Would they ever move a state/provincial capital?

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by L41A

The counties around Tallahassee (Leon, Gadsden, Jefferson) are more reliably Blue than some regions around Fort Meyers, Tampa, Orlando in South and Central Florida (like Collier, Brevard, Polk) which are bigger and almost consistently Red.

Tallahassee and the immediately surrounding area is part of the “black belt,” which is a quintessentially Deep South sociopolitical construct. Blue v. Red has nothing to do with being Deep South, simply because the Deep South has both blue and red areas. The defining characteristic is rather the racial segregated and racialized political discourse that defines the politics of the Deep South. Because of the racial segregation, you would expect to see some deep blue areas like Tallahassee and deep red areas (like every suburban white Deep South neighborhood) but very little purple areas in between.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

yeah.

as a counter-example, Illinois' capital, Springfield, is deep in the deep red corn belt of the state, yet that doesn't stop Illinois from being the bluest state in the interior of the nation.

Exactly.

The Illinois legislature could operate from "almost-Southern" Cairo and it wouldn't change its makeup, i.e. mostly Chicago elected members representing Chicago constituents, with Chicago values and Chicago views.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

yeah.

as a counter-example, Illinois' capital, Springfield, is deep in the deep red corn belt of the state, yet that doesn't stop Illinois from being the bluest state in the interior of the nation.

BTW, another counter-example with reversed colors is available: a state government of Christian Taliban operating out of liberal/blue Austin.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

What might change is the average political makeup of non-elected positions ("the deep state").

Merriam-Webster defines "deep state" as "[A]n alleged secret network of especially nonelected government officials and sometimes private entities (as in the financial services and defense industries) operating extralegally to influence and enact government policy."

While all kinds of individuals, groups, and entities are constantly lobbying for laws and policies that will favor their own particular interests--everywhere, including Florida--I've never seen anything proving Tallahassee is the physical font of a 'deep state' as defined above. If someone wants to reveal a conspiracy operating out of the city of Tallahassee, I'm all ears.

The idea floated was that by simply moving Florida's capital from Tallahassee to Orlando, the state would turn 'blue.' How? It is asserted that such a move would alter the political makeup of unelected government staffers, as supposedly the new staffers would be to the left of the current staffers in Tallahassee.

But even if all that were true, it's irrelevant. We define states as 'blue' or 'red' based on electoral outcomes, based on who the ordinary voters elect to federal, state, and local offices. That reality would not change merely by hosting the state's elected officials in some other locale, let alone its unelected staffers.

[L41A]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Tallahassee and the immediately surrounding area is part of the “black belt,” which is a quintessentially Deep South sociopolitical construct. Blue v. Red has nothing to do with being Deep South, simply because the Deep South has both blue and red areas. The defining characteristic is rather the racial segregated and racialized political discourse that defines the politics of the Deep South. Because of the racial segregation, you would expect to see some deep blue areas like Tallahassee and deep red areas (like every suburban white Deep South neighborhood) but very little purple areas in between.

Why are you responding to me (rhetorical)? I never used the terms "Black Belt", or "Deep South" nor do I need a lecture. Respond to the person who is making a seemingly direct correlation of the two. It seems that we are saying similar things but your response to mine is perplexing. I know/understand the intricacies of the area. I am in Tallahassee now. My familiarity and heritage goes back well over century to Florida and Georgia and I don't need a lecture on the area.

I was merely pushing back with facts using the dichotomy of Red/Blue and North Florida/and the rest of Florida. North Florida itself varies demographically (again something I didn't introduce in thread -race- but you did). Example: the demographics of Tallahassee (Big Bend) is very different than its North Florida neighbor, the area just to west of it (western Panhandle) - Panama City, Fort Walton, Pensacola.

Now with my opinion, I don't think moving the capital from Tallahassee to Central Florida would in itself make Florida "Blue". Also, I don't submit to broad strokes of generalizations or simplistic correlations. Every thing is Everything.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by craigs

Merriam-Webster defines "deep state" as "[A]n alleged secret network of especially nonelected government officials and sometimes private entities (as in the financial services and defense industries) operating extralegally to influence and enact government policy."

While all kinds of individuals, groups, and entities are constantly lobbying for laws and policies that will favor their own particular interests--everywhere, including Florida--I've never seen anything proving Tallahassee is the physical font of a 'deep state' as defined above. If someone wants to reveal a conspiracy operating out of the city of Tallahassee, I'm all ears.

The idea floated was that by simply moving Florida's capital from Tallahassee to Orlando, the state would turn 'blue.' How? It is asserted that such a move would alter the political makeup of unelected government staffers, as supposedly the new staffers would be to the left of the current staffers in Tallahassee.

But even if all that were true, it's irrelevant. We define states as 'blue' or 'red' based on electoral outcomes, based on who the ordinary voters elect to federal, state, and local offices. That reality would not change merely by hosting the state's elected officials in some other locale, let alone its unelected staffers.

I was using deep state ironically, but it's certainly plausible that the bureaucratic part of the executive branch could have some shift. You're right that it would be unlikely to affect outcomes of statewide elections

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Chisouthside

When it comes to the current state of the Illinois government, I think we can say that the blame can go to both parties and all parts of the State. But economically Chicago really does keep the state going so it's funny when people downstate talk about splitting off from Chicago and forming their own state as if they would be better off.

Not everything that is important to people(left or right) is economic...