Nike Jordan
Supporter
- 33,885
- 80,986
This is what POV actually means.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
tbh i think it's like 98% not building enough homes.
Can't wait for ppl to clutch their pearls over the next thing they overturn and then go about their business because some voters are extremely privileged and walk out unaffected
My guess is no but I would not have a real clue tbhThis is not a rhetorical question.
Has there been an election that was swayed towards the GOP by high income people NOT voting?
I get it, if you're on our beautiful, cobalt blue left coast and/or you're on twitter, it can feel like there's lots of leftists who are ruthlessly and cruelly withholding their votes. But most of the people, who engage in that discourse publicly, live in New York and California.
All my DSA comrades, who come from money, always come around and vote straight blue. It's comrades who have clawed their way up from the working class to the professional, who follow through on non voting out of principle. And the DSA, like twitter, is a small segment of the electorate.
Zoom out to the general electorate and the biggest challenge for Democrats is lower income/marginalized people not voting for them. I am curious if there's a case where the Democrats got burned by wealthy, otherwise Democratic voting cohorts, staying home, and reactionary low income cohorts voting at higher than usual rates?
yeah I guess if you want to give people homes for free if we had enough we could end it. you still wanna rehab people but I guess being homeless is the crime we're talking about.
I actually think a low turnout election favors the dems richer more educated coalition.turnout in general from for Dems is always a key for sure
In general or this year?I actually think a low turnout election favors the dems richer more educated coalition.
my understanding is most people who are caught in homeless stats are temporarily homeless due to financial reasons.
so more housing supply = cheaper houses, less people who fall temporarily into homelessness because they can't find temporary housing.
now for the drug addicted, and mentally ill. Memphis doesn't have free houses, New Mexico doesn't have free houses and they don't have tent cities or a homelessness crisis. they have worse drug addiction rates and mental illness issues than california or new york.
the difference is they have cheaper more abundant housing.
there are cheaper housing options like rooming houses that can house many people who are homeless now.
and if all else fails if housing is cheap enough the government can give people vouchers for housing.
we have a crazy homeless problem here and I'd say most them are mentally Ill or addicted to something, there's whole neighborhoods overrun that are abandoned for the most part but overrun with homeless people.
we also have lots of people living in cars and rv's. I'm guessing those are the ones that simply can't afford housing because there's no way in hell you're kicking it in one of these homeless camps unless you're doing the drugs with them.
for sure cheap housing will fix a lot of it. I agree with that, I don't think homelessness with ever be eliminated though but it would be nice for the people who want help getting a house to be able to do that.
this year. and moving forward, assuming education polarization stays the way it is.In general or this year?
I don't know how it is in minny but in toronto rooming houses are illegal to build.
governments made them illegal to build because they housed many drug addicted people in extreme poverty.
turn out getting rid of them just put more drug addicts on the streets.
bringing those back I think would help, along with more housing in general.
looks like minneapolis is trying to bring them back.