Hillary Clinton famously painted those who voted against her as economic basket cases, bragging in Mumbai that she won "won the places that represent two-thirds of America's gross domestic product."
As usual, Mrs. Clinton had more to say:
She went on: "So I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward." As evidence, she pointed to places such as Illinois, where she won by sizable margins. Then she added that those who voted against her "didn't like black people getting rights, and don't like women … getting jobs."
IHillary got her facts wrong. Perhaps she should get out more? (But you already knew that–see, "forgot to visit Wisconsin, 2016.")
As Stephen Moore and Art Laffer point out today in Investor's Business Daily, it is the red states that are doing better. They write:
For at least the last two decades, most of the dynamism and growth — as measured by population movements, income growth and job creation — has been fleeing from the once economically dominant blue states that Clinton won and relocating to the red states that Trump won.
Here's the evidence. Of the 12 blue states that Hillary Clinton won by the largest margins — Hawaii, California, Vermont, Massachusetts, Maryland, New York, Illinois, Washington, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Connecticut and Delaware — all but three of them lost residents through domestic migration (excluding immigration) over the last 10 years. In fact, combined, all 12 lost an average of 6 percent of their populations to net out-migration over the past decade. California and New York alone have lost 3 million people in the past 10 years.
Now let's contrast the Clinton states with the 12 states that went to Trump with the largest margins. Ten out of them — North Dakota, Oklahoma, Idaho, South Dakota, Kentucky, Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee, Nebraska and Kansas — were net population gainers.
The outpouring of residents from blue to red states almost has been one of the biggest demographic stories in American history, with a thousand people making the move every day on average. If you go to states such as Arizona, Florida, Tennessee and Texas these days, you'll see many blue-state license plates.
Pretty much the same pattern holds true for jobs. The job gains in the red states that Trump carried by the widest margins had about twice the job creation rate as the blue states Clinton carried most comfortably.
Clinton mentioned gross domestic product numbers. While it is true that the blue states of the two coasts and several of the Midwestern states are richer than the redder states of the South and mountain regions, she failed to mention the giant transfer of wealth from Clinton to Trump states. IRS tax return data confirm that from 2006 to 2016, Clinton's states lost $113.6 billion in combined wealth, whereas Trump's states gained $116 billion.
But maybe there is a reason Clinton didn't want to notice what is really happening:
The Clinton states are in a slow bleed. That is in no small part because their governments have adopted the entire "progressive" playbook: high tax rates; high welfare benefits; heavy hand of regulation; excessive minimum wages; and war on fossil fuels. These states dutifully check all the progressive boxes.
Amazingly, Clinton cited Illinois as an economically dynamic state. As Laffer and Moore observe things are so bad in Illinois, where the progressive policies have been in full swing for decades, that people are fleeing to West Virginia and Kentucky.
The authors conclude:
We need national economic policies that have been shown to work at the state level. Trump wants to make America look like Florida and Tennessee. Clinton wanted to make America look more like Illinois and Connecticut. Maybe that's the real reason why she lost.
The real reason Mrs. Clinton is impervious to economic facts is that these facts refute her longstanding policy goals. Unfortunately, a lot of people are in the cocoon with her, and we can't reform bad policies without good facts.