- Joined
- Jul 2, 2014
- Messages
- 7,437
- Reaction score
- 1,950
- Location
- Confirmation Bias Land
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
There's a long-term blue tsunami out there, and it's much more powerful than any voter sentiment. It's simple economics.
Liberals and Democrats are moving to red states in record numbers, and, unlike what the partisan hacks say, it isn't because the blue states are stagnating. It's actually because the blue states are booming like crazy.
States like New York and California have the most "popular" jobs, and plenty of people still consider them to be "dream states" to live in. Of course, that means that competition for these jobs is brutal, and competition for housing is even worse. That's the reason you can spend upwards of $50,000 per year for a semi-reasonable apartment.
Imagine $50,000. Just sitting there. Or in your bank account. Do you really want that going to your RENT?
What's more, a lot of blue state businesses have created "remote work" or "telecommuting" positions. Even if you have one of those jobs, and need to fly back to the home office for the big meetings, you're still saving all that money, so the plane tickets aren't a problem.
So obviously, these blue state migrants are enjoying a lower cost of living, lower regional income and property taxes, and even a paycheck from a blue state: which means they get to live rich.
And guess who all these new arrivals are going to vote for? That's your blue tsunami.
There's a long-term blue tsunami out there, and it's much more powerful than any voter sentiment. It's simple economics.
Liberals and Democrats are moving to red states in record numbers, and, unlike what the partisan hacks say, it isn't because the blue states are stagnating. It's actually because the blue states are booming like crazy.
States like New York and California have the most "popular" jobs, and plenty of people still consider them to be "dream states" to live in. Of course, that means that competition for these jobs is brutal, and competition for housing is even worse. That's the reason you can spend upwards of $50,000 per year for a semi-reasonable apartment.
Imagine $50,000. Just sitting there. Or in your bank account. Do you really want that going to your RENT?
What's more, a lot of blue state businesses have created "remote work" or "telecommuting" positions. Even if you have one of those jobs, and need to fly back to the home office for the big meetings, you're still saving all that money, so the plane tickets aren't a problem.
So obviously, these blue state migrants are enjoying a lower cost of living, lower regional income and property taxes, and even a paycheck from a blue state: which means they get to live rich.
And guess who all these new arrivals are going to vote for? That's your blue tsunami.
There's a long-term blue tsunami out there, and it's much more powerful than any voter sentiment. It's simple economics.
Liberals and Democrats are moving to red states in record numbers, and, unlike what the partisan hacks say, it isn't because the blue states are stagnating. It's actually because the blue states are booming like crazy.
States like New York and California have the most "popular" jobs, and plenty of people still consider them to be "dream states" to live in. Of course, that means that competition for these jobs is brutal, and competition for housing is even worse. That's the reason you can spend upwards of $50,000 per year for a semi-reasonable apartment.
Imagine $50,000. Just sitting there. Or in your bank account. Do you really want that going to your RENT?
What's more, a lot of blue state businesses have created "remote work" or "telecommuting" positions. Even if you have one of those jobs, and need to fly back to the home office for the big meetings, you're still saving all that money, so the plane tickets aren't a problem.
So obviously, these blue state migrants are enjoying a lower cost of living, lower regional income and property taxes, and even a paycheck from a blue state: which means they get to live rich.
And guess who all these new arrivals are going to vote for? That's your blue tsunami.
There's a long-term blue tsunami out there, and it's much more powerful than any voter sentiment. It's simple economics.
Liberals and Democrats are moving to red states in record numbers, and, unlike what the partisan hacks say, it isn't because the blue states are stagnating. It's actually because the blue states are booming like crazy.
States like New York and California have the most "popular" jobs, and plenty of people still consider them to be "dream states" to live in. Of course, that means that competition for these jobs is brutal, and competition for housing is even worse. That's the reason you can spend upwards of $50,000 per year for a semi-reasonable apartment.
Imagine $50,000. Just sitting there. Or in your bank account. Do you really want that going to your RENT?
What's more, a lot of blue state businesses have created "remote work" or "telecommuting" positions. Even if you have one of those jobs, and need to fly back to the home office for the big meetings, you're still saving all that money, so the plane tickets aren't a problem.
So obviously, these blue state migrants are enjoying a lower cost of living, lower regional income and property taxes, and even a paycheck from a blue state: which means they get to live rich.
And guess who all these new arrivals are going to vote for? That's your blue tsunami.
Source?
Benefit of the doubt.You imagine something like that actually exists?
Probably a very good analogy; If the dems control the economy it will be a disaster on a par with a tsunami. Stock market is already reflecting the pessimism of a Dem controlled HouseThere's a long-term blue tsunami out there, and it's much more powerful than any voter sentiment. It's simple economics.
Liberals and Democrats are moving to red states in record numbers, and, unlike what the partisan hacks say, it isn't because the blue states are stagnating. It's actually because the blue states are booming like crazy.
States like New York and California have the most "popular" jobs, and plenty of people still consider them to be "dream states" to live in. Of course, that means that competition for these jobs is brutal, and competition for housing is even worse. That's the reason you can spend upwards of $50,000 per year for a semi-reasonable apartment.
Imagine $50,000. Just sitting there. Or in your bank account. Do you really want that going to your RENT?
What's more, a lot of blue state businesses have created "remote work" or "telecommuting" positions. Even if you have one of those jobs, and need to fly back to the home office for the big meetings, you're still saving all that money, so the plane tickets aren't a problem.
So obviously, these blue state migrants are enjoying a lower cost of living, lower regional income and property taxes, and even a paycheck from a blue state: which means they get to live rich.
If
And guess who all these new arrivals are going to vote for? That's your blue tsunami.
Source?
Probably a very good analogy; If the dems control the economy it will be a disaster on a par with a tsunami. Stock market is already reflecting the pessimism of a Dem controlled House
The market operates on today's situation, investors buy and sell based on what they thing the economy will do, not the goofy interpretations of "a century of market data".Never mind that the silliness directly above this line flies in the face of a century of market data.
You interpreted “Source?” as an argument/dispute? Insecure much?What are you disputing? And do you even have an argument to counter what you're disputing?
Probably a very good analogy; If the dems control the economy it will be a disaster on a par with a tsunami. Stock market is already reflecting the pessimism of a Dem controlled House
And notice that more and more House elections went Dem it went further and further down. A few were probably also hoping that Pelosi wasn't going to be Speaker.The day after the midterm elections, the Dow went up nearly 400 points. Nice try. :thumbs:
P.S. You might wanna take a look at how well the Dow has done since Donnie Boy's one-year anniversary!
And notice that more and more House elections went Dem it went further and further down. A few were probably also hoping that Pelosi wasn't going to be Speaker.
Oh, yawn. Seen this a hundred times. Still basically a bull****, distorted snapshot. I notice you include no source or timeframe for those numbers.Oh you want to play this little game? Fine, I'll call your bluff and raise you this:
:lamoOh, yawn. Seen this a hundred times. Still basically a bull****, distorted snapshot. I notice you include no source or timeframe for those numbers.
Nice try. You're dodging my questions. I just checked REAL GDP growth numbers and Obama NEVER had a 3.5% annual rate, he averaged UNDER 2% for his term. Oh, and by the way Consumer Confidence in July 2018 was 127.4. Got any REAL data?:lamo
And there we have it. He doesn't like the answer so he won't accept it. Thanks for playing! :2wave:
Nice try. You're dodging my questions. I just checked REAL GDP growth numbers and Obama NEVER had a 3.5% annual rate.
Prove that he did - It's your claim. Not single quarter projections, but real annual GDP growth.Prove that Obama never experienced a 3.5% GDP growth.
Prove that he did - It's your claim. Not single quarter projections, but real annual GDP growth.
No, you posted a picture with some numbers on it. No clue who made it or what his sources are. It's like posting a comic book.I posted a claim, they're easily refutable if they were in fact wrong. Sorry that you're unable to do so! But please, continue with this feeble attempt to make something out of your nothingburger position. Your ODS is quite amusing to watch. :lol:
No, you posted a picture with some numbers on it. No clue who made it or what his sources are. It's like posting a comic book.
Probably a very good analogy; If the dems control the economy it will be a disaster on a par with a tsunami. Stock market is already reflecting the pessimism of a Dem controlled House
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?