Krugman is a poor economist and an even worse political pundit.

Harsh words for the former Reagan White House staffer and winner of the Nobel Prize.

 

Here are a couple paragraphs of his article that jumped out at me:

 

"By rejecting Mr. Cantor, the Republican base showed that it has gotten wise to the electoral bait and switch, and, by his fall, Mr. Cantor showed that the support network can no longer guarantee job security. For around three decades, the conservative fix was in; but no more.

 

"To see what I mean by bait and switch, think about what happened in 2004. George W. Bush won re-election by posing as a champion of national security and traditional values — as I like to say, he ran as America’s defender against gay married terrorists — then turned immediately to his real priority: privatizing Social Security. It was the perfect illustration of the strategy famously described in Thomas Frank’s book “What’s the Matter With Kansas?” in which Republicans would mobilize voters with social issues, but invariably turn postelection to serving the interests of corporations and the 1 percent."

Anytime someone uses the phrase "the one percent" these days in anything outside the context of a joke, I die a little inside.

Harsh words for the former Reagan White House staffer and winner of the Nobel Prize.

 

Here are a couple paragraphs of his article that jumped out at me:

 

"By rejecting Mr. Cantor, the Republican base showed that it has gotten wise to the electoral bait and switch, and, by his fall, Mr. Cantor showed that the support network can no longer guarantee job security. For around three decades, the conservative fix was in; but no more.

 

"To see what I mean by bait and switch, think about what happened in 2004. George W. Bush won re-election by posing as a champion of national security and traditional values — as I like to say, he ran as America’s defender against gay married terrorists — then turned immediately to his real priority: privatizing Social Security. It was the perfect illustration of the strategy famously described in Thomas Frank’s book “What’s the Matter With Kansas?” in which Republicans would mobilize voters with social issues, but invariably turn postelection to serving the interests of corporations and the 1 percent."

 

Wow. It's as if he doesn't keep writing the same thing over and over. And over.

Wow. It's as if he doesn't keep writing the same thing over and over. And over.

Conjures up 2004 when Rove and his boys put some defense of marriage proposal on the ballot in Ohio and about 10 other states to rev up support for W's re-election. Since the public has swung in a different direction on the issue of gay marriage, it'll be interesting to see if the GOP takes a similar tack in '16 or whether they'll just focus on suppressing the student and minority vote.

Conjures up 2004 when Rove and his boys put some defense of marriage proposal on the ballot in Ohio and about 10 other states to rev up support for W's re-election. Since the public has swung in a different direction on the issue of gay marriage, it'll be interesting to see if the GOP takes a similar tack in '16 or whether they'll just focus on suppressing the student and minority vote.

 

Not sure what that has to do with Paul Krugman being a reptitive, poor economist and political pundit, let alone this thread.

 

I really don't care for Rove or anyone in his circle.

 

I don't want to hijack the thread, as we're already talking about 2016 in another thread, but Rand is doing the best with millennials in the GOP field.

 

He's also tied with Hillary.

 

"The poll does suggest that, among Republicans, Paul has the most reach with young voters. Clinton leads Bush and Huckabee by 21 and 11 points respectively among 18- to 29-year-olds, but Paul ran even with her among voters in that demographic, with both earning 43 percent of the vote."

 

Rand Paul Leads Hillary Clinton in KY, NH, CO in Potential 2016 Matchup | National Review Online