Nah. That's a copout answer. She won the popular vote, but failed to campaign based on the importance of electoral votes. Her campaign seemed to take the Midwest for granted, which left it ripe for Trump to campaign hard there with his own peculiar brand of BS. It also didn't help that Hillary had the personal warmth and charisma of refrigerated Spam.
As a leaning moderate/libertarian and as a RETIRED middle manager from a 100 plus year, fortune 500 company Ive experience many management approaches over the years and believe that centralized Government and Corporations are all about control and cost reduction at the expense of more region expertise and services. Thus I am more for a de-centralized efficient approach that allows for quicker response in addressing cost and competitiveness with people being the recipients of improve service form regional benefits and differences. I favor more State and local Government. The following are few points that I endorse to a degree but Ive always been about balance and efficiency and accountability. These are not written by me but from an article I read several years ago.: American businesses have become leaner in recent decades, with flatter managements. By contrast, the number of layers of federal management has greatly increased. Overlaying stifles information flow and makes it harder to hold people accountable. The federal government is not just large in size, it is sprawling in scope. In addition to handling core functions such as national defense, the government, as noted, runs more than 2,300 subsidy and benefit programs. It has spread its tentacles into many state, local and private activities, such as education, energy, welfare, housing and urban transit. The government is doing too much and doing little well. It is like a conglomerate corporation involved in so many activities that executives are distracted from their core business. Markets force bloated corporations to refocus and shed their low-value activities, but no mechanism forces the federal government to do so. The more programs the government has, the more likely they will work at cross purposes. Some federal programs keep food prices high, while others subsidize food for people with low incomes. Some programs encourage people to live in risky flood areas, while others try to reduce flood risks. The government promotes breastfeeding, but it also subsidizes baby formula. Many programs subsidize healthcare and infrastructure, but regulations raise the costs of those activities. The solution is to stop centralizing power in Washington, and to begin shifting activities back to the states. State and local governments suffer failures, but their failures are not thrust onto the whole nation. When policies fail in some states, other states can learn the lessons and pursue different strategies. States compete with each other for people and investment, which creates continuous pressure to reform. large majorities of people prefer state over federal control of education, housing, transportation, welfare, health insurance and other activities. People think that state and local governments provide more competent service than the federal government. And when asked which level of government gives them the best value for their taxes, two-thirds of people say state and local governments and just one-third say the federal government. In sum, political and bureaucratic incentives and the huge size of the federal government cause endemic failure. The causes of failure are structural, and they will not be solved by appointing more competent officials or putting a different party in charge. Americans are deeply unhappy with the way that Washington works, and everyone agrees that we need better governance. The only way to achieve it is to greatly cut the federal government's size and scope. If congress over the years wasn't so tied up in appeasing lobbyist for votes and other spiffs then possibly they could focus more on the job at hand with respect to managing, but they really dont. Just some thoughts. Thanks for asking...
My buddy is in real-estate and he's wowed by how many are wanting and looking for property in the rural and suburban areas as compared to inter city portland. I guess the urge to spread wings more from the covid 19 experience is one reason and cost are other reasons.
Yeah, that may be one way to achieve the kumbaya that some are looking for - if enough urban dwellers move out, maybe they can begin to turn red areas purple. barfo
No, the reason is, it saves a lot of money. Even here in Bellingham, the same dumpy house costs triple what it did 12-15 years ago.
People use to love the city and the woods were for the poor. All that changed probably 40 or more years ago. We use to live right on the border with Tryon Creek wilderness now Tryon Creek state park.Our property back then was where the poor people lived. Now everyone wants to live either on the lake or on the border with Tryon Creek state park with property going for in ecess of one Million dollars. Of course, Lake Oswego is a suburb or Portland that is not far away.
Excellent point. but what is complicating the issue is that we have been under minority rule for a very large chunk of the past 40 years. The majority makes a lot of noise but it’s been the minority who have been making most of the rules. And I personally have yet to see pretty much anyone in government who knows what’s best for me......
http://www.sportstwo.com/forums/blazers-ot-forum.434/ I could be incorrect, but that was my recollection of where the conversation drifted.
Interestingly, in 1975 there was a book called Ecotopia, where NoCal, Oregon, and Washington break from the U.S. and form their own country. Let's see Greater Idaho declare war on us! We will rain tofu down on them like there's no tomorrow.
I have several friends that have moved out of Portland and into wine country and other rural areas over the past several months. Most of them moved not because of the cost, but because the COVID experience has changed their office/workplace dynamics. People are feeling more free to live where they play, rather than where they work. Same reason we bought a second home (and for investment purposes). I don’t know what’s happening in the rest of the state outside of Portland metro and wine country, but house prices (obviously) are crazy. Even here in wino country, our real estate agent says we could sell our house for double what we paid for it only five years ago. There’s a 1200 sq foot house that was listed for $340K went pending in 2 days and sold for $80K over asking price.
Yeah, housing cost is really expensive everywhere in this State. My friend mentioned just what you shared too in that people people wanted to have more space because of covid and play close to home, along with working form home. I see an article somewhere that said Portland/Oregon was one of the highest housing cost as a percent of income.
Indeed, so it does. I was actually assuming you'd left out the first digit, and the house had sold for $380k or $480k. barfo
I bet property taxes in Oregon Rocket way up this year! Look at some of the increase valuations in all areas and its nuts.
