You seem to forget that those states tend to have rural (red) populations that get affected by the laws the larger population in the cities pass at the state level.

▲

nine_k 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This is true. I just mean that moving becomes less hard if you earn more due to the general higher level of wages in your area near a big and prosperous city.

	▲	giantg2 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Sure, but that doesn't work if you're in the scenario we are talking about - red person in a rural part of a blue state. They will still have restricted income.

▲

rootusrootus 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I am trying to think of examples of blue state majorities oppressing rural populations.

Allowing gays to marry if they want, does that count as oppressing rural Christians?

	▲	nostrademons 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It usually takes the form of rules and regulations that are well-intentioned in a big city but make zero sense in a self-reliant community of 100 people that all know each other. ADA regulations are good example, and also a common punching bag of the rural right in a blue state. Making sure everything is handicapped-accessible is important in a restaurant in San Francisco with a visitor pool of about 7 millions. It makes zero sense when it is the only restaurant in a town of 100, none of whom are disabled*. Nobody's available to build the necessary accommodations, and nobody's going to use them. Gun regulations too. When you come in contact with thousands of people routinely and some of them might wish to kill you, limiting the ability to buy guns is important. When hunting and scaring off wild animals is a large part of your lifestyle, you can go a week without seeing another human, and the local police department takes 2 hours to get to you? Now you're just taking away essential tools for survival.
	▲	giantg2 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		If you actually want to look at this seriously, check out things like gun control, VA's redistricting, etc.