The Economist has a very solid track record: in 2003 regarding Iraq, their position is "Our vote is for war". In 2004, they endorsed John Kerry. Here's hoping their track record gets solidified. By the way, what proportion of US voters bother to check what The Economist says?
What proportion of US voters bother to check what Don The Con is saying. One half, the half that oppose him. The other half must have hearing issues.
Just under half of the US voters don’t even know to read properly, just like their preferred leader. The Economist endorsement is for the other half, I guess. PS. Endorsement means support, it’s NOT the same thing as forecast of victory. Just so you’d know.
I think this really means a lack of investment in the poor rural/exurban areas of the US. The Democrats have largely been in power a the Federal level since 1992 except for 8 years of GWBush but they have very little control over the local power structure. I remember seeing a county map after the 2016 elections and I believe it was 90+% Red. So I guess that s how the GOP stays relevant via the Electoral system. It appears neither party is interested in helping the people who were dislocated from the Globalism the Capitalist keep droning on about. I think that explains so much support for a reality TV actor turned President. Well you reap what you sow. If you think you can kill millions of jobs and move them to Mexico & China and tell the affected people to go & Fuck Off, this is exactly what you will get in response. It is quite logical.
trump appealed to those people. the last person who said anything about it was Ross Perot. He was right about the sucking sound (and that wasn’t in Clinton’s Oval Office or Donald trumps microphone). The problem is that there isn’t an easy solution that can be communicated in a soundbyte and solved in even a 2 term presidency