These “leads” Hillary appears to have often are 1) underwhelming (considering all that Trump has said and done) and 2) based on methodologies of prediction that the Primaries showed were more than worthless.
Even the Electoral Map predictions (which shows Clinton with a substantial lead) are based on assumptions made based on previous elections.
Then there is the looming question: “Who will actually come out to Vote”?
You have shown more insight with that one comment than all of the talking heads combined.
As I have been pounding the table about for months Hillary’s vote is not motivated. Given that fact this race is much tighter than the “experts” in the MSLM are claiming.
Nope. Gutting wages is the goal of mass immigration but it’s effects far reaching than that.
For instance here’s a great study that shows the negative effect of community diversity on social cohesion is likely causal.
A wealthy Virginia county that is rapidly racially diversifying is getting poorer and less socially cohesive
$12 billion spent annually on bilingual limited-English students
I believe when social cohesion and the fabric of society is longer tightly knit you see black men take their aggression out on others, while you see white men turn their aggression inwards and self-deliver.
If we learned ANYTHING from History; (which in many ways we apparently have not); it’s:
Understanding what is “cause” …and what is “effect”…; and
putting the “cause” of issues like unemployment, suicide and crime on a group or groups of people…instead of looking at the true causes. (which are often much more complex, and impossible to change like Technology and Globalization).
Prime example: Detroit (and surrounding areas like Flint) were stripped of their manufacturing base.
They are not in the shape they are in because of Black Males, Democrats and immigrants.
Diversity destroys social cohesion as per the study I posted (it’s causal).
People in high social cohesion groups are healthier - less anxiety, better emotionally adjusted, less isolation and more satisfaction. You can go read the benefits of high social cohesion it’s all there
I think it’s obvious by now that large cities like Detroit and others are a mess because of long term democrat rule. What else could it be? They all have that one thing in common.
I agree with you there, but believe their policies contributed to the stripping of manufacturing base faster than otherwise would have occurred. They also did not innovate or push for new areas. The latter could have many reasons, but the former is largely a result of democratic policy choices played out over decades in my opinion.
Raj takes it to an extreme that is not tenable but the arguement that the democratic governing over decades had a negative effect is very much realistic.
I will agree with you on that point, for sure, Aragorn.
California; especially the Big Cities like LA; are showing what Fiscal Irresponsibity can lead to.
Wasteful spending; fraud; cronyism; corruption; Union Blackmailing, payoffs, and unrealistic, non-market driven demands…all of these certainly did not help cities that were already dying a slow death.
Yes, the States run by democrat Governors over a long period of time like New York and California just had some bad luck. Whereas the states run by republican Governors over a long period of time like Texas have experienced good luck.
It’s all about luck nothing to do with lowering taxes and attracting business to their states…just bad luck. Just like Obama has had almost 8 years of bad luck. Poor guy he’s so misunderstood…
Not long ago, our governor bragged about creating as many jobs (or maybe slightly more jobs) as Texas, what the bald oracle Governor Moonbeam didn’t understand is, Texas did it while having 13 million fewer people than California.