Can Rauner win re-election?

[vito]

I don't have a lot of faith in the voting judgment of the people of this state, and I doubt that they will conclude that the Gov. tried his best, is trying to move IL in the right direction, and needs four more years to try to get it done. More likely the Dems will scream it was the Governor's fault that we had no state budget for two years, and that the backlog of bills and the indebtedness of the state is all Rauner's fault. And the typical uninvolved voter, who makes his or her decision based upon bumper sticker slogans, will believe the Dems and vote Rauner out. Its amazing to me that Illinoisans don't overwhelmingly conclude that the Dems have been in control forever and look what a sorry condition the state is in. Gov. Rauner is not everything I wish he were, but he sure is a better choice in my opinion than a rich Kennedy toady of Madigan or any other billionaire who thinks it would be fun to be governor and leave the state's business to Madigan and Cullerton as always. What do you think, can Rauner win again or not? And just as importantly, does it matter much?

[DD123]

I give him, 0% chance of reelection.

 

Here's the reason:

 

Of the people fleeing this state, how many are republicans, and how many are democrats. Out of the 20 or so people I know that fled, none were democrats.

 

I'll vote for him, but I'm afraid voters like me are in the minority here and that will only become a smaller minority as each week passes.

[Windermere]

Honestly what does it matter if you vote for a guy to try and change stuff up and they just block everything he does because it's run by a corrupt bunch of crooks.

[kemikos]

More likely the Dems will scream it was the Governor's fault that we had no state budget for two years, and that the backlog of bills and the indebtedness of the state is all Rauner's fault.

I've said since the election that this is the only reason a Republican was allowed to become governor...

[skinnyb82]

I give him, 0% chance of reelection.

 

Here's the reason:

 

Of the people fleeing this state, how many are republicans, and how many are democrats. Out of the 20 or so people I know that fled, none were democrats.

 

I'll vote for him, but I'm afraid voters like me are in the minority here and that will only become a smaller minority as each week passes.

I concur with your assessment. He will get my vote as I cannot, will not cast a vote for a Pritzker (or a Kennedy). The only people who will still be in Illinois will be those who do not pay taxes, so they have no stake in what happens in the ILGA as it pertains to taxation. Saw some statistic that 33% of ALL welfare recipients in the US reside in California. Illinois is moving in that direction. The ratio of makers to takers will eventually become less than 1.0, the state will have two choices. Reign in the public assistance abuse or go bankrupt, default on its obligations, whatever you wanna call it. Seems like a no-brainer but Chicago will choose bankruptcy/default.

 

Just like how the members of a Teamsters plumber and pipefitter union out in...New Jersey, I believe, were given the option of having their benefits diminished (40 cents on the dollar, maybe 35, I forget) or, well, not diminished, retain the status quo. Of course they chose the status quo, and now the fund is insolvent, the union members will only receive 5 cents on the dollar if that. Naturally they are outraged. They should be angry with their union leaders and themselves for rejecting the diminishment of the pension obligations. People like this will always choose the most illogical option because they don't understand the problem at all. Ignorance is why we have this mess in the first place. That and unbridled greed. It makes me wanna do a face-palm when these people decide they'd rather have nothing than something.

 

For what it's worth, I do have a degree in accounting, experience with pension accounting (it makes every accountant want to scream, which is why I work in FI compliance), a bachelor's in finance, worked in commercial lending for a while before getting my master's, as well as quite a bit of economics coursework at both undergrad and graduate levels. So it's safe to say that I am not the typical ignorant voter. Not by any means. One of my "issues" (thanks, Dad) is that I hold people to unrealistic standards. That they have a grasp on why this mess compounded, how to solve it, or even the knowledge that we have a huge problem as most are so insulated that they don't care what happens outside their little safe space, their bubble. Meh, rant over.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

[DD123]

 

I give him, 0% chance of reelection.

 

Here's the reason:

 

Of the people fleeing this state, how many are republicans, and how many are democrats. Out of the 20 or so people I know that fled, none were democrats.

 

I'll vote for him, but I'm afraid voters like me are in the minority here and that will only become a smaller minority as each week passes.

I concur with your assessment. He will get my vote as I cannot, will not cast a vote for a Pritzker (or a Kennedy). The only people who will still be in Illinois will be those who do not pay taxes, so they have no stake in what happens in the ILGA as it pertains to taxation. Saw some statistic that 33% of ALL welfare recipients in the US reside in California. Illinois is moving in that direction. The ratio of makers to takers will eventually become less than 1.0, the state will have two choices. Reign in the public assistance abuse or go bankrupt, default on its obligations, whatever you wanna call it. Seems like a no-brainer but Chicago will choose bankruptcy/default.

 

Just like how the members of a Teamsters plumber and pipefitter union out in...New Jersey, I believe, were given the option of having their benefits diminished (40 cents on the dollar, maybe 35, I forget) or, well, not diminished, retain the status quo. Of course they chose the status quo, and now the fund is insolvent, the union members will only receive 5 cents on the dollar if that. Naturally they are outraged. They should be angry with their union leaders and themselves for rejecting the diminishment of the pension obligations. People like this will always choose the most illogical option because they don't understand the problem at all. Ignorance is why we have this mess in the first place. That and unbridled greed. It makes me wanna do a face-palm when these people decide they'd rather have nothing than something.

 

For what it's worth, I do have a degree in accounting, experience with pension accounting (it makes every accountant want to scream, which is why I work in FI compliance), a bachelor's in finance, worked in commercial lending for a while before getting my master's, as well as quite a bit of economics coursework at both undergrad and graduate levels. So it's safe to say that I am not the typical ignorant voter. Not by any means. One of my "issues" (thanks, Dad) is that I hold people to unrealistic standards. That they have a grasp on why this mess compounded, how to solve it, or even the knowledge that we have a huge problem as most are so insulated that they don't care what happens outside their little safe space, their bubble. Meh, rant over.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

One of the areas I differ from your standard, card carrying GOP voter is on social welfare.

 

Some social welfare is necessary, and if applied and run with some form of intelligence, it helps people who truly are in need. This is where the problem comes in....

 

Democrats just like passing one social spending bill after another, without actually taking a look back at the effectiveness of the previous initiatives. How much is it costing us? How much is overhead and how much actually reaches the intended people it's purported to help? What does the overhead consist of? Gimme an itemized listing of all money spent.

 

My tinfoil hat tells me that these programs aren't set up so much to actually help who they're purported to help, they're set up to garner votes, and to place cronies into well paid jobs where they don't do anything. That's a large part of the reason none of these things are looked into after their passage.

 

This is why I'm a huge proponent of running government like a business. There's literally no accountability for P&L.

 

I have an aunt who cannot work any longer. She's in her early 50's and has a debilitating condition that prevents her from working. She worked her entire life at a pretty low paying job that was extremely physical. She can't even get disability....they simply will not give it to her. If anyone deserves it, it's her. My neighbor on the other hand, has never worked a day in his life, yet he gets disability. They are both the same "color". The difference here is that my neighbors mother was in politics so she has connections. There's literally nothing wrong with my neighbor aside from having an IQ of roughly 85 and being lazy.

 

The other problem I have with social spending, like welfare, is that it's meant to be a helping hand, not a career choice. If you're getting free money, what motivates you to do anything? If the government were to give me what I'm making right now, I wouldn't be motivated to work either.

 

How about this for a resolution: instead of hiring political cronies for state and municipal jobs, and paying them more than they're worth, how about reducing the pay to the actual market rate for those jobs, and giving those jobs to welfare recipients who are either unwilling to lift themselves up, or can't find work? For those unwilling to work, you lose your welfare check. Sometimes you have to force people to do stuff with their lives. Taking this approach kills three birds with one stone; you get rid of overpaid losers who don't deserve the jobs that they were overpaid to do, gets people off of welfare, and gives those people a job at a decent wage reflective of the prevailing market wage.

[skinnyb82]

I have no problem with public assistance when it's used as a backstop. Not a career, which is precisely what happens in blue states like Illinois. Quarter of the population here is on Medicaid. Anyone who doesn't see that being a huge problem is either just plain willfully ignorant, lacks a basic education, or knows and simply doesn't care about it because free stuff equals votes. Self-preservation at its finest.

 

Federal law already states no work equals no welfare, but Obama suspended that requirement and Rauner has never reinstituted it. That's why we have all of these welfare queens. Make people work as a condition to receiving benefits and there will be a colossal decline of those on welfare. Many only do it because they know they won't have to reciprocate or do...anything at all.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

[Jeffrey]

Here comes the new boss, same as the old boss.

 

I don't think it makes a difference if it were Mickey Mouse or Satan himself as our governor. The power they hold doesn't have enough energy to stop the mosheen.

[vito]

A few comments: first, the GOP does not advocate the elimination of the social welfare safety net. Republicans and Democrats agree that there are those who need help and that a human society does not ignore that need. But as the comedian Dennis Miller says, "help the helpless, not the clueless". It is just the scope of welfare that is the difference. Democrats want as many people on social benefit programs as possible since these folks are sure to support them in the voting booth. As the saying goes, when you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can count on the support of Paul.

 

As to unions being blind to reality, that is nothing new. I know of companies that were faced with either wage and benefit reductions or laying off a good portion of the workforce, and possibly closing up shop altogether if that did not work. The union refused to even look at the financial analysis the company had done to show why it was faced with this choice. The union just kept repeating that the owners were lying and trying to trick the workers. The company ended up going out of business about a year later. But regarding pensions, I thought that these were protected by the Federal government, so that the taxpayer ultimately ends up making up for the bad decisions of the union (and management). I thought it is something like the FDIC is for banks, but I can't recall the acronym right now.

[Nanook]

The Republican party in this state is almost a joke. They're badly outnumbered, and they have a dozen turncoats within their ranks. Rauner has no chance to get anything done even without the turncoats.

 

It's sickening, but it is what it is.

 

My neck of the woods has both senator and representative on our side. They vote our way 100% of the time, but to no avail usually. It's disheartening, that's for sure.

 

I'm still amazed we have concealed carry, even after several years have passed.

 

I believe Rauner has a slim chance of being re-elected, and we'll have yet another left wing loon in the Governor's office.

[spec4]

Looks like the Dem social elitists will go with Pritzker. Having Madigan's support is the tipoff. Rauner will be demonized for being the cause of all of Illinois' problems.

 

Pritzker gets in and initiates a new round of taxes and government expansion. Can't you just smell it?

[SiliconSorcerer]

The (PBGC) Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp is not funded by general tax revenues it's by insurance premiums paid and has limits on the benefits so while the pension may go belly up, they will get a fixed amount in most cases not what people will be happy with I'm not even sure it's even mandatory that all pensions even have this insurance.

 

The whole discussion of the people who vote vs work for a living has been covered...

Un/fortunately the Democrat stronghold is Crook county so they are the only real significant factor.

The only hope I see is there still enough time to make living in crook county even more painful before the next election and they certainly have the right people in charge to do it. I just hope these additional nuisance taxes like the soda hit more Democrats and either get them to change or just dissolution them from voting at all.

[DD123]

I honestly think that we'll see some costs come down if we were to force the state to pass a bill amending hiring practices. Outsource hiring to an outside vendor with no connections politically. Bring in a consulting firm to evaluate staffing needs, along with reporting directly to the people the results of their assessment.

 

I'm sure there isn't one person on this site who believes that any department in this state is understaffed. We also have to eliminate political appointees. That's where a significant amount of our tax dollars go. This is where that consulting firm comes into play. How many directors does Dart need? I highly doubt it's the ridiculous number that he currently has.....most who are making 6 figure + salaries.

 

If we look across the state, we'll find many redundant positions that serve no purpose other than giving out a job in exchange for a political favor.

 

While I'm not a fan of this media outlet, this article describes exactly what I think would solve Illinois' financial problems.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/22/sandy-springs-georgia-privatize-outsource_n_852466.html

 

If Chicago, heck every city and municipality in Illinois, went with this model, we would be absolutely shocked by how much money it would save. It really is a dang shame that a private business would be accountable, yet we don't hold our elected officials accountable for anything. This would solve that problem.

[3ddiver]

All points already covered but I have said from the beginning that he would be a 1 term governor if he try to fix anything. Rauner will get the blame for everything that is wrong with this state even though the problems existed way before he was elected. We will get a Democrat governor and they will fix everything by spending, spending, spending. They do not have to worry where the money will come from because the bank of taxpayer is the answer. I cannot wait to leave this toilet bowl.

[MrTriple]

I worry for his chances as well. Anyone with a brain knows the Democrats are the problem here, not Rauner, but sadly many are too stupid or blind to see it. I encounter this a lot in my personal life, where otherwise intelligent people can't, even for a moment, fathom that the Democrats here and nationwide are corrupt, lying bags of crap who only care about enriching themselves at our expense. And yet they still vote exclusively Democrat. They're totally blind to what's going on. They can't see how everything in Chicago (where they live) is slowly collapsing around them. And yet Trump, Rauner, and the GOP are the evil ones. I don't know if they'll ever come around.

 

I know someone who works for an organization that is entirely taxpayer-funded, but is an ardent Trump- and GOP-hating Democrat. He seems, at least vaguely, to understand that the state is having financial problems, but I don't think he really understands what's going on or who's the culprit. He'll keep voting for the Democrats even though his employer's very existence is at risk because of our financial problems. He should know better but doesn't (or doesn't admit it). And like many white collar, working professional Chicagoans, he's merely one of a whole army of voters who don't realize what's really happening.

[lockman]

 

 

I give him, 0% chance of reelection.

 

Here's the reason:

 

Of the people fleeing this state, how many are republicans, and how many are democrats. Out of the 20 or so people I know that fled, none were democrats.

 

I'll vote for him, but I'm afraid voters like me are in the minority here and that will only become a smaller minority as each week passes.

I concur with your assessment. He will get my vote as I cannot, will not cast a vote for a Pritzker (or a Kennedy). The only people who will still be in Illinois will be those who do not pay taxes, so they have no stake in what happens in the ILGA as it pertains to taxation. Saw some statistic that 33% of ALL welfare recipients in the US reside in California. Illinois is moving in that direction. The ratio of makers to takers will eventually become less than 1.0, the state will have two choices. Reign in the public assistance abuse or go bankrupt, default on its obligations, whatever you wanna call it. Seems like a no-brainer but Chicago will choose bankruptcy/default.

 

Just like how the members of a Teamsters plumber and pipefitter union out in...New Jersey, I believe, were given the option of having their benefits diminished (40 cents on the dollar, maybe 35, I forget) or, well, not diminished, retain the status quo. Of course they chose the status quo, and now the fund is insolvent, the union members will only receive 5 cents on the dollar if that. Naturally they are outraged. They should be angry with their union leaders and themselves for rejecting the diminishment of the pension obligations. People like this will always choose the most illogical option because they don't understand the problem at all. Ignorance is why we have this mess in the first place. That and unbridled greed. It makes me wanna do a face-palm when these people decide they'd rather have nothing than something.

 

For what it's worth, I do have a degree in accounting, experience with pension accounting (it makes every accountant want to scream, which is why I work in FI compliance), a bachelor's in finance, worked in commercial lending for a while before getting my master's, as well as quite a bit of economics coursework at both undergrad and graduate levels. So it's safe to say that I am not the typical ignorant voter. Not by any means. One of my "issues" (thanks, Dad) is that I hold people to unrealistic standards. That they have a grasp on why this mess compounded, how to solve it, or even the knowledge that we have a huge problem as most are so insulated that they don't care what happens outside their little safe space, their bubble. Meh, rant over.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

Some social welfare is necessary, and if applied and run with some form of intelligence, it helps people who truly are in need.

 

 

If social welfare is necessary, how come we got along just fine before the new deal ushered in federal welfare?

 

Mark my words! There will come a time when your social security will become insolvent and payments will be reduced or halted, but the welfare will continue!

 

In other words, the wage earners who trust and contribute to SSI will be cut-off and the non-working, non-contributing welfare recipient will continue to pillage the taxpayers.

[SiliconSorcerer]

Yes that's exactly means testing, If you've saved money for your retirement you don't get any.

 

I've only heard one sort of sensible argument on means testing where it's based on you lifetime earnings, not saying I still agree with means testing but this at least doesn't give money to the person who spent all his money on a yacht and snorted coke every weekend is now broke vs the person that saved for his retirement.

[tkroenlein]

Donald Trump couldn't win either.

 

I see nothing to indicate that the country or state isn't still sliding right.

 

He can win.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DD123]

 

 

I concur with your assessment. He will get my vote as I cannot, will not cast a vote for a Pritzker (or a Kennedy). The only people who will still be in Illinois will be those who do not pay taxes, so they have no stake in what happens in the ILGA as it pertains to taxation. Saw some statistic that 33% of ALL welfare recipients in the US reside in California. Illinois is moving in that direction. The ratio of makers to takers will eventually become less than 1.0, the state will have two choices. Reign in the public assistance abuse or go bankrupt, default on its obligations, whatever you wanna call it. Seems like a no-brainer but Chicago will choose bankruptcy/default.

 

Just like how the members of a Teamsters plumber and pipefitter union out in...New Jersey, I believe, were given the option of having their benefits diminished (40 cents on the dollar, maybe 35, I forget) or, well, not diminished, retain the status quo. Of course they chose the status quo, and now the fund is insolvent, the union members will only receive 5 cents on the dollar if that. Naturally they are outraged. They should be angry with their union leaders and themselves for rejecting the diminishment of the pension obligations. People like this will always choose the most illogical option because they don't understand the problem at all. Ignorance is why we have this mess in the first place. That and unbridled greed. It makes me wanna do a face-palm when these people decide they'd rather have nothing than something.

 

For what it's worth, I do have a degree in accounting, experience with pension accounting (it makes every accountant want to scream, which is why I work in FI compliance), a bachelor's in finance, worked in commercial lending for a while before getting my master's, as well as quite a bit of economics coursework at both undergrad and graduate levels. So it's safe to say that I am not the typical ignorant voter. Not by any means. One of my "issues" (thanks, Dad) is that I hold people to unrealistic standards. That they have a grasp on why this mess compounded, how to solve it, or even the knowledge that we have a huge problem as most are so insulated that they don't care what happens outside their little safe space, their bubble. Meh, rant over.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

Some social welfare is necessary, and if applied and run with some form of intelligence, it helps people who truly are in need.

 

 

If social welfare is necessary, how come we got along just fine before the new deal ushered in federal welfare?

 

 

We got along just fine because you're comparing a time when nearly our entire population was waiting in line for bread and wheels of cheese.

 

If we want to criticize the new deal, let's start criticizing the impetus for creation the conditions that led to the new deal.....the creation of the federal reserve.

 

The same institution that butt raped us not more than 11 years ago by stealing our wealth and handing it over to large banks, while congress made it impossible for small banks to keep their doors open.

[MrTriple]

Donald Trump couldn't win either.

I see nothing to indicate that the country or state isn't still sliding right.

He can win.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is certainly possible, especially given how conservative Gen Z is supposed to be (they'll be old enough to vote in 2018). The only question is if Rauner is getting out ahead of things with his messaging? I've seen him run commercials bashing Madigan, but where's the crucial social media presence?

[ScopeEye]

This state is Doomed

The FSA and Madigan has this state by the balls

 

[skinnyb82]

Generation Z craves stability. Economic stability. They've seen what happened as a result of the 2007-2008 crap mortgage bubble bursting. They've seen their family members get laid off, mistreated by employers, spend hours upon hours submitting job applications only to be ignored by employers. They've seen their family members graduate from college with insane amounts of debt and no way to pay it back within their lifetime. They've seen the aftermath of fiscal irresponsibility. That should terrify the Democratic Party.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

[BobPistol]

 

 

 

 

This is why I'm a huge proponent of running government like a business. There's literally no accountability for P&L.

 

I disagree.

 

Government is ALREADY run like a business.

 

Politicians and their cronies profit. And they are accountable for their own and their cronies' P&L.

 

Just like when we have CEO's who are accountable for P&L and their answer to every business problem is layoffs - instead of growth strategies - we have politicians and their cronies who profit by hurting people. It is exactly the same.

 

What we need are more Henry Fords and JW Marriott type CEO's (treat your people right, pay them great, lift them up, and get rich in the process) INSTEAD OF the Bill Gates types (funds his foundation by layoffs, and replacing workers with L1 visa holders) and the Marissa Meyer types (spend $2B to buy companies run by ex-Google cronies, the cronies get rich, then those companies go bust and layoffs ensure).

[Ranger]

Im a long term, dedicated republican who is very educated about politics and i will not vote for rauner again. I hope the repubs offer someone else.

 

A political site had illinois gov race projected as republican, then leans republican and is now tossup. That is due to rauner. A good republican gov would have made progress and done the doable in increments rather than just lip service and stalemate. A good repub gov would now be looking at an easy reelection and the chance to have input on the redistricting next term. We dont have a good republican governor. I wish we did.

[MrTriple]

Generation Z craves stability. Economic stability. They've seen what happened as a result of the 2007-2008 crap mortgage bubble bursting. They've seen their family members get laid off, mistreated by employers, spend hours upon hours submitting job applications only to be ignored by employers. They've seen their family members graduate from college with insane amounts of debt and no way to pay it back within their lifetime. They've seen the aftermath of fiscal irresponsibility. That should terrify the Democratic Party.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

Absolutely, which is precisely why the Democrats were so desperate for amnesty and for the opening of the border. With amnesty they get another 20 million voters overnight, all in key electoral states. That also helps provide sufficient cover for voter and electoral fraud. Now that's not gonna happen, and when you add Gen Z into the mix things begin to look a lot worse for them.

[Ranger]

I should probably clarify that id vote out Madigan in a second if i could. There are only a few people. Who caan do thatt. Tthouugh and I aint one.

[Mr. Fife]

 

I give him, 0% chance of reelection. Here's the reason: Of the people fleeing this state, how many are republicans, and how many are democrats. Out of the 20 or so people I know that fled, none were democrats.

About this whole people fleeing thing, I have trouble with this whole Democrats vs. Republicans fleeing. Here's why...I think it has less to do with which party you support than if you are a property owner vs renter. For example, if you are a renter the only thing holding you back might be your family or your job.If you are a property owner, then it's the same as above, plus selling your property holding you back. But, if I have a house then I'm not leaving if I can't sell it. And if I do sell it, then someone moves in to take my place. That person will be someone new moving into the state, or someone already here. So as far as homeowners fleeing, it's a wash.So it's the renters who are leaving. It's easier for them to leave then it is for the property owner. Both Democrats and Republicans rent, and own homes. It's the renters that drive the instability, IMO, because they have less skin in the game.The exception to that would be that a current homeowner leaves and a current renter stops renting and becomes a homeowner. I'm sure there's lots of other exceptions too, but my point is that people leaving the state are going to be Democrats and Republicans I believe it's more economical than political.As for the reelection chances go, that's entirely up to how Rauner plays his cards, and he better get some good hands or become better at bluffing

[soundguy]

 

Generation Z craves stability. Economic stability. They've seen what happened as a result of the 2007-2008 crap mortgage bubble bursting. They've seen their family members get laid off, mistreated by employers, spend hours upon hours submitting job applications only to be ignored by employers. They've seen their family members graduate from college with insane amounts of debt and no way to pay it back within their lifetime. They've seen the aftermath of fiscal irresponsibility. That should terrify the Democratic Party.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

Absolutely, which is precisely why the Democrats were so desperate for amnesty and for the opening of the border. With amnesty they get another 20 million voters overnight, all in key electoral states. That also helps provide sufficient cover for voter and electoral fraud. Now that's not gonna happen, and when you add Gen Z into the mix things begin to look a lot worse for them.

 

 

Counterintuitively... Not all illegal/hope to become citizens from Mexico are gonna be democrats.

 

Amnesty and opening the border (?) have nothing to do with attracting voters to any party.

[Chuckd]

I will support Him again. As a Republican, and a responsible American citizen of the state it's the right thing to do.

[skinnyb82]

Counterintuitively... Not all illegal/hope to become citizens from Mexico are gonna be democrats.

 

Amnesty and opening the border (?) have nothing to do with attracting voters to any party.

Empirical evidence shows that immigrants vote Democrat when they first come here and are "granted" voting rights. They begin the rightward shift right as the years pass, as their earnings increase and as the government takes more of their money, they become more conservative. You don't think the Democrats would allow said immigrants to prosper, do you? Most American citizens aren't prospering, so I highly doubt that 11-12M newly minted "citizens" (with far fewer, if any skills at all) would prosper. Trump didn't win because of immigrants. He won because of all of those white Obama voters having had enough of the "hope and change" that's bankrupted this country.

 

See this piece for the correlation between an increase in the immigrant vote and gain (well, loss) of Republican votes cast. Then again, it's Vox plus statistics, so take it or leave it.

 

http://voxeu.org/article/us-immigration-s-electoral-impact-new-evidence