Krugman doubles down on his “O’Brien-crossed-with-Humpty-Dumpty” persona
Paul Krugman is a case of someone who has no problem contradicting himself, saying inane things that defy common sense, and doing it all with no sense of shame or apology but on the contrary with a sense of proud superiority. He’s not alone in this, but he’s one of the most shameless practitioners, and he’s been given a bully pulpit to do it for a long time.
Does anyone consider this person an authority anymore? Probably.
I wrote about Krugman recently in this post, but I feel the need to do it again after reading this at Ace’s, a post that dives into an interview Krugman gave to CNN’s Brian Stelter Sunday. It’s worth looking at just to see the mental gymnastics involved, and the breezy dismissal of the common sense perceptions of most of us as well as a century of economic descriptive terms:
“Are we in a recession and does the term matter?” Stelter asked.
Krugman responded, “No we aren’t, and no it doesn’t.”
Such a relief to know.
Krugman has the Zen approach:
“None of the usual criteria that real experts use says we’re in a recession right now. And what does it matter? You know, the state of the economy is what it is. Jobs are abundant although maybe the job market is weakening. Inflation is high, although maybe inflation is coming down. What does it matter whether you use the ‘r’ world or not?” he said.
More:
“There’s been a kind of negativity bias in coverage. The press should be giving people – people have their own personal experience. And if you ask people how are you doing, they’re pretty upbeat,” Krugman claimed, adding that some will complain about gas prices. “If you ask people how is your financial situation, it’s pretty favorable. If you ask them how is the economy, oh, it’s terrible. That’s a media failing. Somehow we’re failing to convey the realities of what’s going on to people.”
I don’t know anyone who is “pretty upbeat.” But then again, Krugman and I run in different circles. I have no trouble assuming that the people he asks aren’t in financial difficulty, nor is he.
But it’s that last sentence that would serve as the motto of the left these days: “Somehow we’re failing to convey the realities of what’s going on to people.” That leads us to the question: What is “reality”? The left truly thinks it can define its way out of the reality of people’s daily lives with words. Perhaps they think that all reality is subjective and that there is no truth except how we define it, and that only people’s pesky and stubborn perceptions sometimes stand in the way of the leftist-intellectual-defined reality. And for a lot of people who support the current administration, Krugman and the others are not wrong, as more and more pundits and politicians jump onboard to tell people that their perceptions and memories are wrong and their betters are right.
Milan Kundera wrote about this over thirty years ago. I’ve quoted him many times before (for example, as early as 2005), and now I’m going to do it again. This appeared in a book of his from 1990 called Immortality:
For example, communists used to believe that in the course of capitalist development the proletariat would gradually grow poorer and poorer, but when it finally became clear that all over Europe workers were driving to work in their own cars, [the communists] felt like shouting that reality was deceiving them. Reality was stronger than ideology. And it is in this sense that imagology surpassed it: imagology is stronger than reality, which has anyway long ceased to be what it was for my grandmother, who lived in a Moravian village and still knew everything through her own experience: how bread is baked, how a house is built, how a pig is slaughtered and the meat smoked, what quilts are made of, what the priest and the schoolteacher think about the world; she met the whole village every day and knew how many murders were committed in the country over the last ten years; she had, so to speak, personal control over reality, and nobody could fool her by maintaining that Moravian agriculture was thriving when people at home had nothing to eat. My Paris neighbor spends his time an an office, where he sits for eight hours facing an office colleague, then he sits in his car and drives home, turns on the TV, and when the announcer informs him that in the latest public opinion poll the majority of Frenchmen voted their country the safest in Europe (I recently read such a report), he is overjoyed and opens a bottle of champagne without ever learning that three thefts and two murders were committed on his street that very day.
Krugman is not an economist so much as a mouthpiece with a sheepskin.
You can lie to people about crime, which affects a relatively small portion of the population. You can’t lie about things like inflation or recession that affect almost everyone.
I didn’t predict this exact phenomenon but I think it flows from something I did note, namely that once you indulge in the crazy it is very hard to pull yourself out.
These people hated Trump but had a problem when it came to criticizing him. He actually didn’t do that bad a job as President. In order to maintain a hysterical level of criticism, they had to decouple themselves from reality. But when you embrace the fantasy that you are the noble hero who is right about everything, it’s very unpleasant to let it go.
That’s the #1 reason I think Trump has to run and win in 2024. It’s the only thing I can think of that might shock these people back to reality.
Mike
MBunge:
I cannot state strongly enough that I don’t believe it would shock them into reality. I believe it would shock them into getting even more drastic and extreme in their response, if that’s possible.
Well, I believe that Krugman is right in one sense. It doesn’t matter what the Administration, its mouthpieces, or the GOP call it. People know what they know.
So far as employment goes, I have noticed that there is a plethora of signs in various establishment’s windows announcing that they are hiring. Yes, at scales that will not support life in the Biden inflationary environment. Meanwhile, the meaningful jobs are in other countries.
Appreciate the quote of Milan Kundera.
When I was studying economics in college I actually spent quite a bit of time researching communist economic thought. When one reads communist writers from the 1920’s it is striking how bold and aggressive they were in their predictions that a rationally planned economy would lead to greater economic growth. Not more equitable growth mind you, that came later, but greater total economic growth.
When it soon became obvious that this wasn’t happening anywhere where economies were planned, they of course moved the goal posts and never seemed to question any of their premises or reasoning.
There are exceptions, of course, like Orwell, which I think is one of the reasons I’ve always so admired him. Anyway, von Mises had their number in his great book Socialism as far back as 1922.
“imagology is stronger than reality, which has anyway long ceased to be what it was for my grandmother, who lived in a Moravian village and still knew everything through her own experience”
Years ago, a wise executive said to me:
“Once you’re running a large organization, you’re not seeing reality. It’s like you’re watching a movie where you get to see maybe every 1000th frame, and from that, you have to figure out what’s going on.”
If this is true for managing large organizations…and it is….it is even more true for a voter in a large and complex country. You can’t personally see what is happening border, what is going on in Ukraine, how effective the schools are for most students, how efficiently the government is spending money…you see an occasional frame from your own experience, but mostly, you have to rely on the frames provided to you by others—media, websites, etc.
And the power of frame-selection is immense…we are only recently seeing just how immense it is.
“Paul Krugman is a case of someone who has no problem contradicting himself, saying inane things that defy common sense, and doing it all with no sense of shame or apology but on the contrary with a sense of proud superiority. He’s not alone in this, but he’s one of the most shameless practitioners, and he’s been given a bully pulpit to do it for a long time.”
This description is spot on regarding Krugman but could just as easily be applied to virtually any lefty ‘public intellectual’.
“That dives into an interview Krugman gave to CNN’s Brian Stelter Sunday.”
Just too perfect. Truly the dumbest, most vapid person on CNN (and that’s quite the accomplishment!) interviewing the most self important, smug, insipid lefty ‘intellectual’ (also quite the accomplishment).
As I’ve said about Krugman before, long ago he was a serious economist and a thoughtful, intriguing writer, well worth reading even (indeed, especially) if you didn’t agree with him. But after he won the Nobel, he seemed to decide he had accomplished all he could academically, so why not chase fame and fortune? And he did. His entire existence since then has been to tell lefty elites exactly what they want to hear, but with an authoritative air. He’s a knave. I doubt he seriously believes half of what he says.
Yesterday my (major) brokerage house sent me an email newsletter claiming that two quarters of negative economic growth isn’t a recession — that’s a myth. Pure party line, and a scary confirmation that business is on board with the reset to a guaranteed income from the government for them — and an allowance for us (if we are good and know to say that 2+2=5).
Pure party line, and a scary confirmation that business is on board with the reset to a guaranteed income from the government for them — and an allowance for us (if we are good and know to say that 2+2=5).
Hogs like troughs, up until the bacon part anyway.
“I cannot state strongly enough that I don’t believe it would shock them into reality. I believe it would shock them into getting even more drastic and extreme in their response, if that’s possible.”
That’s certainly possible but if so, we’re heading down that road anyway so it might be just as well to get it over with now before the state of citizenship in the U.S. declines for a few more decades.
Mike
The greater the denial of reality in a society, the more painful the resultant consequence. “Imagology” cannot withstand the arrival of harsh realities.
Those who are bringing these abominations upon our country “deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out” upon them.
If you ask them how is the economy, oh, it’s terrible. That’s a media failing. Somehow we’re failing to convey the realities of what’s going on to people.”
The perception is the reality and we elites in politics and the media program your perceptions. The actual reality is therefore irrelevant. (Their thinking.)
Inflation is a nuisance since nearly everyone can see it firsthand. Milton Freidman’s old books suggested that sporadic bits of inflation often don’t trigger widespread perceptions of a bad economy, whereas a burst of unemployment or conversely many wage increases do change the economic perceptions of the populace.
However, I think we’re past those sorts of inflation perceptions. The current sporadic elements are the 30% to more than 100% price jumps, and the 10 to 20% increases are everywhere.
About “The Man Who Knew Too Much.”
In one of Hitcock’s worst films “Torn Curtain,” the two stars, Paul Newman and Julie Andrews, purportedly had a substantial influence on the content of the film by dint of their star power. Years later in her autobiography, Julie Andrews said that she didn’t think they did “Hitch” any favors.
The Left does believe that everyone has their own truth, and their truth is valid.
This is what has led us to transgenderism, and other strange beliefs, but it will also lead to the end if science, and eventually, civilization itself.
I was a little tot when “Que Sera, Sera” was popular. It’s the first popular song I remember hearing. In my childish mind, I thought the singer’s name was Kay Sera. Still love that song!
ALL the “Biden” adminstration’s (and pals) “BS Back Better” meters are in the stratosphere…and “the experts” are wondering why the earth is spinning faster and faster????
“The Earth Just Started Spinning Faster Than Ever Before And Scientists Don’t Know Why”—
https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/earth-just-started-spinning-faster-ever-and-scientists-dont-know-why
+ This ABSOLUTELY SUPERLATIVE bonus:
“MSNBC GUEST CALLS HERSCHEL WALKER A ‘NEGRO’ WHO WILL ‘DO WHAT HE’S TOLD’ BY REPUBLICANS”—
https://www.outkick.com/msnbc-calls-herschel-walker-negro/
IOW, that Black man DOES NOT AGREE WITH ME!!!
Therefore, he’s just a ….
(Multiply by how many hundreds of millions upon millions??)
As I have commented before, the PC denies reality and lives in fantasyland. A great example of that is Paul Ehrlich. The Population Bomb is a 1968 book he wrote that predicted worldwide famine in the 1970s and 1980s due to global cooling. Every one of his predictions has been wrong, but he is still respected instead of being a laughingstock.
MBunge – neo is right. I had some hope that Trump’s election in 2016 would shock progressives. I was naive. I was actually shocked by how far they went. I have no doubt that they will go even farther if he’s reelected. They believe as a matter of pre-rational faith that Trump is the second coming of Hitler and that no tactic to thwart him is too dishonest or destructive. (I strongly suspect that we would have had seen a real insurrection if Trump had won in 2020.)
I don’t think the solution is to go YOLO and nominate Trump again anyway. Whether his supporters like it or not, a significant portion of the persuadable voting population hate Trump’s guts. You can go on all day about how Trump’s policies are better than his “mean tweets.” Well, guess what, if the voters hate the mean tweets, he’s going to lose anyway and he won’t have a chance to put any of his policies into effect. Also, it is very possible to reject the left’s voting shenanigans and crazy “insurrection” theater while still believing that Trump’s January 6th behavior was disqualifying. I think a lot of people fall into that middle and will be strongly disposed against Trump for that reason. The first result of re-nominating Trump in 2024 would be to give the Democrats the best possible chance of electing President Kamala or President Pete, either of whom would be a disaster.
Even if Trump did manage to win (which I admit is possible), a nearly 80-year-old man does not change. We would have another four years of mostly good policy, ineptly implemented and administered, with the public quickly tiring of the schtick. (If you think Biden is bad, wait until you see the progressive restoration after a second Trump term in 2028.)
We need Trump’s policies, embodied by a politician who isn’t going to be constantly undermined by his or her own personality quirks and character flaws. That’s really the only chance we have of avoiding progressive hegemony.
Worse still, Ray at 7:33 am, not only did Ehrlich turn out to be entirely wrong, but plenty of very bright people said so at the time. Most famously Julian Simon, but he was not alone.
Nevertheless, Ehrlich went on to win a MacArthur Foundation “genius” grant, while the economists who tried to inform the world that Ehrlich was in fact not a genius, but an idiot, are actually vilified as being evil capitalists, or something.
You’re likely aware of the famous wager between Ehrlich and Simon, but just in case:
https://www.capitalismmagazine.com/1998/04/reason-vs-faith-julian-simon-vs-paul-ehrlich/
“We need Trump’s policies, embodied by a politician who isn’t going to be constantly undermined by his or her own personality quirks and character flaws.”
And anyone else is going to be treated exactly like Trump, but without the advantages that come with Trump. And anybody else will come with their own flaws.
The argument for Trump is he’s already taken their worst shot and is still standing. We don’t know what DeSantis or any other Republican will look like after they get the Trump treatment.
And let’s be clear, EVERY future Republican will be treated like Trump and worse. That’s the new standard.
Mike
MBunge – He’s not still standing. He’s so toxic that he’s propping up Biden and represents the Democrats’ best chance to keep the White House in 2024. It’s not a coincidence that Democrats are meddling in Republican primaries this year to support the Trumpiest candidates.
Bauxite sent a check to Liz Cheney’s re-election campaign.
“He’s not still standing. He’s so toxic that he’s propping up Biden and represents the Democrats’ best chance to keep the White House in 2024.”
And DeSantis, for example, is almost completely unknown to most of the country and will be savaged 24/7 the instant he replaces Trump. And unlike Trump in 2016, DeSantis won’t be given hundreds of millions of dollars in free media to talk directly to voters to counteract that.
Let me put it this way, I think it would be better for Trump to win and lose and the country suffer under four more years of Biden than Trump not to run. If the GOP does not nominate Trump, that will 100% confirm to every deranged Trump-hater out there that they were right and we were wrong. And it will 100% validate every lie, every outrage, and every bit of borderline (?) sedition the Trump-haters committed. You will be acknowledging THEY are in charge and WE have to placate THEM.
One of the reasons we are in this place is because our elite in 1992 refused to consider the long term consequences of elevating someone like Bill Clinton to the Presidency. We need to stop making that mistake.
Mike
Regarding the tendency to believe in words over reality, I offer two quotes which may (or may not) be relevant :
“Because we think in language, it is difficult to think very clearly about something for which we do not have a word, and we have a tendency to try to fit things into the categories created by our language.”
Kevin D. WIlliamson
“Take movement for example. Forces acting up, down, or from side to side. You make theories to explain it all, but you might well remember that it was you that invented them all.”
James Burke, The Day the Universe Changed
Krugman is calling out journalists as stupid. The Left dominates the news media and Big Tech. They pitch left-wing propaganda relentlessly. If the truth/reality favors the Left and the Left dominates news coverage, the people who are producing that news coverage must be extremely incompetent.
Due to inflation, my two cents are now worth less.
Krugman’s two cents have always been worthless.
MBunge – I have to challenge your notion that the only way to acknowledge the things that were done to Trump is to nominate him again. Nominating someone other than Trump in 2024 just means that Republicans think there is a better candidate to lead the country in 2024 than a 78-year-old Donald Trump, nothing more and nothing less. (Also, wouldn’t it validate every Trump-hater out there even more if/when Trump loses another general election to a geriatric Joe Biden with an approval rating in the 30’s or Kamala with an even lower approval?)
I don’t think citing Trump’s name recognition really helps your case. There are plenty of Republicans, including DeSantis, who are about as well known as Obama in 2006, W. Bush in 1998, Bill Clinton in 1990, and so on. Lack of name recognition can be fixed. An approval rating in the 40’s and a vote ceiling under 50% really cannot.
Look, I give Trump credit for breaking out of the cycle of Republican candidates who campaigned and governed in a defensive crouch before the modern left. I think that change has taken across most (but by no means all) of the party. That’s a positive. Maybe it took someone with Trump’s quirks and baggage to break down those barriers. Now that there are other Republicans, like DeSantis, Pompeo, and more, who can or will apply the positive lessons from Trump, there’s no need to let Trump’s baggage drag us down. It’s tough to be the “change” candidate when you’re a 78-year-old former president who also sports an approval rating well south of 50%.
Bauxite said:
“a significant portion of the persuadable voting population hate Trump’s guts. You can go on all day about how Trump’s policies are better than his “mean tweets.” Well, guess what, if the voters hate the mean tweets, he’s going to lose anyway…”
What leads you to believe it’s a “significant portion” or that they’re “persuadable”?
By the 2020 election, I think everyone pretty much had made their minds up about Trump’s demeanor and he still got 11 million more votes than in 2016. He got 5 million more votes than Obama in 2008 when we elected the first black president, a slick-as-Willie politician who certainly tickled American ears, and 8 million more votes than Obama got in 2012.
The question is did Joe Biden really get 15.5 million more votes than Hillary got in 2016?
Two things:
1. “An approval rating in the 40’s and a vote ceiling under 50% really cannot.”
That’s where Trump is RIGHT NOW after taking everything the media and Left can throw at him. He’s got two+ years and a full campaign season to improve on that. Every other candidate you mention is starting out at virtual ZERO nationally and will have to work their way up from that while being subject to everything Trump has already withstood.
2. “Now that there are other Republicans, like DeSantis, Pompeo”
What makes you think you can trust or know what kind of President either of those guys would be? What makes you think they’ll stand up better than Trump to the 24/7 365 political abattoir they’ll be inhabiting?
Saying you don’t like Trump or don’t think he’d be good in a second term is one thing. Saying you’re just afraid of the fight, afraid we might lose is something completely different. Allowing Democrats and the media to determine who Republicans nominate is being a simp.
Stop simpin’.
Mike
MBunge:
Actually, I believe DeSantis is pretty well known around the country, because he’s already been the subject of major denigration in the MSM. By doing that, the MSM has increased his name recognition. He also isn’t an unknown quantity in terms of what he’d do – if you’ve followed what he’s done in Florida. He’s been quite consistent, firm, bold, and tough there. In addition, he’s dealt with reporters and a very negative press very very well, and he definitely has shown his ability to take it and then dish it out.
Yes, he would be subject to even worse if he were the nominee – but he’s already been the subject of a great deal and shown himself feisty and resilient. What’s more, I think he is far less vulnerable than Trump was to people believing all the crapola that will be said about him – and that’s because DeSantis has a more impeccable personal history and is very quick on his feet without having the rough edges and blustery braggadocio of Trump. He’s not as entertaining as Trump – few people are – but he can be pretty funny, too, when he wants to be. Lastly, he’s very young: 43 years old at present.
Jacques Ellul had a lot to say about propaganda and the mass media. In his view it was precisely the educated and the “well-informed” who were most susceptible to propaganda. I wouldn’t make that a hard and fast rule, but there is a lot of truth in it. You can find media that confirms your point of view and the more of it you consume, the more detached you are from reality.
Krugman should be flushed down the toilet along with that other turd Brian Stelter.
it was precisely the educated and the “well-informed” who were most susceptible to propaganda.
M Smith:
I never got to Ellul but it’s a valid point.
I would add that the educated and “well-informed” are likely the most status-conscious.
I did read Tom Wolfe and he nailed the “status sphere” and “liberal chic.”
Neo,
DeSantis is better known nationally than the governors of Iowa or New Mexico but he’s still largely a nobody to the average American. Fox News is #1 and gets less than 3 million viewers a day in a country of 330 million. The news coverage DeSantis has gotten so far means nothing as far as his national standing.
And while DeSantis has done well with the media, he’s been playing AAA ball while Trump’s been in the Major Leagues. And you think the folks who were convinced Joe Biden was a reasonable, competent choice for President won’t believe DeSantis is a combination of Hitler and Jeffery Daumer?
I don’t want to run down DeSantis. I’m not sure he can stand up to the Forever War military-industrial complex but he’s looked pretty good on a lot of issues. And I certainly think he could win in 2024. But let’s be grown ups here.
First, he’d have to beat Trump in the primary. A poll in The Hill on Monday had Trump at 52% and DeSantis at 19%.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3583144-trump-desantis-top-prospective-2024-gop-primary-poll/
Which doesn’t mean DeSantis can’t win but those numbers say it would be a very tough and a very ugly fight. Do you remember what Trump was like in the 2016 GOP primaries? Do you think he’ll be less combative and less personal if DeSantis is standing in his way in 2024? At minimum, a DeSantis candidacy means a pissed off Donald Trump blasting DeSantis from the sidelines and getting ALL the media attention while he does it. At most, it would mean a fractured GOP and Trump running as a third-party candidate.
But let’s get back to my point that if the GOP doesn’t run Trump, it’s basically admitting the Trump-haters were right and we were wrong. It would validate them in a way that Trump running and losing would not because being beaten is not the same as giving up. If you go down swinging, at least you have your self-respect and can pull yourself up and try again. If you give up, the game’s over.
Mike
That would be very dissapointing in my view, as it would suggest he would let his temper get the better of him i had reservations back in the fall of 2015, but after the primaries i was right on board the trump train ted cruz has really unearned much of the goodwill i had for him specially since jan6
MBunge:
I doubt you’ve done a poll to see what sort of name recognition DeSantis has, nor have I done one. My guess is that it’s better than you think it is on the national level. I agree, of course, that it would be hard for him to win the nomination if Trump wants to run. But I think that if DeSantis were to be nominated, he would win the election. I also think he’s plenty plenty tough.
MBunge:
Also see this and this. Polls show he’s very popular with Hispanic voters in Florida. And see how much they hate him at MSNBC.
MBunge – I appreciate the back and forth. Thank you.
To address your points:
(1) At this stage of the game, I think most people have already made up their mind about Trump. The media and the left are still going to throw everything they can at him, perhaps even more after January 6th. I’d add that Trump is still Trump, so he’s still going to repeatedly shoot himself in foot with significant chunks of the electorate with crude insults, his obsession with 2020, and all the other careless stuff he does that feeds into the left’s narratives. In short, I just don’t see how he will grow his approval or his vote percentage out of the 40s.
(2) Speaking specifically to DeSantis, he has a record as governor. DeSantis arguably has a better record on COVID than Trump. He’s repeatedly stood up to attacks from the left and the press, and come through stronger. (See, Rebekah Jones, the smear over vaccine distribution, the regular claims that he was “literally killing people” every time he removed a mask mandate or declined a vaccine mandate.) He’s even stood up to big business, which really needs to happen. (So did Kemp in Georgia, by the way.) Compare and contrast to Pence, who folded to big business like a cheap suit on the IN RFRA when he was governor of IN.
You can’t know for sure how anyone will govern, but there are a number of GOP office holders who show a lot of promise, without Trump’s baggage.
On a whole raft of issues desantis has succeeded however he doesnt have to deal with a slew of possums like mcconnell and cornyn after this cycle it may be different in dc
Look how many voted for garland austin and mayorkas
I have no idea whether DeSantis wants to take on Trump in a bruising primary battle. I’m probably like a lot of others in hoping that the two of them can sort something out and provide a united front.
But this hasn’t been said and I think it is key. If DeSantis runs the smart campaign he should beat Trump. All he has to do is praise Trump’s policies lavishly and promise GOP voters he will govern much the same way, promise to fight the left and the swamp with the same vigor and determination, but without the mean tweets.
All the good policy of Trump without the mean tweets and without the specter of an 80 something in the White House again after four years of demented Sloe Joe.
How does Trump successfully run against a nicer, smarter, younger, less damaged version of himself? The more DeSantis agrees with Trump the more the race is limited to only the issues of age, character and baggage.
We all know how big Trump’s ego is. And he wants to run again because he wants revenge. He wants to prove he got more votes in 2020 (which he very clearly did).
But his age is an issue. He has to know that.
If DeSantis convinces Trump that he is fully on board with a MAGA platform and willing to publicly embrace Trump, and ask Trump to campaign and hold rallies for him and other MAGA candidates, they would be an extraordinarily powerful force. Not only unbeatable for the presidency, but likely to keep both houses for the GOP and that a less GOPe.
He should offer Trump the prospect of being remembered as the leader who brought MAGA to fruition. To be kingmaker instead of returning to the throne he’s already held. To make MAGA strong for a generation.
Imagine DeSantis on stages with Trump with both wearing red MAGA hats.
Look at the possums that stood in trumps way and made the way for shamblings way
With apologies to Douglas Adams: “The Narrative is definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate.”
Bauxite expressed the opinion that “a significant portion of the persuadable voting population hate Trump’s guts”.
For this reason, according to Bauxite, conservatives should look to another candidate in 2024.
While the media and President Trump’s political opponents continue their onslaught of libel, lies and distortions of the president. But will this strategy work? How many, if any, of the record 74 million voters would abandon the policies of the President that were beginning to make Americans feel like “it was morning again in America”?
A more significant question should be how many Americans, after seeing how the policies of President Trump had begun to reverse their fortunes and now seeing the future with the far-left fascists running the Democrat party will flock to President Trump in 2024?
From my view on the West coast, I like Ron DeSantis. I wish he were my governor.
He seems to be doing a good job battling the woke/trans-normal/fascists that control the Democrat party.
But there are to many unknowns at this time.
What would be his policies on:
Trade and the use of tariffs to encourage reciprocal trade and discourage the imbalance of our trade deficit?
Illegal immigration and amnesty?
Use of our military to advance foreign policy?
Energy and climate policy?
These are just a few of the unknowns.
DeSantis has received money from the Koch family and other wealthy people that make me nervous.
Noted Leftwing Blogger Announces He’ll Be Leaving a Right-Leaning Blog: https://ace.mu.nu/archives/400303.php
Would appear that Bauxite has polled/interviewed one HELLUVA lot of people…
(Unless it’s extraordinary intuition…)