Hillary Clinton’s recent remarks in India, in which she blamed her Presidential loss in 2016 on Trump voters being racist and sexist, and on women obeying their husbands and voting against her, rightly generated so much angry backlash that Democrats up for reelection in red states are trying to build a “big, beautiful wall”...between them and Hillary.
Those comments were so breathtakingly insulting that they overshadowed another phony excuse that Hillary floated: that she got the votes of the “optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving-forward” parts of America responsible for two-thirds of US GDP while Trump-supporting states are presumably the habitats of knuckle-dragging layabouts and hillbillies. But that shouldn’t be allowed to pass without comment. Turns out it would have been more accurate to say that she got the votes of the parts of the country run by people who think like her and that, therefore, people are fleeing like rats off a sinking ship.
At the link, Stephen Moore and Arthur Laffer compare the 12 states that voted for Hillary and Trump by the widest margins. Over the past few years, Hillary’s states suffered the biggest loss of population; Trump’s enjoyed the greatest influx of new residents (optimistic, diverse!) Trump-voting states enjoy twice the rate of job creation (dynamic!) From 2006-2016, Hillary’s top 12 states lost $113.6 billion in combined wealth, while Trump’s top dozen states gained $116.0 billion (moving forward!)
But this is the most telling stat of all: while it’s true that Hillary had strong support in the bluest of blue areas – big cities with very lucrative industries such as finance, government, high tech and entertainment – they were not only islands of blue surrounded by a sea of red, they were also islands of big money surrounded by people struggling to make ends meet under the kind of high-tax, big government, economy-strangling policies that she would have continued in Washington if elected.
Liberals love to complain about “income inequality” (just last week, we were laughing about a confab of socialist millionaires – Michael Moore, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren – who lamented income inequality yet declined the opportunity to redistribute their own wealth to the crowd). Well, here’s a superlative that Hillary can honestly claim when comparing her states to Trump’s:
Three of Hillary’s top states – New York, Connecticut and Massachusetts – lead the nation in having the biggest gaps in wealth between rich and poor. Which is surprising: I might have guessed California, where tech billionaires and Hollywood stars live in splendor beyond the imaginations of ancient kings while the people who clean their mansions can only afford to live in their cars. That’s as close as Hillary ever got to most working people: driving past their houses-on-wheels, on the way to yet another big-bucks fundraiser. For the record, that’s one of several genuine reasons why she didn’t win the presidency.
PLEASE LEAVE ME A COMMENT BELOW. I READ THEM!