Higher cost of doing business from tariffs has frozen hiring. With a frozen job market, there’s less revenue coming in.
NYC is a leading indicator for the rest of the country.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/13/nyregion/nyc-jobs.html
That's true, but it didn't predate the election of a man who has made his understanding of tariffs and economics crystal clear in the months and years leading up to January 2025.
> Trump has made tariffs a central campaign pledge in order to protect US industry. He has proposed new 10-20% tariffs on most imported foreign goods, and much higher ones on those from China.
Only all the people who voted for them and all the people who voted against them?
See also: Harris is an elite! (Trump is more elite), Trump knows business (he's a pretty bad business man), Harris did nothing in office! (She was VP), Trump is the underdog! (He's literally already been president)
Trump was a terrible candidate and could've been beaten if a good candidate running against him.
https://www.deseret.com/politics/2024/09/09/harris-policy-pl...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-harris-campaign-promises-...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/...
All of the above were posted prior to the 2024 election.
My point being: at some point the American electorate has to take responsibility for picking the worst available person. The Democrats did not compel them to vote for Trump.
Perhaps i didn't make my point clear. Indeed ur statement is true. I was referring to those who hated Trump but also hated Harris and so DIDNT VOTE. My point being that if the Democrats had fielded a compelling candidate many of those who didn't vote may have voted for them. Enough to win. The Democrats learned nothing when they fielded Hilary Clinton and lost. Joe Biden barely won. And only because they were sick of Trump and also how he handled Covid. Also don't forget the Democrats tried to run with Joe for a second term when he was clearly unfit. Huge turn off.
So yes, my argument is the Democrat Party is partly at fault for Trump 2.0. They did not field a worthy candidate.
"Vote Blue no matter who" is a failed strategy. And rightly so.
That's slightly revisionist. He won the popular vote by almost 5 percentage points. That's a lot. He also got more electoral college votes than GWB (both times) and Trump in 2016. His victories in the battleground states were also by a higher margin than Trump's in 2016, though still close. "Barely won" is a shade of true.
I honestly don't blame the guy for believing it was his responsibility to the country to run for re-election and keep Trump out of office. His heart was in the right place, even if the rest of him wasn't up to the task anymore.
Edit: did you read these links?
“ The American people lacked any concrete policy positions from the presumptive, and then official, Democratic presidential candidate for seven weeks following President Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the 2024 presidential race.
Despite the absence of clarity on key issues, Vice President Kamala Harris quickly rose in the polls compared to Biden”
What is wrong with my logic?
It sounds like ur logic is: if u don't want trump then u have to vote for the (shitty) democrat candidate.
My point of view is based on those who DIDN'T vote at all, not people who voted for trump because they didn't like harris.
Oh wait, its entirely their (non voters) fault trump won, is what u would argue, correct?
So the democrats have no responsibility to field a candidate worthy of a vote except their not trump or Republican?
So anything a lot kess than that looks to me like ”barely". Perhaps im too harsh?
I get why Michelle Obama wont run but i think she would've trounced trump in 2020 or 2024.
The democrats need to field a candidate that has her kind of appeal to beat trump.
Or continue on with your willful ignorance.
It's no skin off my nose either way.