Donald Trump

Forget the Russians and Comey: Hillary Lost Because She Didn't Bring Out the Obama Coalition

Breakdown in traditional voting blocs for Dems and Reps alike means big opportunities for libertarian-style policies.

|

Nick Gillespie, Time

In the immediate aftermath of Hillary Clinton's suprising loss to Donald Trump, Democrats had all sorts of answers for why the former senator and Secretary of State ultimately tanked in the general election. None of them, naturally, had anything to do with Clinton or the often-baffling choices her campaign made (she visited Chipotle more often than Wisconsin during 2016). Russia "hacked" the election, don't you know, and "fake news" suckered voters out of pulling the lever for second-most-disliked candidate in the race. Clinton laid a good chunk of the blame on FBI Director James Comey's late-breaking announcement he was once again investigating questions about her private email server. "Swing-state voters made their decisions in the final days breaking against me because of the F.B.I. letter from Director Comey," Clinton said.

As both Jacob Sullum and I have noted, the bigger question is why was the election even close (as Clinton herself asked at one point, "Why aren't I 50 points ahead?")? The short answer is that both Clinton and Trump were unappealing to voters. The 2016 election was effectively a dead heat, with neither candidate winning anything like a decisive victory. Yes, Trump is legitimately the president but what does it say about the state of major-party politics when neither candidate could crack 50 percent of the popular vote? Among other things, it tells us that longstanding political coalitions the defined the GOP and Democrats are breaking down and appealing to fewer and fewer of us. This shouldn't be surprising—these parties have been around forever and are largely insulated from anything approaching competition with upstart third parties—and it shouldn't be cause for despair. From a libertarian perspective, it's a sign that we need a new national politics informed by 21st-century realities when it comes to our economic, social, and cultural lives. Democrats need to understand that the elitist, top-down, liberal mentality embodied by Clinton doesn't work anymore. Nobody wants to be told what to do all the time and, to the extent Clinton offered more endless intervention into every aspect of our lives, she was unappealing. Republicans too need to take note that Trump will enter office as a genuinely unpopular president. Not only did he fail to win the popular vote, he is intensely divisive and abrasive and while 81 percent of his supporters agree that life was better in America 50 years ago, that is not a dominant view among most of us. His rise is in no way "an extinction-level event" (as Andrew Sullivan has hyperventilated), but few presidents are successful with a backward-looking, pessimistic vision of the world based on demonstrable non-facts such as a supposed national crime wave.

Cooler, more fact-based analyses based on preliminary vote counts, exit polls, and voter interviews demonstrate that Clinton abjectly failed to replicate the "Obama coalition" that allowed the current president to be the only two-term president since Ronald Reagan to win a majority of votes in each of his elections. The winners in 1992, 1996, 2000, and now 2016 all won with less than 50 percent of the popular vote. In 2000 and 2016, the winner even lost the popular vote, an exceptionally rare outcome. Clearly Barack Obama was doing something effective—and tough to replicate—in pulling together groups comprising a majority of voters. While the "Obama coalition" has never been particularly well-defined, it roughly included at least the following: blacks, Latinos, Asians, milllennials, unmarried women, educated white voters (college degree or higher), and people making less than the median household income. A year ago, Democratic analysts were confident that the Obama coalition was alive and kicing and either Clinton or Bernie Sanders would win come November. "If you look at the support rates these groups gave to Obama in 2012," Ruy Teixeira told The Washington Post, "and walk those support rates into the probable representation of these voting groups in 2016, the 'Obama Coalition' would deliver a third victory for Democrats."

Well, that didn't happen. Yes, Clinton got almost 3 million more votes than Trump, but she failed to reach 50 percent and a lot of her votes came in states that were walkovers (California and New York, for instance), meaning she gained no extra electoral votes by running up the score. As The New York Times' Nate Cohn shows in a lengthy, detailed, and fascinating report using preliminary vote counts, overall turnout was about the same in 2016 as it was in 2012 (around 59 percent of eligible voters cast a vote), but black turnout was sharply down:

Black turnout dropped somewhere between 5 percent and 10 percent — with few exceptions. It should be noted that the decline in black turnout appears very consistent across the country, regardless of whether states put in new laws that might reduce turnout, like those cutting early voting or requiring a photo ID.

Was the decline in black turnout enough to change the result of the election? It seems so. If black turnout had matched 2012 levels, Mrs. Clinton would have almost certainly scratched out wins in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Florida and North Carolina would have been extremely close.

If Clinton didn't excite black voters, she also lost ground among younger, white, working-class voters:

White voters without college degrees, for the first time…swung decidedly toward the Republicans. No bastion of white, working-class Democratic strength was immune to the trend.

For the first time in the history of the two parties, the Republican candidate did better among low-income whites than among affluent whites, according to exit poll data and a compilation of New York Times/CBS News surveys.

According to exit polls, Mr. Trump did better than Mr. Romney by 24 points among white voters without a degree making less than $30,000 a year. He won these voters by a margin of 62 to 30 percent, compared with Mr. Romney's narrow win of 52 percent to 45 percent.

It's worth noting the Romney did exceptionally poorly with minorities in 2012, losing blacks, Latinos, and Asians by historically wide margins. By most counts, Trump did better with minorities across the board and slightly better with whites overall. But as Cohn notes, the shift among younger, poorer whites in northern industrial states pretty much doomed Clinton when it came to electoral votes. As important, the pitch that Trump made to these people was essentially the same one that Obama made:

Mr. Trump owned Mr. Obama's winning message to autoworkers and Mr. Romney's message to coal country. He didn't merely run to protect the remnants of the industrial economy; he promised to restore it and "make America great again."

Just as Mr. Obama's team caricatured Mr. Romney, Mr. Trump caricatured Mrs. Clinton as a tool of Wall Street, bought by special interests. She, too, would leave workers vulnerable to the forces of globalization and big business, he said.

According to Mr. Trump's campaign, the proof of his commitment to the working class wasn't the auto bailout but the issue of trade: Mr. Trump said free trade was responsible for deindustrialization, and asserted that he would get tough on China, renegotiate Nafta and pull out of the trans-Pacific Partnership — two trade agreements that Mrs. Clinton supported or helped negotiate (she later rejected the trans-Pacific deal).

Harping on trade and protectionism allowed Trump to win over "large numbers of white, working-class voters who supported" Obama in 2012. But given economic realities—manufacturing jobs as a percentage of all jobs peaked in 1943—Trump will not be able to bring back the factory jobs he promised. And if he does succeed in slapping tariffs on all sorts of goods and services, we will succeed only in making things more expensive for lower-income Americans. There simply won't be enough time in the day for him to constantly cut cronyist deals with every factory and plant that threatens to bolt, as he did with Carrier in Indiana, either.

Perhaps the biggest implication of Cohn's analysis, though, is one he doesn't mention: Neither candidate cracked the 50 percent mark in terms of popular vote. As mentioned above, this has become a regular feature of presidential elections since the early 1990s and it confirms the starting point of my and Matt Welch's The Declaration of Independents, which is that the Democratic and Republican duopoly is losing its hold on American voters. Yes, every presidential winner for the forseeable future will be an R or a D, but what those parties stand for is already changing even as their ability to pull support is declining. To the extent that he functions as the standard bearer for the Party of Lincoln, Trump has tripled down on xenophobic and anti-immigration rhetoric that is now unofficially "part of the conservative creed," just like being anti-abortion. Under Ronald Reagan, such a stance would have been unthinkable. If Trump follows through on his big promises about protectionism, he will similarly redefine what it means to be a Republican away from a traditional embrace of free trade. Neither of these stances is likely to make Republicanism appealing to a majority of Americans, especially if Republicans continue to be against gay marriage, marijuana legalization, and abortion rights, all of which have majority support. According to Gallup, 72 percent of Americans think immigration has been a "good thing" for America, 84 percent think illegals should be given a path to citizenship, and 59 percent would like to keep or increase current levels of immigration. When it comes to trade, support for protectionism is rising (especially among Republican voters) but just 48 percent of Americans agree that "free trade deals have been a bad thing for the U.S."

In 2017, we'll have a president who lost the popular vote and campaigned on a platform that is broadly unpopular with Americans. Clinton deserved to lose based on her inability to reach traditional Democratic constituents or, better yet, define a vision for the future that genuinely attracted new people to her party. Trump, too, deserved to lose, at least based on his demonstrated inability to win voters to his side. Like George W. Bush in 2000, Trump ran a brilliant campaign that deserves to be studied closely by any and all interested in how to scratch out a victory. But his real challenge has yet to begin and if he insists on following through on his most-unpopular ideas—such as building a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border and, far more importantly, establishing a draconian system of employment verification which will inevitably inconvenience all of us—he will also be invading everyone's space in a way that will drive his numbers even lower. Similarly, if his massive (and vague) infrastructure plans merely imitate what occurred under the Obama stimulus package, we will once learn how "shovel-ready" jobs don't really exist or add much to a drifting economy. In certain areas, such as education and potentially in health care and energy policy, he has shown an interest in broadly deregulating things and allowing individual consumers and producers decide how to proceed. Such libertarianish policies would not only be good in and of themselves, they might provide a broader blueprint for a general 21st-century approach to policy. And yet, for every move toward giving people more choices, he seems to push in an authoritarian direction. How he negotiates that tension—or, more precisely, how he is forced to negotiate that tension—will define his presidency at its outset.

NEXT: Federal Appeals Court Nixes Blanket Drug Screening of State College Students

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Nobody wants to be told what to do all the time”

    You think so? I don’t.

    1. Ah, an Aristotelian.

    2. Have you ever met an old person? Contrary to how they are portrayed on TV, they are not fun lovin’, skateboardin’, sneak into the resort pool for midnight skinnydippin’, bungee jumpin’ free spirits. They have a difficult time choosing which stamps to buy at the post office. Too many designs. They don’t like all the channels DirectTV offers. It’s confusing. Old people love being told what to do. And they vote!

      1. All three of my surviving grandparents would be perfectly happy if FDR was still president.

        1. By today’s standards, he’d be a moderate Republican.

          1. Susan Collins in trousers and a wheelchair, BME.

          2. It won’t be too long before the same will be said of Bill Clinton.

            1. That ship has already sailed, honestly. When Jim Webb is excommunicated for being too conservative….

        2. With enough dementia, they may think he is.

          1. BTW, know what’s fun? Interviewing a patient just after they come out of anesthesia from ECT. At 1st it’ll be like 40 yrs. ago was today, then after a few min., 30 yrs., then a few min. later, 20, etc. The standard Q is who’s president. The curtain of amnesia sweeps forward decades in a few minutes, until eventually they’ll remember everything up to when they went into the OR.

      2. No, the love not having to make choices about stuff they don’t understand or aren’t used to. Try to boss them around about something they know, or think they know, and prepare to have a walker shoved up your keister.

        1. +1 for proper lexicon.

      1. If they CGI’d her Blues Brothers scenes into every SW flick, it would be an immense improvement.

        1. Shortwave flick? Southwest flick? Single wing flick?

      2. So, Darth Vader finally got her.

      3. Also, Carrie Fisher died.

        Finally…..somebody followed up on their threat to leave the country of Trump was elected!

  2. 2017 will be HUUUUGE!

  3. The 10 trillionth why Hillary lost article since the election. Why not get original and write the first ‘Why Hillary will win in 2020’ or ‘Hillary and the Pantsuit Nation’s sure path to victory in 2020’?

    1. Was thinking the same, especially when stories like this bring gems like “Trump, too, deserved to lose, at least based on his demonstrated inability to win voters to his side”

      Wtf? Gillespie, get a grip man.

      1. He won enough voters to his side to get 306 electoral votes. Yes, sorry Cali, that still counts.

          1. We don’t yet know how Lunchbox Joe is going to count those, so there is still hope for the Reason scribes of a Clintonista win.

      2. He’s the origin of the Libertarian Moment position, what do you expect, actual insight that equates with reality?

        1. According to Gillespie, your post is another Libertarian Moment.

    2. Reason continues to mourn their staff choice for president. Yawn.

      No cartwheels like 2008.

    3. Because Hillary doesn’t have a sure path to victory, not unless she gets a major charm transplant and serious cleans up her political act. She’s a compulsive liar with the personal charm of a roadkill toad. She isn’t merely criminal in her conduct, she’s so stupidly criminal that the combined efforts of the Democrat power structure and the Lefty Media couldn’t paper it over in the public’s mind. SHE LOST TO DONALD FREAKING TRUMP, an internationally recognized championship blowhard with possibly the worst bald-spot disguise since Julius Caesar started wearing lure wreaths. She would have serious problems running against a temperance candidate in Glasgow.

      1. “possibly the worst bald-spot disguise since Julius Caesar started wearing lure wreaths” +1

        Orange Julius, anyone ?

  4. None of them, naturally, had anything to do with Clinton or the often-baffling choices her campaign made (she visited Chipotle more often than Wisconsin during 2016)

    Playa Manhattan signal: lit.

    1. Toilet paper supplies…diminished.

      1. Anti-bacterial soap… unopened.

  5. The real story of the next 4 years will be ‘Can the Democrats out stupid the Stupid Party or will the Stupid Party hang on to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory’?

    1. I take umbrage with this whole Stupid Party versus Evil Party dichotomy. I think it’s the exact reverse. The best complaint out there about Republicans is that they talk about a principled sort of governance but spectectacularly fail to live up to it. That failing, it can be argued, is a moral one. So Evil Party.

      The Democrats meanwhile, their most deserved criticism is how utterly wrong they are about basically everything, their economic illiteracy in particular, and also their attachment to every passing fad of a talking point. Thus Stupid Party.

      1. I always thought that the Stupid Party and Evil Party designations switched depending on which is in power. The Republicans are in power, so they’re the new Evil Party. And the Democrats have ably taken up the Stupid Party mantle as of this election cycle. This will continue at least until the next Congressional elections, perhaps until 2020 or even 2024.

        1. The Stupid/Evil switch is pretty much independent of which party is in power. And the Evil Party is always also stupid, and the Stupid Party is always also evil.

          1. You got your stupid in my evil! You got your evil in my stupid! /every election cycle

          2. The stupid/evil political dichotomy really relates to issues. On every issue, one party’s position is evil and the other’s is stupid. Whenever the two parties agree, the result is both evil and stupid. For example, the Iraq War, TARP, the Patriot Act, etc. However, such agreement a necessary condition for evil and stupid legislation. For example, ObamaCare passed without a single GOP vote.

            1. For example, ObamaCare passed without a single GOP vote.

              They had nothing to lose by voting lockstep. If you think that if the vote wasn’t closer and a Susan Collins-type had the chance to vote for something like ObamneyCare, you’re daft.

              There are many GOPe types who privately (and publicly, although muted) loved the idea of National RomneyCare, just didn’t want their fingerprints on it, particularly its main tenets, which not coincidentally, are the most expensive to insure since those risks can no longer be assessed before risk assessment and a proper, risk-premium reflected policy.

      2. From a libertarian perspective the Democrats are evil because everything they advocate is premised on collectivism and utilitarian considerations.

        Which might be merely wrong if it did not also involve actively subverting the principles they swear to uphold as a condition of holding office.

    1. The Jacket Junior, an old fashion feminist/cosmotarian hybrid? Will it get invited to all the cocktail parties with the cool kids, or will it be too harsh on Salon?

    2. Hasn’t it reached the point where we should be pitying Gillespie for his choice to cling to the jacket (unfunny jokes about sentient jackets aside)?

      1. I’m with Gilmore on this one, Gillespie has this whole ‘Thinks He’s Cool Grandpa’ vibe going on that works for him. Every time I see him make some two decade old pop culture reference or verbally masturbate Bob Dylan I get a stupid grin because he’s a walking caricature. It’s innocent and amusing.

        1. There’s no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

          1. UnCivilServant doesn’t like innocence anyway.

          2. Said by a filthy fucking heretic.

            Walk softly, and carry a big gun.

            1. You have been judged by His Holy Ordos, and you have been found guilty.

              *lights John Titor on fire*

              1. These euphemisms.

        2. I equate it to having the same haircut for 30 years. It’s time to lose the feathers 80’s movie guy.

          1. Look, a lot of the Reason writers have ‘their thing’. Gillespie is an old man who thinks he’s with it, Matt Welch is a younger version of Marty McFly’s dad, KMW dips the end of her hair in paint, Bailey desperately wants his robot body before death comes to claim him, ENB has a My Little Pony voice and Soave has The Hair That Walks As A Man. If you take those things away, they stop being themselves. There’s enough weirdos in libertarian circles that some old guy who wears leather and sex pistols t-shirts to debates isn’t really out of place.

            1. …Soave has The Hair That Walks As A Man

              You’re coming dangerously close to violating my trademark, d00d.

              (+1 The Hair That Walks Like A Man?. Accept no substitutes.)

        3. Two decades ago was probably the last time you could throw down a current pop-culture reference and most people would get it.

      2. Christine Lavin has a song called, “Prisoners of their hairdos”. it also mentions being “prisoners of their clothes.”

        1. Reminds me of Kill la Kill.

  6. Among other things, it tells us that longstanding political coalitions [that] defined the GOP and Democrats are breaking down and appealing to fewer and fewer of us.

    I think that is correct.

    Also – good article from Nick in my opinion.

    1. The bad news for libertarians is that the Democrats are really not too divided at all. They are composed of leftists who are way left of Mao and leftists who are not as much left of Mao. That’s it. So you have the far left infighting with the really way out there left. But they all agree that we need bigger government, more regulation, more taxes, and more control of people’s everyday affairs.

      With the Republicans, you have NeoCons, SoCons, and Democrat lites together with small numbers of libertarians. Republicans are far more divided than Democrats and libertarians are really the only ones in that mess who really want to counter the things the Democrats all agree on. As long as the NeCons and SoCons can oppress you in a way they like, they are perfectly willing to let the Democrats oppress you in a way that they like.

      1. wouldn’t all those divisions among Pubs make oppression easier to put into place?

    2. Agree with you Charles that this is a good article. I think Nick is right that we are trending towards more political parties, which is a good thing. The two party system needs to go.

      1. winner-take-all is still a hefty barrier to get past in those parties taking root.

      2. There will always be two party domination, it’s only a question of which parties. This is to do with the FPTP system. Suppose for a moment that the Libertarian Party replaces the Republicans as the second major party. And when the disaffected Republican coalition fill up the LP’s ranks, what happens? It becomes the GOP under a new name. Ending the two party system will take more than simply displacing the two major parties electorally.

        1. It has to do with more than just the FPTP system. Even countries that have proportional-representation parliamentary systems generally have either two major parties that agglutinate minor parties to themselves to form coalitions, or two semi-permanent coalitions made up of parties.

          1. Yeah but the coalitions can enact agendas of those whose voices aren’t usually heard in FPTP. For example in Ireland, we’ve had a libertarian party, a green party, and a whole host of independent weirdos forming a junior party in a coalition in my voting memory. It allows for niche views to have a chance, which could never happen in America these days?

            What’s the libertarian perspective on this? I’ve seen lots of others defend the electoral college system on this website but it just seems inherently…undemocratic.(to an outsider like myself) It even looks worse than FPTP which coerces citizens into voting for a “lesser of 2 evils” scenario as is the case in America and the UK.

      3. [W]e are trending towards more political parties, which is a good thing. The two party system needs to go.

        Hope you enjoy a de facto Parliamentary system, without any of the alleged benefits of said system, of the coming United Kingdom of America, which is where the US of A is pretty much headed anyway.

        1. ^First sentence is quotation of bacon-magic. Groovy HTML FAIL!

      4. “The two party system needs to go.”

        The two party system already is largely gone. It has been replaced by the Permanent Ruling Fusion Party and the mass of Executive branch employees inhabiting DC it’s fiefdoms.

      5. Ranked-choice voting would moderate the two-party system and give minor parties influence, though not power except if they happen to become the swing voting bloc in the legislature.

  7. So the take away from this is, if Democrats want to win the White House in any future election, they run a black progressive so 98% of all black voters turn out to vote for him/her [and hopefully not alienate a significant number of other registered Dems necessary to put them over the top]? Of course there is absolutely nothing racist about that strategy, right?

    1. You know who else had a racist strategy that pandered to an ethnicity…

      1. Barack Obama?

        1. I was wondering who was gonna be the first to bring up Tubba.

        2. “Tubba Abu Karab As’ad is said to have been killed by his own soldiers, who tired of his constant military campaigns”

          A postscript for modern times.

    2. Just because the Dem bench is so thin Cory Booker might be their best shot in 2020. Especially after Turmp puts us back into a ground war in the Middle East (probably Iran).

      1. Given shreek’s track record on prognostication, expect Trump to unilaterally and completely pull all US armed forces out of Southwest Asia by the end of February, and the Democrats to run Hillary again in 2020.

        1. Hey, there’s a nonzero probability anything he says could be correct, in the way that there’s a nonzero probability a group of monkeys hammering on typewriters will produce a Shakespearean sonnet.

          1. Somewhere in the multiverse there’s a universe where Palin’s Buttplug’s predictions are always right, and tis a silly place.

          2. Infinite monkeys with typewriters over an infinite span of time would eventually produce Shakespeare. The totality of shreek’s contributions to Hit’n’Run over the last decade? Three monkeys, ten minutes.

            1. Three monkeys, ten minutes.

              That’s a lot of flung poo.

  8. “81 percent of his supporters agree that life was better in America 50 years ago”

    In 1966? Right after the passage of two major Civil Rights Acts? When the Ballad of the Green Berets was on the top of the Billboard charts along with songs by the Beatles, the Beach Boys, Ray Charles, Stevie Wonder, the Supremes, and Simon and Garfunkel? When the economy was in a non-sucking phase? When experts thought the surplus could be used to End Poverty? When illegitimacy was lower? When many of the voters in that poll were part of the Youth Culture? When many of the bright new ideas for making the world better hadn’t been authoritatively shown to be bullshit?

    What’s so weird about thinking that was a better age?

      1. Ode on a Distant Prospect of Eton College

        BY THOMAS GRAY

        …Ah, happy hills, ah, pleasing shade,
        Ah, fields belov’d in vain,
        Where once my careless childhood stray’d,
        A stranger yet to pain!
        I feel the gales, that from ye blow,
        A momentary bliss bestow,
        As waving fresh their gladsome wing,
        My weary soul they seem to soothe,
        And, redolent of joy and youth,
        To breathe a second spring.

        …Alas, regardless of their doom,
        The little victims play!
        No sense have they of ills to come,
        Nor care beyond to-day:
        Yet see how all around ’em wait
        The ministers of human fate,
        And black Misfortune’s baleful train!
        Ah, show them where in ambush stand
        To seize their prey the murth’rous band!
        Ah, tell them they are men!

        …To each his suff’rings: all are men,
        Condemn’d alike to groan,
        The tender for another’s pain;
        Th’ unfeeling for his own.
        Yet ah! why should they know their fate?
        Since sorrow never comes too late,
        And happiness too swiftly flies.
        Thought would destroy their paradise.
        No more; where ignorance is bliss,
        ‘Tis folly to be wise.

        1. Thomas Gray’s other famous poem was written in a graveyard.

          His nickname was “Mr. Sunshine.”

  9. Enough poor white working class dumbasses in MI/PA/WI/OH were duped into Trump’s anti free trade rhetoric that Romney would never have used.

    Obama hurt things with the bad timing of MPP and dropping 18,000 US tariffs and Hillary was too stupid to defend it after idiot Bernie cornered her into the same rhetoric.

    1. Why turd is butt-hurt:
      Clinton lost.
      You’re welcome.
      Oh, and fuck off, turd.

      1. I’m Lord Humungus and I approve this message.

      2. I survived the Bushpigs. I will survive the orangutan too.

        1. “This Lithium deprived boast brought to you by Mutual of Omaha, fully insuring and replacing your burned down house after the fact, since 2008!”

          1. At least Mutual of Omaha eventually pays off…

            1. Yep, before they go belly up with coverage mandates galore (including post-arson shall issue policies), that is.

            2. I guess we should call it, “Mutual of Obamaha.”

        2. “I survived the Bushpigs”

          Well, turd’s brain didn’t and by the time Trump gets done with him, it’s an odds-on bet that he’ll be reciting his daddy-issues to the therapist without having to travel outside the facility.

    2. Curiously, nobody was “duped” by Obama, despite the fact that he has kept approximately zero of his campaign promises.

      1. This 2-3% growth looks a lot better than the -8.9% he inherited in 2009.

        1. He must be a really busy man, to have singlehandedly down the work of a hundred million.

        2. We haven’t seen 3% growth in a decade. 1-2% has been the norm.

            1. Lol last “quarter”?

              Now I see why they make fun of you so much.

              1. GDP was 2.4% in 2014 and 2.6% in 2015.

                So much for the “1-2%” lie told above.

                1. I love that you post 2% growth numbers, then claim it’s a lie. You proved his point for him.

                  1. I love that you post 2% growth numbers, then claim it’s a lie. You proved his point for him.

                    So it IS 2-3% like I said – you fucking idiot.

                    1-2% is quite a bit different but lying is something you feel you need to do.

                    1. “So it IS 2-3% like I said – you fucking idiot”

                      It reached 3%like you said?

                      Oh.

                      You lose.

                    2. So, inflation is running at ~1.5% and population growth is running at ~1%. That means that anything under ~2.5% means a net decrease in economic output and you’re claiming 2.4 to 2.6% is somehow a good thing?

                2. This isn’t true. Q4-Q4 growth was 1.9% in 2015. It was 2.5% in 2014.

                3. Obama and his lackeys borrow and squander $10 TRILLION and the best they can do is 2-3% growth in GDP.

                  Oh, yeah, that 2-3% was achieved at the same time that immigration was increasing the population by nearly 1% per year.

                  And, when I say “squander”, remember that, despite spending $10 TRILLION of borrowed money, even Democrats say the infrastructure is crumbling. Instead, we got a bunch of wind turbines mincing birds in flight and solar arrays frying birds in flight, very little additional reliable electric power, and a bunch of fat and happy crony capitalists.

            2. Assuming no downward revisions (which have been quite common) we’re on track for 1.9% growth for the year.

              1. Well we all know whose team the Fed is on. They’ve been holding off, for the most part, on rate increases for the last eight years. In 2017 I think we expect them to ratchet up rates constantly and at the first sign of positive economic news.

              2. Stop arguing with it over GDP growth. The President does not control the economy, his fantasies notwithstanding.

                1. The President does not control the economy, his fantasies notwithstanding.

                  His capacity to fuck up the economy notwithstanding.

                  1. His capacity to fuck up the economy notwithstanding.

                    Yes but that is the unseen. GDP is the seen but it is not directly connected to anything the President does.

        3. “This 2-3% growth looks a lot better than the -8.9% he inherited in 2009.”

          Translated from turd-speak:
          “I can set the bar soooooo low, even a lying piece of shit like Obo might look good!”
          Only to you and your ignoramus buds, turd.
          Oh, and did you say something about 8%? What was that?

        4. “Palin’s Buttplug|12.27.16 @ 12:41PM|#

          This 2-3%”

          3%?

          You just posted numbers proving this isn’t true.

        5. He never got to 3 percent.

        6. This 2-3% growth looks a lot better than the -8.9% he inherited in 2009.

          Of course, its a historically weak recovery from a recession.

          http://blogs.wsj.com/economics…..ar-ii-era/

          1. I read that he will be the first US president that never exceeded 3.0% GDP growth.

            1. in any given year.

            2. Pretty sure Hoover got there first.

              Not that being number 2 in that category is anything to brag about.

      2. He did fundamentally change America… Of course, the change was exactly the opposite of what most of the idiots that refused to read between the lines, all fantasized it was, and authoritarian enough to give the average proggie that freaks out when the other side even mentions some of the shit Obama did and got away with, a hard boner….

        1. He did fundamentally change America

          Not hardly. He may have cemented identity politics as the norm but he didn’t invent them.

    3. You go ahead and keep calling white people that, and they’re gonna keep responding in kind. People didn’t just vote for trump and republicans cause of economic issues.

      1. I am white.

        But I am no Bitter Clinger or deplorable who went batshit crazy because a black dude became President and went out buying guns and gold because Armageddon was coming. The guy is basically Bill Clinton policy-wise and the Clinton years were the best anyone under 50 has seen.

        1. 2016 ? 50 = 1966

          Reagan was President from 1981 to 1989.

          1. The Reagan years were good but the 90s were better.

            1. Yes sir I’ll be there any minute!!!

            2. On some metrics, not others. Most situations are more nuanced than your recitation of propaganda.

        2. But I am no Bitter Clinger or deplorable who went batshit crazy

          Yes, but that’s only because you were already batshit crazy.

  10. Why Clinton lost:
    She was even less appealing than Trump.
    You’re welcome.

  11. What Each Party Needs to Do For 2020

    Trump/GOP – Growth. If the Donald is able to get the economy moving again and defy the “New Normal”, he’ll lock up his chances for 2020 and maybe a couple of terms for the GOP beyond that. If not, he’s a one-termer and the entire GOP will be vulnerable

    Democrats – Image Re-vamp. Right now the Democrats have positioned themselves as largely the party opposed to America. Sorry, but if you’re insisting “America was never great”, don’t be too surprised if people conclude you don’t particularly care for the country. Obama was able to sidestep the issue by being “transformative” enough to appeal to the base without laying on the America contempt. I doubt they have many more of that trick up their sleeve.

    1. The idiots on CNBC are all certain 4% growth is a lock because Turmp will “cut regulations” then when a reporter asked the CEO of UPS which regs needed cutting he couldn’t think of any.

      Let’s see, with the regulation happy Obama we became the #1 energy producer in the world, the rig count tripled (according to Baker Hughes), energy prices dove so much via oversupply that it caused hundreds of bankruptcies in coal/gas/oil, but THEM JERB KILLIN REGERLATIONS IS KILLIN’ US!

      1. CEO of UPS which regs needed cutting he couldn’t think of any

        Why is the CEO of UPS an authority on anything besides the operations of UPS? Furthermore, as anyone who is not a complete ignoramus can remember, UPS is on the pro-regulation side of the battle with FedEx over the NLRA versus the Railway Labor Act.

      2. Meanwhile coal was decimated. Sorry, douchenozzle, if you want to take credit for fracking you’ve got to take blame for coal. Still, I doubt a lying shit like yourself will show that sort of intellectual integrity.

        1. Coal is being decimated by low natural gas prices. Good riddance too. Its filthy. The poor asswipes in WV have no future there but Trump has lied to them and told them coal is coming back.

          1. If that is true, then repealing the regulations will not bring it back. So what harm is there in repealing the regulations?

          2. The poor asswipes in WV have no future there

            I hope you’ll be advising Democrats on their messaging in some capacity come 2020.

            1. It’s funny how quickly you get thrown under the bus once you leave the plantation. Anybody with half a brain can remember that West Virginia was a Democratic stronghold as little as 4 years ago.

              1. I don’t care for Democrats. They probably can’t find another Bill Clinton or Obama. They might even find a Bernie Sanders somewhere (worse than Trump).

                1. I don’t care for Democrats

                  You just defend them at every opportunity.

      3. Why is it so hard to comprehend that both market forces and government interference affect the economy?

        1. They do. But the market is VERY healthy. Corporate profits are busting all time highs. Government interference is mainly at the state and local level today.

          Corps don’t give a fuck about Obamacare. They already offered health plans. And the little ones are exempt.

          Face it. If you have 500 employees and don’t offer a group health plan you’re a fucking scumbag.

          1. I’m coming! Any day now!!!

          2. But the market is VERY healthy.

            Yeah, just look at the under-55 labor force participation rate. Young people not working = healthy economy!

            WTF does ObamaCare have to do with coal? Could you at least stick to one topic at a time?

          3. If you have 500 employees and don’t offer a group health plan you’re a fucking scumbag.

            Right, you’re the scumbag who’s giving 500 people jobs. But hey, once you’re out of business, they can all go on Medicaid and everyone knows that collecting welfare is better than working.

            1. God forbid one of those 500 employees should come to the conclusion that he would rather have a bigger paycheck than a health plan he may or may not use.

              1. God forbid one of those 500 employees should come to the conclusion

                They just don’t know what’s best for their own lives. But never fear, the government is here to make the right decisions for them!

          4. If you have 500 employees and don’t offer a group health plan you’re a fucking scumbag.

            MEDICAL INSURANCE IS A RIGHT! (Care, OTOH….)

      4. You’re surprised that brownshirts don’t have a problem with heavy-handed state control of industry?

      5. US energy success happened despite Obama. If Democrats had their way, there would be as much fracking in Texas as there is in New York.

        Of course, you do know that New York bans fracking. And the 2016 Democrat candidate for Texas Railroad Commissioner ran on the promise to ban fracking in Texas.

    2. “What Each Party Needs to Do For 2020”

      It involves a certain Japanese samurai ritual.

      1. Tea ceremonies?

      2. Invading the Philippines?

        1. Teddy Roosevelt 2020!

      3. Putting on a kimono?

      4. A samurai rite
        Inkpot, paper, brush – haiku
        Focuses the mind

        1. Seppuku painless
          It brings on many changes
          Radar hears choppers

      5. Bukake party?

  12. But his real challenge has yet to begin and if he insists on following through on his most-unpopular ideas?such as building a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border and, far more importantly, establishing a draconian system of employment verification which will inevitably inconvenience all of us

    Keep telling yourself that, Nick. Media (all lumped together) is the biggest loser and they are not trying to change their ways.

  13. Democrats – Image Re-vamp. Right now the Democrats have positioned themselves as largely the party opposed to America.

    My bet is they double down on rigging their internals, work hard to censor anything that tells the truth about how corrupt and out of touch they are, and double down on calling the deplorables stupid and racist.

    1. If they do, and Trump is able get growth north of 3%, look at a complete breakdown of the Democratic party.

      1. Media:

        “But no, you see, growth is actually BAD. Here are the reasons why.”

        1. Look at all those CO2 emissions! The world is going to end! Think of the children! And the women and the minorities that are going to be hurt the most!

    2. I second this.

    3. DWS will be a bellwether. If she’s still connected to the DNC in 4 years time, then it’s likely they’ve learned nothing. Especially so if Clinton is foisted on the party and the country yet again. On the other hand, if she and the Clinton taint she carries are truly gone, then it’s a good sign the DNC has decided to reform.

      1. Reform to what? They’re leftists, there will be no reform.

        1. If they’re smart, they’ll return to Fabianism, which has served them well before Obama. They don’t win elections by being flaming leftists; they win elections by telling people that Democrats have the right ideas and that those ideas will solve the “problems” that Republicans “created”. At the very least, it starts with not calling a vast swath of the electorate “a basket of deplorables”.

          1. Leftists have one goal. Move further left. And that is what they will do. And they will continue to use identity politics to try to distract attention from their true and only goal, move the country further to the left. There’s no going back.

            1. Yes, but they can’t get whatever radical bullshit they have deluded themselves into thinking is “absolutely necessary” overnight. Their forebears learned to push left slowly, and they will have to (re-)learn the same lesson.

    4. Your prediction has already started happening.

      1. Speaking of predictions…

    5. Dems can’t get it through their heads that they need to reattract their voters back to the party. They’re in denial. It’s all because of racism/Comey/Russians.

      I tell my prog friends, “I’m not sure calling blue collar whites bigoted racists is the right way to attract them back to the D column.” And their answer is always, “We don’t want those racists.”

      They’re going to continue to lose a lot of elections. I think they’ve already cemented Trump’s second term.

      I predict that, much like the R’s, the Dems will be overtaken by an external populist with an “inspirational vision”. Bernie was four years too early. It doesn’t matter that they have no bench. When has that mattered? Some random Hispanic nobody promising EVEN MOARR FREE SHIT will win in 2024.

      1. Yeezay 2024.

        His inspirational vision will be: look at my wife’s ass.

        1. If the tabloid reports of divorce are correct, any clues as to which famous-for-being-famous person will inspire his vision?

    6. they will also quit using emails and only use family members for getting information to each other so that when their computers are hacked/leaked again they will be empty

  14. Hilldawg lost because she is unlikeable/corrupt/fake/etc. as the day is long. She had no positive message. She held voters in contempt. Hell, she wasn’t even playing to win the EC, opting to campaign in a manor more aligned with running up vote totals places she was going to win anyway.

    1. She is unlikable but you’re wrong about her campaign. They needed FL and PA and spent the last several weeks in both states.

      1. Did you vote for Hilldawg, Buttplug?

        1. Of course he did. All the Silicon Valley CEOs told him to!

          1. He worships Mark Cuban and Warren Buffet – if they told him to ritually disembowel himself on a livestream to help a Donkey Party candidate, he would do so within 5 minutes.

    2. I have a difficult time understand anyone voting for her. What a trainwreck. She makes John McAfee look like a 50’s sitcom dad.

    3. but by the democrats think it wasn’t their fault or hers that they lost so I don’t see them changing their methods of campaining anytime soon

    4. Campaign in a manor?I see what you did there.

  15. Michelle/Oprah 2020. Be Better America.

    1. Well, if a “community organizer” can be president, I suppose a wookie can beas well. And look at the bright side, Oprah might buy everyone a car.

  16. Carrie Fisher just died. DAMN YOU OBAMA!

    1. Can you attempt even a modicum of class?

      1. It is bugging me that I heard this news first from this asshole.

        1. Technically not an asshole, but the complement to an asshole.

          1. Skin tag dangling from the taint?

            1. *hurls*

              That was nauseatingly effective, X.

    2. 2016 is not done fucking us, I guess.

      RIP Carrie. 🙁

    3. its the pres-elect Trump’s fault Carrie died not Obama get with it man its allTrumps fault now

  17. Damn Russian hackers keeping Obama voters home.

  18. 84 percent think illegals should be given a path to citizenship

    What percentage of illegals would rather just stay illegal so they can continue to work under the table and pass along the savings southwards?

    1. This is a point I been trying to make for a long time. The fact is that Mexican migrants for the most part do not want permanent residency or citizenship, they want to earn American wages for a few years to save up for a better life at home in Mexico.

      Before 1965 there was no quota for Mexicans to apply for permanent resident status and there was still a “wetback” problem. Why, you ask. Well, even then, the application was long and convoluted and expensive. Since the average Mexican wanted neither permanent status nor citizenship he saw no problem getting on a bus and going to the US and getting work and leaving the family at home. Since it was easy to cross the border he could take trips back to be with his family or get medical care (which was and still is much cheaper south of the border) or for any other reason.

  19. The Democrats nominate goddamn Ursula the Sea-Witch who then proceeds to smugly call Trump supporters a bunch of irredeemable “deplorables” to impress her core constituency of yellow-dog party-line voters and basically behaves like Hugo Chavez every chance she gets…but it’s Russian hackers who cost her the election. Or the Electoral College, I’ve lost track.

    It really is very impressive that someone as unlucky and persecuted as Hillary Clinton has nevertheless managed to find such success in life. Considering how many setbacks she has suffered that were absolutely not her fault at all and wholly the result of malign forces targeting her for no reason whatsoever she’s done pretty well for herself.

  20. Republicans continue to be against gay marriage, marijuana legalization, and abortion rights, all of which have majority support.

    But hardly anybody votes for or against candidates in gen’l elections on those bases. If a candidate is a tiny bit better or worse on an important-to-the-voter issue, that’ll overshadow any degree to which they’re wrong on the aforementioned points.

    1. /But hardly anybody votes for or against candidates in gen’l elections on those bases

      Extreme socons do. Small but can be large in certain districts,
      Here, most of Trump’s votes were anti-Hillary. He had the smallest percentage of “for” votes since 1980. Probably why only 29% of the electorate thinks he has a mandate. And 52% were upset that he won.
      But he claims a mandate, a “:landslide victory” ion the electoral college (actually one of the SMALLEST margins ever)…. and that he’d have won the popular vote except for 3 million illegal voters (which NOBODY can confirm, but THEY are the liars!)

  21. A lot of unnecessary verbiage here. Hillary Clinton lost because enough people who usually vote Democrat would not vote for a lying, corrupt, harridan.

    1. people who usually vote Democrat would not vote for a lying, corrupt, harridan.

      So they voted for a lying corrupt Trump because of his gender?

  22. What difference, at this point, does it make?

  23. Nick, with several articles you’ve done a good job shredding the two-party system. Now, how about an inspiring vision that fits the 21st century? Not necessarily a mish-mash of positions on issues, but a broader framework into which those issues fit. Or you can go the issues route. Your choice.

    1. So you actually said — in public — that issues are meaningless and theories are more important!
      That’s how THIS election was pissed away.

      Libertarians cannot do ANYTHING better than it’s being done now, you concede. But if libertarians are excited by slogans and soundbites, then voters will be equally excited. Who’s your dealer?

      “So how would you libertarians advance the lives and dreams of the American people?”
      “if you’re looking for a mish-mash of policies, then you’re simply delusional. BELIEVE!”

  24. Sorry, Nick, there are NO “libertarian-style” policies. Or Gary would have won the White House. Cato’s bullshit Medicare vouchers increase competition …. in the wrong market … TOTALLY ignoring the concept of seniors getting skin in the game. Private insurance companies LOOK like privatization to the goobers, but actually insert a costly and useless middleman between gummint and providers. From the champions of free markets!

    Cato’s Social Security privatization has first year costs of over $350 billion, but Michael Tanner says it’s up to Congress to offset the cost!!! He just has to claim it CAN be done. OMG Like Ron Paul’s wacky repeal the income tax and run the government on FICA TAXES!!!

    Gary said that “fiscally responsible and socially tolerant” is a PLATFORM!!!! No tax plan except the “fair” tax where “fair” means a MASSIVE tax cut for the rich (who consume a fraction of income) and a massive tax INCREASE for the middle class. (who consume, on average, nearly their entire income.).

    We fucked away an opportunity that appears only once or twice per century … anti-gummint libertarians are now PROVEN failures … and Nick pulls libertarian-style policies out of his ass (the same place he found a libertarian moment). As Cato reports the libertarian brand is rejected by 91% of libertarians.

    But the goobers are SO eager to be brainwashed …..like the Moonies, Peoples Temple, Davidians and most other cults.

    1. Well said

  25. My grandmother is almost 90 years old and she lived through the Japanese colonial rule and the Korean war. She would say “the old days were better” even to this day.

    Nostalgia is selective almost by definition. Watch how Hollywood romanticizes the Samurai and the Knights of the Olde – even though in reality, most of them were brutal warlords who chopped down peasants and served as tools of the state.

    50,60 years ago America was stuck in the dark ages in terms of racial relations. Obviously many white Trump supporters won’t deny this. But America was at its prime in the old days, even 20 years ago. My mother got a job as a seamstress only a year after we moved here in 1990. The job market was strong, movie and music were better, big mac meals were $2.99, identity politics were less rampant, and mass shootings and radical Islam were less of a domestic concern.

    Any way you look at it, “Make America Great Again” was a powerful campaign slogan, as much as “Hope and Change” was in 2008. The currently impeached Korean President is a daughter of a dictator who ruled with an iron fist but nevertheless helped stabilize the economy. She won the election in a landslide. People are always going to look back at time of their nation when times were simpler or getting better.

  26. Gary Johnson won a LOT of votes despite his gaffes. Just under 5 million last I checked. It’s more than what Nader got any year he ran.

    At the top of my head, Obama beat Romney by a little more than 5 million. So Johnson covered that “spread”, if
    I’m using the term correctly. I’m thinking maybe 25% of Obama voters in 2012 either stayed home or went to Johnson or Stein.

    But you would NEVER know that if you only got your new from the MSM. They made news out of his Aleppo gaffe but ignored him when he had the best showing for a third partier since Ross Perot. If Johnson had Perot money he might have siphoned another million votes from both candidates. No wonder the dems defend campaign finance laws.

    1. If he had a fucking policy platform he’d have won.
      NOTHING on jobs and the economy
      NOTHING on taxes.
      NOTHING on healthcare
      NOTHING on overall governance reform.
      .
      We know that most of Trump’s votes were votes against Hillary.
      How much of Gary’s votes came from anti-Trump and anti-Hillary … since he never offered a specific reason to vote FOR him, absolutely nothing on ANY major voter concern, or any governing need?.

      So we had 40 years to prepare for an opportunity like this, which opens every 50-100 years. And we blew it. BIG time.

      Psst Perot had more than money, He had a specific policy platform. This is politics not a video game.

  27. upto I looked at the paycheck saying $9861 , I accept that my father in law was like they say trully bringing in money in their spare time online. . there best friend haz done this less than 8 months and a short time ago repayed the dept on there appartment and bourt a great Citro?n 2CV . see at this site

    ????????> http://www.homejobs7.com

  28. Again, NIck G and the Reason editorial staff fail to square their pro-immigration stance with the fact that 76% of all immigrants receive some sort of welfare benefit. The number of illegals who avail themselves of social services is astounding. Stop pitching this bullshit Ellis-Island-glory-days story on immigration when the stats betray you. What unchecked, modern immigration is doing is growing the welfare state and, last time I checked, Reason vehemently opposes this?out the other side of their mouths. The intellectual dishonestly is unfitting of an otherwise great website and magazine.

    Legal, moderated immigration is a good thing, but we have to be more picky. Bringing in a bunch of poor people and putting them on the dole isn’t going to yield overall good results or more “libertarian policies.” Apparently Reason doesn’t want to risk appearing “racist” by speaking out this subject in greater detail. Time to step up.

    1. Again, NIck G and the Reason editorial staff fail to square their pro-immigration stance with the fact that 76% of all immigrants receive some sort of welfare benefit

      You are SO full of shit.
      Stay with Breitbart, World Net Daily and Alex Jones/

      The only major “benefit” to illegals is education … which THEY PAY FOR. In taxes!!!
      See, we had this revolution over “taxation without representation.” It’s a core principle of the United States..
      Whoever brainwashed you must have “forgot” that little matter.

      And if you’re in the core middle class — $40-100k — then the rich subsidize over half your own personal income tax. So are you sucking on the public teat … or earning over $250,000 per year?

      1. P.S. Illegals cannot avoid FICA taxes but are denied benefits. So they SUBSIDIZE those two middle-class entitlements also. This is NOT rocket science.

  29. Again, NIck G and the Reason editorial staff fail to square their pro-immigration stance with the fact that 76% of all immigrants receive some sort of welfare benefit. The number of illegals who avail themselves of social services is astounding. Stop pitching this bullshit Ellis-Island-glory-days story on immigration when the stats betray you. What unchecked, modern immigration is doing is growing the welfare state and, last time I checked, Reason vehemently opposes this?out the other side of their mouths. The intellectual dishonestly is unfitting of an otherwise great website and magazine.

    Legal, moderated immigration is a good thing, but we have to be more picky. Bringing in a bunch of poor people and putting them on the dole isn’t going to yield overall good results or more “libertarian policies.” Apparently Reason doesn’t want to risk appearing “racist” by speaking out this subject in greater detail. Time to step up.

    1. Apparently Reason doesn’t want to risk appearing “racist” by speaking out this subject in greater detail. Time to step up.

      You go first. Provide an original source for your claims .. which does not include some rightwing wacko and/or conspiracy websites.

      How many original-source links convinced you?

  30. Again, NIck G and the Reason editorial staff fail to square their pro-immigration stance with the fact that 76% of all immigrants receive some sort of welfare benefit. The number of illegals who avail themselves of social services is astounding. Stop pitching this bullshit Ellis-Island-glory-days story on immigration when the stats betray you. What unchecked, modern immigration is doing is growing the welfare state and, last time I checked, Reason vehemently opposes this?out the other side of their mouths. The intellectual dishonestly is unfitting of an otherwise great website and magazine.

    Legal, moderated immigration is a good thing, but we have to be more picky. Bringing in a bunch of poor people and putting them on the dole isn’t going to yield overall good results or more “libertarian policies.” Apparently Reason doesn’t want to risk appearing “racist” by speaking out this subject in greater detail. Time to step up.

  31. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    =====================> http://www.homejobs7.com

  32. ” The winners in 1992, 1996, 2000, and now 2016 all won with less than 50 percent of the popular vote. In 2000 and 2016, the winner even lost the popular vote, an exceptionally rare outcome… In 2017, we’ll have a president who lost the popular vote and campaigned on a platform that is broadly unpopular with Americans.”

    Part of the genius of the American system is that the various parts of it are constantly set against each other — unlike a party slate system, Trump doesn’t come into office with his government, he has to try to cobble one together from people who don’t share his views. GOP leaders in Congress have already said Trump’s anti-trade notions won’t make it onto the floor, the Tea Party is already lining up against more spending, and we don’t even have to ask whether the SCOTUS is going to take a hatchet to ideas like “deport all the Muslims!”

    1. Trump is a walking corpse. The GOP has only 52 votes in the Senate. Three of them hate his guys and six more never endorsed him. Since he’s a SEVERE threat to the GOP, they’ll be looking to disgrace him, but without damaging the party (which has no solutions for anything anyhow).

      The GOP will commit suicide on Obamacare. From abject stupidity, they say they will keep guaranteed issue for pre-existing conditions but repeal the mandate — thus INCREASING the death spiral! They’ll also retain keeping kids in family coverage until age, which worsens the shortage of young healthies to subsidize the pre-existing and keeps younger, poorer people subsidizing lower premiums for older, wealthier Americans.

      It was insurance companies who demanded the mandate in return for guaranteed issue — Obama had campaigned against the mandate (see Gary Johnson’s great ad on that). So bet your life that the insurance industry will cut their balls off before allowing Republicans to force premiums HIGHER! (OMG)

      Ryan’s Medicare vouchers are almost as dumbass as Ron Paul’s “repeal the income tax and run the gummint on FICA taxes”. Vouchers increase competition in the WRONG MARKET! Insurance is not healthcare. So it’s NOT just progressives who confuse coverage with treatment..

      Gonna be bloody.

  33. Whatever the Russians and Comey did played to people already predisposed to think Clinton boils kittens alive and runs puppies through the shredder. Selling them on voting for Trump is as tough as selling vodka in Siberia in the middle of winter. It would have been far simpler and more effective to just unleash an army of trolls on social media and let the Click-Forward crowd do the rest.

    1. But it worked. Trump had an immense “anti-Hillary” vote. The smallest “for” percentage in a quarter century.

  34. HAPPY NEW YEARS

    I can see what your saying… Raymond `s article is surprising, last week I bought a top of the range Acura from making $4608 this-past/month and-a little over, $10,000 this past month . with-out any question its the easiest work I’ve ever had . I began this five months/ago and almost straight away startad bringin in minimum $82 per-hr

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  35. HAPPY NEW YEARS

    upto I looked at the paycheck saying $9861 , I accept that my father in law was like they say trully bringing in money in their spare time online. . there best friend haz done this less than 8 months and a short time ago repayed the dept on there appartment and bourt a great Citro?n 2CV . see at this site

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.