Former President Donald Trump told Yahoo Finance that he was noncommittal on the subject of a hypothetical 2024 rematch with his successor — but made a bold prediction about his ability to prevail in a Republican primary that may include Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.
Like it or not, the next presidential campaign has been underway for months, and regular visits to Iowa by 2024 hopefuls are already a thing.
On the Republican side, Trump would clearly be an overwhelming favorite if he gets into the race. He’s been coy about his intentions, but dove into his thinking on what a 2024 contest might look like in a wide-ranging interview with Yahoo Finance Live.
The former president was confident about his chances if he decided to run, even if it meant a potential head-to-head matchup with DeSantis, another GOP favorite.
“If I faced him, I’d beat him like I would beat everyone else,” Trump declared, even as he said he doesn’t actually expect a showdown.
“I don’t think I will face him,” he predicted about what DeSantis and other Republicans would do if he got into the race. “I think most people would drop out, I think he would drop out.”
The Florida governor is currently up for reelection in 2022, and he says he isn’t looking beyond that race. “I’m not considering anything beyond doing my job,” he recently told Fox News, adding “we’ve got a lot of stuff going on in Florida.”
Polling can be very unreliable years before any actual votes are cast. Yet surveys of the field so far have consistently shown DeSantis sitting atop a potentially crowded field as the most formidable obstacle to a third GOP nomination in a row for Mr. Trump.
One recent survey in particular raised eyebrows with the finding that DeSantis and Trump were nearly tied.
That look at the race, commissioned by a Super PAC of former Trump aide turned vocal Trump critic John Bolton, found Mr. Trump with the support of 26.2 percent of Republican voters. He was closely followed by Mr. DeSantis at 25.2 percent.
Other polls, however, have painted a much more flattering picture to Mr. Trump of his continued popularity. An Emerson College poll from early September found Trump trouncing DeSantis 67% to 10% in a 8-person field. That same poll found him narrowly beating President Biden in a hypothetical head-to-head general election matchup.
‘We had the greatest economy’
In response to President Joe Biden’s sagging popularity — undermined by the mismanaged withdrawal from Afghanistan and the Democrat’s stalled economic agenda — the former president has ratcheted up his interviews and political activities in recent weeks, and sharpened his criticism about the incumbent.
In a recent video posted to Twitter, Trump ally Rep. Jim Jordan (R.-Oh) said he knew directly that the former President would run again based on conversations with him. Jordan added an aside that “he’s about to announce after all this craziness in Afghanistan.”
Trump himself has repeatedly come right up to the line of announcing a bid. Last month, he toyed with his ex press secretary Sean Spicer, by declining to comment to a 2024 run, “but I will tell you I think you will be very happy Sean.”
During his discussion with Yahoo Finance, Trump repeated that he was still weighing his options, and often returned to an economic message that could be featured in an election campaign.
He noted multiple times during the conversation that the economy had been “really getting ready to rock” before the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent recession. “We did a job that nobody’s done and had COVID not come and interrupted: we had the greatest economy.”
Yet as ever, the former president stretched the truth when listing his economic accomplishments. One example was when he cited the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act as the “largest tax cuts in history,” a claim he’s made for years that fact checkers have often noted isn’t true.
Foreign-born population soars to new record under Biden; highest rate of immigrants since 1910
The U.S. has had a massive surge in immigration this year, with as many as 1.5 million newcomers and a record 46.2 million foreign-born people, according to a report for the Center for Immigration Studies.
After a deep trough last year, likely because of the COVID-19 pandemic and the travel and migration restrictions imposed to control the spread, the flow of people rebounded around the time President Biden was elected.
In numbers never seen before, they are coming legally through airports and land border crossings and illegally across the Rio Grande and remote regions of Arizona and California.
“There was pent-up demand for legal immigration, and illegal immigration has exploded in one of the greatest surges, if not the greatest, we’ve ever seen,” said Steven A. Camarota, the demographer who was the chief author of the report. “It’s driving the numbers up and up and up.”
As it stands, 14.2% of the U.S. population is foreign-born, or 1 out of every 7 people. That is the highest rate of immigrants in the population since 1910, when the number was 14.7%. At current trends, the government says, the U.S. will break that record well before the end of this decade.
Those numbers are even starker given the reversal of trends.
The data showed a drop of 1.2 million immigrants from February to September 2020, likely the result of coronavirus restrictions blocking new entrants, even as outmigration continued. That left the population of the foreign-born — the Census Bureau’s term — at 43.8 million.
It was up to 45 million by January and marched steadily to the current 46.2 million total shown for last month.
In the year after President Trump’s election, the immigrant population flattened.
Mashup: MSM worst moments of 2021
Salvation Army’s Internal Survey Suggests Only Whites Are Racist
“I Took The Salvation Army’s Internal Survey On ‘Racism’ Within The Organization. Here’s What I Discovered.”
The Salvation Army has recently come under significant fire for asking white donors to “offer a sincere apology” for racism. The nearly 150-year old organization created a curriculum entitled “Let’s Talk About Racism” and shared it with its members, along with associated DEI Trainings that cite and draw from Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X. Kendi’s work. The packet argues that Christians should “stop trying to be ‘colorblind’” and that they should apologize for being “antagonistic.. to black people or the culture, values and interests of the black community.” In response, donors by the thousands have vowed not to donate until the organization reverses their stance.
The Salvation Army has denied any wrongdoing, defiantly calling the allegations that they have gone woke “false.” While they admit that the topic of race in America can be fraught with controversy, they have denied they have “gone woke.” Much of their denial centers around their claim that use of the guide was completely voluntary, and that they are not peddling critical race narratives in their organization.
I obtained a copy of The Salvation Army’s internal survey on “racism within the Salvation Army” and tested that claim.
One Salvation Army officer reached out on condition of anonymity to Color Us United, the raceblind advocacy organization which I run, to reveal an internal survey he was asked to take. It was not a voluntary survey, and was sent by the Territorial Diversity and Inclusion Secretary to every Salvation Army Officer in the US Central Territory. The purpose of the survey, according to an email from the “Territorial Racial Diversity and Inclusion Secretary,” was “to better understand perception of institutional racial bias within The Salvation Army.” The accompanying email stated that there was no “preconceived idea” with regard to whether or not racism existed in The Salvation Army, and told recipients that there were no wrong answers.
I sat down and went through the questions.
First, Questions #1, #2, and #3 asked me for my race, age, and gender. I could not skip these questions. Already, I felt uncomfortable being required to list my personal attributes. If I was an officer, I would be wondering: how could this information be used against me in the future? (They did promise anonymity in this survey.)
The survey then asks Salvationists if they agree with the following definition of racism: “Institutional racism refers to organizational or system processes, behaviors, policies, or procedures, which produce negative outcomes for nonwhites relative to those for whites.” The remaining questions in the survey are dependent upon agreeing to this definition of racism. For any Officer or Soldier who disagrees with this framing, there is no way to express any disagreement or nuance apart from plainly saying that racism does not exist.
Question #6 goes on to ask the survey taker whether they believe there is any institutional bias or racism in The Salvation Army. Question #7 says: “If you answered no to question #6, do you think others in The Salvation Army think there are racial tensions or institutional racism?” The purpose of these questions, I started to feel, was to force the survey taker to admit that The Salvation Army is institutionally racist according to their definition of racism. There is no room for any Officer to elaborate on how they disagree with the definitions, framing, or worldview informing the questions.
The final question asks: “What is the best way to address Racism in The Salvation Army?” The answer options are: “individual reconciliation,” “group reconciliation,” “addressing structures and practices that cause racism,” “all of the above,” or “other.” Note that there is no option for the survey taker to simply say that racism is not a problem in The Salvation Army. The survey (which according to the email, was “intended to go to all the officers within your division, employees, and soldiers” for the Central Territory) simply assumes that racism is present in the organization.
Going through the survey, it became apparent that the survey was attempting to lead me to making only one conclusion about The Salvation Army – that it harbored problematic racism.
This belief is one of the core tenets of critical race theory. Critical race theorists teach that racism is ubiquitous in all aspects of American life. They also teach that it works systemically; that is, by being ingrained in the systems and institutions that operate in society. Their primary evidence of the system being racist is the reality that individuals from different demographics have different life outcomes on average, without taking into account any variables that might impact said life outcomes apart from the color of their skin. All of these concepts are reflected in The Salvation Army’s survey.
Any officer who believes in individualism, colorblindness, and meritocracy will be unable to answer any of the survey questions in good faith. Any officer who believes that The Salvation Army is not a racist organization would not be able to answer these questions in good faith either. Many (if not most) Americans believe that racism is primarily an issue of individuals who harbor feelings of hate against those of other races, not a society-wide conspiracy as alleged by antiracist activists. This survey totally excludes the colorblind perspective from the conversation and forces Officers and other Salvationists into a critical race theory-informed box.