Dr. Strangelove

Certainly possible, but I think that the amount they're building may not keep up with demand. House prices may drop in the short term, but I'm guessing the growth through 2035 with be substantial. I say this because America produces around 2 million households that earn over $100k per year and only builds 1.3-1.4 million houses. Now, some of those earners already have a cheaper house and they aren't evenly distributed across the country. But that sort of imbalance is likely to keep prices elevated.

One is cyclical and happens over time and isn't a political choice. The other is a dangerous political decision which will have long lasting effects on our democracy. Let's not act like these are equal or even remotely close to it. This is going to be the case for a long time. Most people refinanced to a rate in the high 2% or low 3% range over the pandemic. People aren't going to be eager to trade those rates in for a more expensive house at a higher rate. House inventory is going to remain low for a awhile- with millennial workers entering their prime earning years, house prices should continue to climb for quite some time.

You are aware that Oil and Gas companies have stated - many times - that they would lose money expanding operations, yes? You know it's a joke when the first complaint was "canceling keystone XL", a project that wouldn't be completed for a decade and that doesn't even add new oil or refinery capacities. Furthermore, do you think Europeans, who pay much higher prices, are blaming Joe Biden? OR do you think the factors pushing up prices in Europe? For the love of God, please don't vote. The last time you elected a guy, we got "inject bleach" cheeto man. I mean, let's pretend for a nanosecond that you're correct - which in this universe and in nearly all versions of any scientifically plausible multiverse you are not - are gas prices as bad as election denial and your parties assault on Democracy?

Per capita is the best way to do it, although imperfect. The best way is to measure "per x number of people". For example, if a gang went to a small town and killed 50 out of 100 people and then moved to the next big town and killed 51 out of 1000, we wouldn't say the big town was more dangerous because they had a higher raw number of deaths. According to this link, by almost every metric, gun violence disproportionately affects red states. They based this on a per 100k basis, which is a good way to even out small populations with big ones.

We really need to let these Conservative states go. They can form their own country (provided they band together and payback the Federal Government all that tax money they've leeched). We don't need to tyranize them with government subsidies anymore. It's sad that their official party platform is based around conspiracy, untruths, and hatred for gay marriage. But that's been their form of Conservatism for decades. We've just gotten to the point where their voters are proud to come out into the open with it.

They're exactly what conservative voters want. Stop blaming them and start blaming the constituency that elects them. If conservatives really wanted to stop Assault Rifles from massacreing school children, they'd punish politicians who allow it. They don't want to stop Assault Rifles from being in the hands of pretty much anybody, so they vote for politicians who do.

Republican voters. Not their politicians mind you, they know full well its all bulls#!t.

But Cheeto Man good, Biden man bad. Gas is Bidens fault. Vote for Republicans, the American Experiment of liberal Democracy is a 250 year old dying fad anyway.

This is simply a term used to define voters with college educated vs not-college educated; it has nothing to do with "Street smarts", intelligence, or business savvy. That term is common in political science or discussions around voting blocs. This trend is a phenomenon of Trump and the 2016 race. Individuals with college educations tended to be horrified by Trumps rhetoric during his campaign, and rightfully so. Education level is now the strongest prediction of voting behavior. You calling them indoctrinated is pretty funny, if not indictive of the anti-intellectual trend of the Right we've witnessed over the last 50 years, and put into overdrive under Trump.

Oil companies collectively lost ~$300 billion during the 2010s oil boom, with many small shale oil companies going bust. Completing pipeline projects is fine, but would not help supply since a pipeline does not pump new oil out of the ground, it simply moves it. Oil companies want to move their oil for cheaper prices, but it's not going to dramatically affect the price of gas even if they were magically completed ahead of schedule. The real reason oil companies don't want to build new refineries or start new drilling projects is because they would lose money long term. Oil and gas is a slowly dying business, just like coal in the 20th Century. Oil and gas executives know it, political leaders from both sides know it, everybody knows it.

Totally possible. Trends of education polarization seem to be gaining ground in nom-white voting blocs. It'll be interesting to see how non-educated whites react to their party increasingly integrate Hispanic groups. Will that happen smoothly or simply further non-educated whites angst? Walker was easily the worst possible candidate Republicans could've nominated, he may very well be the worst overall candidate running for Senate this cycle. He probably has has a 60% chance to win in November though.

Yes. Democrats are full of dumb ideas. We need a different political party that offers realistic counter solutions to our many problems. What we get instead is a Republican party currently grappling with authoritarianism, Anti-intellectualism, and a view on guns which is flat out dangerous and idiotic.

So Trump is more responsible for our inflationary situation? Twice the stimulus after all! Glad you'll punish Rs by voting against them! Exactly.

You criticized the American rescue plan as inflationary. Those are your words. That was approximately $2 Trillion. I assumed, because of who you vote for, that you believe the $4 trillion of stimulus under Trump was not inflationary. You are free to put that notion to rest, however, and prove my assumption wrong by saying that the stimulus under Trump - twice as large - was inflationary.

Yes. As I said, people are moving to cities. Those cities are turning blue. Arizona and Georgia are increasingly blue and will be out of reach for Republicans by 2028. Further down the line, Texas and North Carolina will follow suit, although that's more than a decade away. More states, however, are turning Red. Iowa and Ohio are no longer in play for Democrats, this will be followed by Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Nevada, and even further down the line states like Maine. In the short term, it makes it extremely difficult for Democrats to win in the electoral college until Texas flips in the 2030s. The Senate will be next to impossible, because like I stated, 70% of Americans will be represented by 30 Senators in 2040.

4 trillion in spending under Trump = Not Inflationary 2 Trillion under Biden = Inflationary, got it! So Inflationary, it spread to Europe!

I trust you would vote for Biden if he holds firm in his resolve and will not criticize gas prices in any way if he cancels this trip.

You're completely correct, a good example is what we see in Omaha, a district Biden won. Or Lincoln with a Dem mayor and city council. What I attempted to do was explain something complex in the simplest way possible. The important factor in this demographic shift is education level, which is now the biggest indicator of voting behavior. In the scenario I described, college graduates are moving to cities. Often within their own states, but increasingly to cities outside of their state. The raw total of shift might not appear to shift much, but some of the influx of population for a particular state might be immigrants while the exodus are college graduates. The mix of incoming and outgoing matters, and it's why Democrat strategists think they're facing a borderline apocalypse. There's a lot of doomerism for Democrats, for good reason.

This time, I'm SURE Archy is going to provide solid reasoning for the most important issues underlying his vote.

He probably will. But the answer to Democrats systemic problems go to demographic shifts happening nearly all over the world. That is, nearly anybody with any semblance of upward mobility moves towards cities and away from rural areas. When people move to cities, those areas tend to vote for Democrats. The rural areas people leave behind become worse off economically and vote for Republicans. As a result of this shift, people are leaving states like Wisconsin, Nevada, Pennsylvania, etc. They've become more and more conservative. From 2016 to 2020, Hillary had to win the popular vote by ~2.3% to win those states in 2016 while Biden had to win by ~4.4% in 2020. By 2024, it's likely Democrats would need 5.5%, a nearly impossible margin. A good example of this are former swing states like Iowa and Ohio, which are now simply unwinnable for Democrats. It's simultaneously true that those citizens are moving to states and turning them blue. However, there's an imbalance: young people are leaving MANY rural states but are moving to relatively FEW urban cities, like Phoenix or Atlanta. The number of states turning more Red outnumber states turning more blue. This matters because the Electoral College and Senate heavily favor geography in their electoral outcomes. To give this trend more context, by 2040 ~70% of Americans (producing nearly ~75% of GDP and nearly all useful tax revenues) will live in states represented by 30 Senators. If you think the division in this country is bad now, wait 2 decades for it to really heat up.

I think I've expressed this to you, but because of the increasing Red-shift of rural America, it's likely that a Republican candidate has a 55% chance to win no matter the econmic conditions of the country or who the candidates are. Even in a hypothetical race between Herschel Walker (R) and the best Dem candidate you can think of, the odds are in Rs favor for systemic reasons. It doesn't matter what they do, say, their personalities, etc. I can explain why in a more detailed post if you'd like, but just know: it's systemic. Lastly, we need to put aside the nonsense that Biden won't or shouldn't run in 2024. If he's even remotely healthy, he provides Democrats far and away the best chance to win (45%?). Any other candidate lowers their odds considerably. NOTE: this is simply because incumbent candidates have an advantage, it has nothing to do with his quality as a President or the potential/lack thereof of Dem candidates.

At this point, why stop committing crimes? Republican voters simply do not care about pesky "laws". Trump could literally punch a Republican voter in the face, blame Nancy Pelosi, and they'd vote for him while believing him.

We're doomed.

If by "loaded with young talent" you mean "huge room where none of the candidates seem to separate themselves to take pressure off of our QBs" then I agree with you.

Yeah. One thing that makes me laugh is your exchange with Trumpy-Conservative posters on this board, practically begging them to detail how global gas prices would be lower if only Republicans were elected or if they came into power.