You can cut taxes AND spending, and the economy will grow. The Laffer Curve may not say that, but supply-side religion says it does, and this religion has had real and dangerous effects on our society.

Again let’s be fair to the Laffer Curve. It does say that, pretty explicitly, if your economy currently exists on the right hand side of the inflection point. But not on the left hand side. The main problem with Laffer Curve justifications is that nobody has the data necessary to draw the damn curve, because you’d need a hundred different little United States-es to put into a taxation experiment bucket to get your data points. The shape of the curve is purely speculative.

Suburban Republicans locked into Republican districts by gerrymandering in 2012, turned on their party, but they did not become leftists, or Democrats — they did vote for mainstream Democrats and conservative Democrats. See Conor Lamb, a conservative Democrat who won in a Trump red district. The Democratic Party is not a monolith, it has conservatives, liberals and leftists. On the local level, people know that. That’s why they won the House.

I honestly don’t think this effect is as big as you make it out to be. Or, perhaps, can be phrased differently.

In 2016 both candidates were so perfectly horrible that a lot of people lined up to vote against the one they hated, instead of voting for one they liked. The polling numbers showed this. Half of Clinton voters only voted for Clinton because they hated Trump. Half the Trump voters only voted for Trump because they hated Clinton. In 2018, Hillary was out of the picture so the Democrats didn’t have a Media Avatar of Evil in play like the Republicans did. Folks who hated Hillary felt safer voting blue because Hillary was out of the picture. The Reds still had their Media Avatar of Evil in play.

I’m sorry, there is literally zero evidence to support the bizarre idea that we could do a fantasy election where a 49-state loser would beat a popular vote winner.

I don’t think the idea is bizarre at all, especially given how Hillary polled worse against almost every other Republican in the field than Trump. Pretty much anyone else in the Red field would have beaten her worse, according to all the numbers. Which is almost certainly why she and Podesta cooked up the “Pied Piper Plan” to promote Trump during the red primaries.

Saying Clinton was the worst candidate in history is an emotional argument not supported by the facts, which I have listed in detail above.

I have a better fact. She lost to a guy who shaved Vince McMahon’s head in a WWE wrestling ring.

There has never been a candidate capable of losing to someone that ridiculous before Hillary. The fact that she’s considering running again boggles my mind. Trump prays she runs again.