Even though Trump has barely stepped into Iowa or New Hampshire to campaign or meet and greet the locals of the early primary states, according to the polls, the former president is running away with Republican nomination with DeSantis as his nearest competitor still down 20 to 30 points in those states and even more nationally. Most of the money Trump has raised has gone to his legal expenses related to his various lawsuits stemming from either the criminal indictments or the various court appeals of judgments against him and not into either vote canvassing or campaign ads.
His rivals including Tim Scott, Chris Christie, DeSantis, Nikki Haley and Vivek Ramaswamy have been participating in local events throughout those early states but it hasn't made a dent in Trump's support.
What does this suggest in terms of how political primary campaigning is thought of? Is Trump a unique figure that can coast on being an ex-president? Is "pressing the flesh" overrated and a waste of money? Are voters still not yet decided on who they will vote for?
Why do you think that none of the challengers to Trump have gotten much tractions despite them being personally invested in the early states while Trump has barely done anything to attract these supposed fickle early state primary voters?
I recently listened to someone on the radio who works with homeless people. They implement a "housing first" strategy where they get a roof over the person's head and then work on everything else they need. As it stands, their program is cheaper than having the homeless person enter the state-funded medical or prison system. They were advocating for some sort of minimum income plan to try and ensure that everyone can afford some sort of housing.
If we give everyone minimum income, it would mean that people who are currently couch-surfing or homeless would be able to pay for basic housing. While a laudable goal, this seems like it would increase demand for basic housing, which seems likely to cause prices to rise above current levels, which in turn would eat up some of the minimum income, making it less effective.
In short, unless there is currently a surplus of basic housing in a given geographical area it seems like a minimum income plan would result in housing costs going up, at least at the cheaper end of the market.
Has anyone come up with a solution for this? "Just build more housing" doesn't seem to be enough to meet the existing demand in larger cities, much less increased demand.
Thanks!