10 Comments
author

Doug I think you are far too dismissive of unnamed sources. They are often a hugely valuable way to get insight into what’s really happening in a campaign!

Expand full comment

Go figure! Running to be Donald Trump as opposed to running against Donald Trump didn’t work. Makes it kind of hard to explain why you’re running when there’s already one Donald Trump in the race. 🙄

Expand full comment

Trump is not only going to beat DeSantis, he is going to win in 2024. I am increasingly depressed and angered by that. It really shouldn't be close, because of all we know about Trump, yet voters seemingly are willing to pull the lever for him once again.

Expand full comment

Based on his thuggish record in Florida the last place I want to see DeSantis is in the White House... even on a tour.

Expand full comment

Stop saying DeSantis won overwhelmingly. Fifteen million Floridians are registered to vote. Five million of them voted for DeSantis. The other 10 million either supported someone else or weren't excited enough about DeSantis to vote at all. That's not what I call overwhelming support.

Expand full comment

Can one blow something that they can't attain to begin with??

Front running DEMS in 2004 - John Edwards, Howard Dean

Front running DEMS in 2008 - John Edwards, Chris Dodd

Expand full comment
founding

He’s waiting for the felony charges

Expand full comment

Do you think DeSantis might be undiagnosed (or unacknowledged) on the spectrum?

Expand full comment

Don't mistake me for a fan of Ron DeSantis. This story is what people hate about journalism. The NBC piece has two brief negative quotes from named sources, and endless junk from unnamed people familiar with the thinking of obscure people who won't comment. Then, pile three such pieces of puffery together, and spray a coating of analysis to hold it together, and we've got a giant whipped cream dessert of news that is 5% cream, 5% sugar, and 90% air. So I couldn't verify anything about it if I wanted to. So I can't trust it.

Unnamed sources are fine for the Watergate investigation, where they reveal now what we might verify later. But the are overused for gossip masquerading as news.

Expand full comment