakes states (ON+QC?) would benefit from junking the overvalued US dollar, and the Canadian provinces would no longer be tied to Alberta Dutch disease. The Seaway could be deepened to Panamax levels.

Feryl likes to say that the political culture of the Midwest made it hard to organize resistance to the Civil Rights-era crime wave, but it has also made gentrification easygoing compared to the coastal cities. Notice how the Daley/Rahm drive to blacken Iowa achieved little notice apart from Steve Sailer. In dreaming of an independent country, Chicago could be remolded on the Burnham Plan as the capital, along the lines of Napoleon III's changes to Paris. Lots of, um, "urban renewal".

Are there econ studies about the "optimum currency area size" and how it may have affected US manufacturing?

Feryl said...

"This is an interesting reaction, Ann is wrong to think that "foreign policy" isn't the reason for the refugee invasion. Trade/Immigration policy is designed to curry (heh) favor with Third World leaders/populations by remittance flows and the growth of a diaspora lobby. "

Well, yeah, the whole "refugee" thing is largely a psy-op/sympathy builder. Some populations are legitimately threatened with genocide from time to time, or their country got BTFO by a foreign aggressor and/or a civil war, but this sort of situation does not prevail widely throughout the world, contrary to what many 1st worlders think. Every country in the world basically functions in a similar way:

1) Elites are generally comfortable, absent crisis level eras that threaten to bring sweeping changes to society that some or all elites find unwelcome.

2) The underclass is exposed to a variety of dangers, inevitably.

The crisis era of WW2 resolved itself by the world's powers, after much bloody discord, finally agreeing to put their best foot forward by navigating geo-political difficulties with moderation and tamping down on possible public discontent by distributing resources generously and discouraging elite arrogance. This is mainly applicable to Europe and much of Asia, I honestly don't know enough about the Middle East or Latin America to know if they followed the same trends. Of course there were problems and excesses (like Chairman Mao, obviously), but what era is perfect? None, of course.

The post-WW2 era was one of rapidly growing comforts and tentative stabs at individualism, which started with Elvis and suburbia, the America of the GIs and Silents. When the Boomers hit their teen years in the 1960's, the culture began to impatiently demand sweeping changes, which by 1973 older generations threw their hands up and said, "fine, if this what you want then take it, enough is enough". Having gotten their way on cultural matters, the Boomers (and Silents eager to show their hipness) then boldy declared in the late 1970's that the era of big government was over. Simultaneously, some Boomers began to express regret at the state of the culture, but by this point we weren't going back to the modesty and rationality of the 1950's. Too late, way too much momentum had built up. And besides, trading cultural liberalism for economic conservatism is never a good idea. It's like trying to wash white shirts and red shirts together. Neither ideology is conducive to the overall material and mental well being of society. Both are vulgar, depressing, and self-absorbed. Embarrasingly, in the 2010's many "liberals" accept many of the core tenets of economic conservatism. Likewise, cultural conservatives have been routed on most fronts over the last 40 years, as many can't even state their beliefs in public anymore lest they be accused of irrational and dangerous prejudice over matters of race, sex, gender, and reproductive rights. Before economic conservatism dominated after circa 1975, Americans could freely debate segregation, abortion, feminism et al without fear of being shunned by polite society. Simply put, economic conservatism is a corrupting force that negates our ability to even mention important social issues, let alone allowing wholsesome views to resonate. The triumph of economic conservatism in the late 70's coincides exactly with elite taste makers beginning to emphasize the rights of gays, feminist radical baby killers, race mixers, and the like, regardless of it's effect on society, which was speeding away from the modesty of the mid-century at an alarming rate. And "conservatives" were powerless to halt the decline, since they were telling people that they didn't need anyone telling them what to do with their money, and the gubmint needed to get out of the way.

Feryl said...

Also, the bogus thing about immigrant narratives is the idea that these people have to come here to escape hell. In fact, most immigrants happen to feel that it's not so much that my home is horrible, it's more that the destination country is better.

cinc210 said...

This is the biggest bull I heard. Republicans are doing a lot better in Texas than PA, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin. Actually, the Republicans are losing big in the midwest states, sorry to burst your bubble but as I have told Vdare several times. The upper midwest is going for Dems looked at polls for PA which Casey is a whopping 13 percent ahead. Also, in the primary the upper midwest voted a lot more Democratic than Republican. Michigan the Dem won by 100,000 even the part of the Midwest that votes more Republican like Indiana and Missouri are not really showing a lead. Blacks vote less Republican than Latinos. Cruz is ahead of O'Rourke by at least 6 points. In fact more manufacturing jobs under Trump were created in Texas and Florida than all the upper midwest combine. Its going Democratic. The only hope is Ohio where the governor on the Republican side is only 4 points ahead while the Republican senator is losing badly to Sherrod Brown. Scott Walker might even lose this time.

cinc210 said...

Instead of hoping that Texas falls to the Dems and count on the Upper Midwest that barely voted for Trump from .5 to 1 percent. I would pushed for Texas. Cruz is a pain in the rear while Abbott isn't one reason why Abbot is 19 points ahead. YOu can't say that for any Midwest Republican governor in this election.

cinc210 said...

You can't be serious, the Midwest is going to the dark side a lot faster than Texas. if you read the polls or looked at the primary results for 2018 its the Midwest that is dumping Trump and the Republicans not Texas. Its not that white, sorry to burst your bubble, Still a lot of blacks and whites even if they are blue collar like more welfare than whites in Texas or Alabama which means the Dems con them more. In fact most of the Midwest is losing white population to the west and south. Pa is losing whites while Texas is gaining them. The Midwest by 2030 will lose a whopping 12 electrical college votes because its aging and white folk are leaving it for warmer and more conservative places like even Mississippi. In November this nonsense will stopped when Republicans get their clock clean in Wisconsin, Ohio, Michgian, PA but do better in Texas.

cinc210 said...

https://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/elections/ Looked at the polls, the south and Texas are still better for Republicans than the upper Midwest. In fact district 12 in Ill which was a Trump-Obama district is only 1 percent ahead for the Republican while the wealthier district 6 in Ill is one percent ahead for the Republican. In fact the well to do districts are swinging back if they once were republicans while some of the blue collar Trump-Obama is more of a toss up. The Midwest is dying off and as mention is less white than people think. Many states are 10 percent or more black.

cinc210 said...

Governor Wolf of PA allows thousands of Latinos and Africans to moved to PA. New York which has been sending its immigrants to Allentown and Hazelton double down. PA goes from 7 percent Latino to 30 percent by 2024 while Texas loses its Latino population to Oklahoma up to North Dakota and beyond.

Philippe le Bel said...

@AE : and what about this wetback 2.0 ?

Philippe le Bel said...

map orgy :

https://nsa39.casimages.com/img/2018/09/08/180908011116230242.png

https://nsa39.casimages.com/img/2018/09/08/180908011116771862.png

https://nsa39.casimages.com/img/2018/09/08/180908011117239804.png

https://nsa39.casimages.com/img/2018/09/08/180908011117489074.png

https://nsa39.casimages.com/img/2018/09/08/180908011117747182.png

https://nsa39.casimages.com/img/2018/09/08/18090801111813408.png

(some titles are in french, sorry)

Audacious Epigone said...

216,

Regarding currency changes, I doubt that will be done deliberately before the dollar fall. After it, though, all bets are off. As pieces of the country break away to avoid being left holding the federal debt bag so will they run away from the US dollar.

cinc210,

Walker/Ryan-style Republicanism will lose the upper Midwest. Trump Republicanism offers a chance to hold it. Texas' whites are already very Republican-leaning. How much more do you expect to be able to squeeze from that? The state is barely 40% n-H white and dwindling by the day. When the population under 25, which is barely one-quarter white, reaches full adulthood, it's over.

Phillipe,

Operation Wetback was an Eisenhower-era program of deportation. That's actually what it was called. About 80,000 were forcibly deported and another 600,000 or so left voluntarily. It's where the assertion that for every one alien forcibly removed another six or seven will leave of their own volition comes from.

216 said...

AE,

The power of the dollar is not likely to be replaced by a single currency. The respective economic dominance of the British Empire and USA 1945-2000 is not likely to be paralleled by China. An less volatile cryptocurrency could also be developed that would render fiat money obsolete, returning us to a gold standard type situation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum_currency_area

The still ethereal Brexit is predicated upon the UK paying a "divorce bill" to the tune of about 60 billion USD. That sets a bad precedent, as a "red country" breaking off from the USA might be stuck with the obligation to pay for Social Security in the blue countrie(s). An Afrikaner independent state might be forced to pay a significant amount of its GDP every year as "reparations" to rump Azania.

cinc210,

http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2018/06/white-births-as-percentage-of-total.html

Texas births are currently 1/3rd nhw white, not one-quarter. Not sure if the data counts non-citizen parents, some "white hispanics" are actually white, so perhaps the real number is 40%. Mr. Abbot's wife could be categorized this way.

https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/greg-abbott.jpg


Given that a majority of Texas GOPers give notional support for secession, you might be able to turn around the demographic trends, as an independent Texas would embark on massive cuts to welfare and would have Hungarian/Israeli levels of deportations and border security. The Rio Grande Valley might decide to break off and either rejoin the US, become independent, or rejoin Mexico which they would sorely regret as they would become the wealthiest state in Mexico and thus paying fiscal transfers to the Indians in the south. Your real problem is that "white college" voters are voting like their counterparts in the rest of the country, rather than by the landslide numbers they usually do.

indocon said...

This election cycle tell us a lot, in Arizona we will see if the little stand out nature of Arizona finally comes down and it starts voting more like a Colorado, in Georgia we will see if the 70%+ white voting share can sustain an onslaught of black voters with large asian and hispanic voters maybe playing the swing role. These 2 states are next to be democlypsed, long way away for TX.

indocon said...

To protect against more states being democlypsed, its vital that ME, NH. and MN be firmly brought under R column, and that lonely outpost on Pacific OR startes being swingy. Outside of Portland, its as middle as it gets, but the Bush II style of stoking religious fundamentalism coupled with war mongering abroad was uniquely repulsive to these voters,

Mr. Rational said...

An less volatile cryptocurrency could also be developed that would render fiat money obsolete

Cryptocurrency is the very DEFINITION of fiat money.  Bits have zero intrinsic value, and computational effort is worth only what someone is willing to pay for it.

Feryl said...

"that a majority of Texas GOPers give notional support for secession, you might be able to turn around the demographic trends, as an independent Texas would embark on massive cuts to welfare and would have Hungarian/Israeli levels of deportations and border security. The Rio Grande Valley might decide to break off and either rejoin the US, become independent, or rejoin Mexico which they would sorely regret as they would become the wealthiest state in Mexico and thus paying fiscal transfers to the Indians in the south. Your real problem is that "white college" voters are voting like their counterparts in the rest of the country, rather than by the landslide numbers they usually do."

Texas has always been a volatile state, demographically and politically speaking. The state is flat as a pancake, so the reality is that people there are probably never going to resist invasion that much. Arizona and California have shown greater opposition to immigration, historically speaking (the 1990's immigration backlash occured mostly in CA). Texas has a lot of macho posturing individualists, but shows little to no signs of any real contempt for interlopers. The hillbilly culture of the South is most intense when the land is the most rugged, and indeed the Texas Scots-Irish (and Mexican) population has been much more welcoming towards, for example, Germans than has the 'real' South.

The Eastern Midwest/Great Lakes states have (had?) an industrial culture, heavily based on the areas rivers and lakes, as opposed to the Plains culture of farming and endless suburban rings. The hills, rivers, and mountains of the Northeast and South also necessitate that people's identity be based on something besides endless development of flat and featureless land.

Lakes, Oceans, and Mountains drive away AFF but at least they give people something worth fighting for. The "cuck corridor" really does extend from Texas to Iowa, because it's almost a continuous stretch of easily farmed and developed land with low population density.

The fact that the GOP has, since the 1990's in particular, deified the Plains cuck corridor, has of course alienated much of the Northeast, Midwest, and Western US. The economy and culture of Kansas can't be "sold" to people in West Virginia, Northeastern MN, and coastal Northern CA.

The GOP hasn't given two shits about re-industrialization, or protecting the demographic and cultural history of any particular region. Plains optimists don't need factories or population stabilizers, but the more ornery people in other regions are tired of runaway growth....Which ultimately isn't going to work that well when you're being pushed up against lakes, oceans, and mountains.

Feryl said...

Walker/Ryan-style Republicanism will lose the upper Midwest. Trump Republicanism offers a chance to hold it. Texas' whites are already very Republican-leaning. How much more do you expect to be able to squeeze from that? The state is barely 40% n-H white and dwindling by the day. When the population under 25, which is barely one-quarter white, reaches full adulthood, it's over.

It's interesting how the cultural and physical features of the more rugged parts of the Northeast, Midwest, and South insure that absent an aggressive expulsion/ethnic cleansing, some of these regions will likely be majority white forever. Whereas in Texas, the pattern is that outsiders of all types continuously settle in most regions of the state, with absolutely no opposition to speak of. And these oustsiders give birth to children who have a "Texas" ID, which is predicated on being welcoming to outsiders who'll further develop the land. TX's population has grown from 15 Million to 24 Million over the last 30 years (!). And whereas, say, CA would have to stuff most of this pop. into multi-family/multi-generational households, TX can continuously build more single family houses.

In the 1980's people in Oregon talked about "californication", because they didn't want their limited living space to be further polluted by more people. Whereas in the Plains, nobody cares about pop. growth.

Instead of people like Steve Sailer lamenting the inability of shoreline and Mountain areas to build more suburbs, he should get on board with low immigration levels and low reproduction levels, which would allow those of who are alive to enjoy what we have, and not have to stress about losing our peace of mind in the face of massive pop. growth.

216 said...

Feryl,

The tendency of Plain states, and rural areas in general, is to complain about 'out-migration' of youth rather than immigration. Leftists in the Plains states routinely accuse the GOP of wanting these people to leave because they are against the Ned Flanders mentality. The same tendency exists in Scotland, but takes a confusing line as rural outmigration has continued under Labour and Tory governments. The SNP routinely complains that Scotland needs more Third Worlders.

The unspoken assumption about our coastal city centered economy is that there is a clear demand for large amounts of Hong Kong-style "new towns", which is furiously opposed by the NIMBYism. On paper the NIMBY is a conservative, and in separate countries they would be. While the Right has always wanted to destroy HUD, we now have an opportunity to skewer the left in its coastal homelands.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7f/Tseung_Kwan_O_Overview_201406.jpg/1200px-Tseung_Kwan_O_Overview_201406.jpg

HBS said...

AE,

Geographically speaking, New Germania would look a lot like Nouvelle-France

cinc210,

Illinois and Wisconsin have added just as many manufacturing jobs as Florida and Texas with a smaller population size. 216 might be on to something with regard to not righting off Illinois.


216,

Brittany's (Bretagne) left wing voting patterns are recent and can't simply be explained by a lack of Muslims. This was a region, along with Vendee, that was once the most devoutly Catholic, anti-French Revolution, anti-leftist region throughout France. As late as 1981 it was the only administrative region to vote against Mitterrand. The Le Pens trace themselves back to Brittany, but today are not welcome there (Marine got egged last year while campaigning). Since the late 1980's the combination of neo-liberalism, globalization, tech-telecom, and general poz have completely altered its politics.