Dear reader. Here is an excellent example of the infighting that you can expect from the Democratic party going forward. Including Trump-style rhetorical excesses.
P.S. Not a fan of envy-driven politics. Too many societies have been destroyed by it, the most recent high-profile example being Venezuela. Envy-driven politics is also infecting the movement to combat global climate disruption in the form of polluter populism.
Krugman can get awfully partisan. Fiscal irresponsibility is popular with both parties because, quite frankly, that is what the voters want.
Do they? Or are they being misled/uninformed?
Here in Canada, annual balanced budgets are popular with the 'people'. Macroeconomists have never argued in favour of annual balanced budgets. Never. Some have argued that deficits do not matter but that is another issue altogether.
Mislead, uninformed? You tell me. When BCers vote against value-added sales taxes after a multi-partisan campaign by economic and political elites in favour of value-added consumption taxes (VAT), are those that voted against misled and uninformed or are they voting against complicated arithmetic or is there some other reason?
Are western Canadians "exceptional" just like Americans are "exceptional" because they are misled/uniformed or is there some other reason? Starve the Beast is raised as a possible motivator but how many voters actually vote that way? More deficits and bigger debt means more low-risk, secure public bonds in circulation but once again how many voters actually vote that way?
Warren: Smart, qualified, passionate about the right issues, fearless. A woman, which I believe we are ready for & need, she could be the one.
Sanders: Had his moment, missed it. Seems too angry all the time, trigger-happy on dissing the other candidates. Likes to present himself as a non-politician, Independent, meanwhile plays hard-ball politics with the best of them (or worst). Won't commit to being a Democrat but runs in the Democratic race, can't have it both ways, not feeling the burn.
Biden: Also had his moment (twice). Smart, decent Senator & VP. May be leading early, I predict he'll be dropping soon.
Booker: Smart guy, but not a standout. Can't figure out what he's really about.
Castro: I really like him & his ideas. Finding his voice. Likely to move up in the polls, but probably too early for him, maybe 4-8 years away.
Buttigieg: Interesting he's up near the top. Don't see him staying there, not enough experience. A military veteran. Watch him in the future.
Harris: Came out on top early, couldn't sustain. Not likely to pick up steam. Not feeling she's being authentic enough.
Klbuchar: Have always like her, great ideas, good communication. Seem stuck in neutral, she needs to make a move soon or will be lost in the crowd.
O/Rourke: As they say in Texas, all hat & no cattle. Comes off like a side-show barker. Seems to be looking for some bumper sticker that will stick. Nope.
Everyone else: If I have to Google who you are....enjoy your 15 minutes.
This is interesting. Looks like this first debate may have at least got people thinking:
I'm amazed that even in Oklahoma there were people unfamiliar with Warren.
Most of this may simply reflect unfamiliarity, rather than genuine political interest (funny that NJ mostly searched "Cory Booker". Does that mean they want to find out if he's the same guy they voted for for Senator of NJ?)