Poll: Florida governor Ron DeSantis at -3 among independent voters, while Trump is at -39

Who should Republicans nominate for President in 2024? Well, it depends on what Republicans want. If Republicans want to win, then they should nominate DeSantis. In order to win the election, the Republican candidate will need to win independents. And DeSantis is doing better with independents than Trump. A LOT BETTER. Let’s take a look at the latest poll data.

This is from Daily Wire:

The poll from WPA Intelligence — a conservative firm that has been used by top Republican U.S. Senators and top conservative organizations like the Family Research Council — surveyed 1,160 registered voters nationwide and has a margin of error of +/-2.9% at the 95% confidence level.

Here are the interesting numbers, with respect to winning in 2024:

  • Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’ net favorability ratings surpass Trump among Republicans (+66 vs. +44), Fox News viewers (+58 vs. +27), and Trump’s own 2020 voters (+69 vs. +54).

  • DeSantis is also well liked by a broad coalition of Republicans with a 68%/0% favorable/unfavorable rating among self-described “Trump Republicans”; 71%/9% among “Traditional Republicans”; and 82%/5% among “Reagan Republicans.”

  • DeSantis has more crossover appeal than both Trump and Biden with a net -3 favorability rating among Independent voters compared to -27 for Biden and -39 for Trump.

  • Additionally, 66% of Independents view Trump unfavorably, including 52% who view him “very unfavorably.”

This is scary for Trump:

  • Sixty-four percent of all voters — including 60% of Republicans, 63% of Independents, and 65% of split-ticket voters — say Donald Trump was a major reason for the Republican Party’s poor performance in the midterm elections.

I think Trump did a fine job as president, the most conservative president in my lifetime. However, he was elected to drain the swamp, and he wasn’t willing or able to do that.

I’m carefully monitoring the actions of Ron DeSantis in Florida. I have no interest in what he says. And what I’m most interested in is how he is handling Disney and Blackrock, two big secular left companies.

Here is the action on Disney, reported in the New York Post:

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill Friday nixing the Walt Disney Company’s sweet tax deal with the state — after the entertainment giant opposed its so-called “Don’t Say Gay” law.

Asserting that the company was aiming to “inject sexuality” into its content, DeSantis said he was not “comfortable having that type of agenda getting special treatment in my state.”

Enacted in 1967 to attract Disney to Florida, the so-called Reedy Creek Improvement District gives the company near autonomy — including control over police and fire units as well as infrastructure management — at its properties.

The abrupt nixing of the 55-year-old pact came after Disney objected to legislation DeSantis initiated that banned instruction on gender identity and sexual orientation for kids in kindergarten through the third grade.

Here is the action on Blackrock, reported by Daily Wire:

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a fierce foe of the woke agenda permeating major corporations, has yanked a huge $2 billion worth of Florida’s assets from BlackRock, Inc., whose CEO, Larry Fink, has championed “stakeholder capitalism” to use shareholders’ money to finance his woke agenda.

In a harsh condemnation of BlackRock, Chief Financial Officer Jimmy Patronis made the announcement for the state on Thursday that $1.43 billion of Florida’s Long Duration Portfolio and of its $600 million Short Term Investment Fund (STIF) managed by BlackRock would be pulled. By the start of 2023, Florida’s Treasury will have divested from BlackRock’s management of all short and long-term investments.

I understand the secular left. They like to talk their way out of problems. They think that they can trample over the Constitution and human rights with their virtue signaling talk. That’s why I am watching to see whether DeSantis wants to talk to them, or whether he just wants to rip money out of their bank accounts. So far, he seems to be interested in actions. And that’s why he’s my pick in 2024. We have to elect someone who will take action against the the pedophiles and the groomers. Someone who understands how to communicate to them in a language that they understand.

Progressive white women report high levels of mental illness in 2020 Pew survey

I have the most amazing video for you to see. It’s a crazy left-wing activist doxing a libertarian lesbian woman wearing a breathe-through mask. First, let’s take a look at the video. Then, we’ll look at a recent survey reported by Pew Research in 2020, which assesses how mentally stable far-left feminist women are (self-reported). Then, I’ll make some comments for unmarried men.

OK, so here is the video, which was shared by the woman who was doxed. So it’s OK for me to share it, since the doxed woman didn’t care about it.

So, is this crazy woman rare? Or is she common?

Progressive white women and mental illness

Feminist web site Evie Magazine reported on the some 2020 findings by Pew Research (left-wing pollster):

A 2020 Pew Research study reveals that over half of white, liberal women have been diagnosed with a mental health condition at some point.

[T]he study, which is titled Pew American Trends Panel: Wave 64, was dated March 2020 — over a year ago.

The study, which examined white liberals, moderates, and conservatives, both male and female, found that conservatives were far less likely to be diagnosed with mental health issues than those who identified as either liberal or even “very liberal.”

[…]White women, ages 18-29, who identified as liberal were given a mental health diagnosis from medical professionals at a rate of 56.3%, as compared to 28.4% in moderates and 27.3% in conservatives.

Here’s the part of the data I thought was most interesting:

White Liberal Women

Who would marry a crazy person?

So, the point about this that I want to make is… who is going to marry these mentally ill progressive white women? Being a good wife and mother takes a certain amount of connection to reality. It takes a certain amount of empathy, compassion, and rationality. These progressive white women don’t have any of that. So, who is going to marry them? I know that there are thirsty progressive men (and thirsty conservative men who fake being progressive), who will go ahead and hit it and quit it. Pump it and dump it. But how many men would commit to someone who’s mentally ill?

And in fact, that’s exactly what we’re seeing with the marriage rates:

Marriage rates in the United States over time

That’s for America, but things are even worse in countries that have slid further toward the secular left edge of the political spectrum.

When you look at marriage rates in Canada and Europe, you understand that men are even LESS likely to choose marriage when they have to pay over 50% of what they earn in taxes. And so the marriage rate is declining. I think young, unmarried women in Canada and Europe are want to raise taxes in order to get free stuff from government. Single mother welfare, food stamps, abortions, contraceptives, IVF, breast enlargements, etc. Some feminists are even asking for free cosmetic surgery. With a big enough government, they don’t have to marry at all. Big government leaves them free to play the field, without having to care about finding a good man. But what if taxes get so high that the few good men those women passed over for 40 years simply can’t afford to take on a wife and support multiple children he didn’t father? Paying for things like a stay-at-home wife and homeschooling, etc. is expensive. Men can’t afford a wife, and also pay for goodies for all the single progressive women with mental illnesses.

Conservative men want nothing to do with daycare and public schools – we know that those facilities are dominated by progressive women. And we don’t want trouble from feminist lawyers and feminist judges in the divorce courts. Divorce is very expensive for men. And we may never see our children again. Then there are the progressive white women in the workplace, who get very bitter with men as a result of getting wrecked by bad boys. Even if we find a good wife, we still have to deal with all these progressive white women with mental illnesses in positions of power. Is it worth it to take risks like this? It depends on the reward, I guess. There comes a point where the juice isn’t worth the squeeze.

Christian woman finds a way to discuss her faith with non-Christians

I found an interesting article where a Christian woman explains how she used to share her testimony with non-Christians. But that wasn’t working. So she decided to try something different.

She writes:

I’ll never forget the first time I shared my personal testimony with a non-Christian.

When the opportunity arose and I shared my story with an unbelieving friend, she replied, “That’s so cool. I’m so happy you found something that works for you.”

For me?

“It’s not about what works for me,” I said, trying to hide my discouragement. “It’s about what’s true for everyone.”

“That doesn’t make sense,” she responded. “That’s your experience, not mine. I had a similar revelation when I realized I could leave the church, and I’ve become a better person for my decision. Just as you were freed from your heaviest burdens by finding God, I was freed from mine by leaving God behind.”

I was devastated but I chalked it up to my friend’s hardheartedness. I decided to shake the dust off my feet and look forward to the next opportunity.

But time after time of sharing my testimony resulted in similar responses. People expressed enthusiasm that I was happy, that Christianity worked for me, and that I had “found my niche.” Yet no one considered my experience as anything more than just that—my own personal experience.

[…]I had been taught that sharing what God had done in my life was the ideal way to witness to non-Christians. A personal testimony was interesting yet non-confrontational, compelling but inoffensive. And yet, despite having shared my testimony with dozens of unbelievers, not a single person felt challenged to consider the truth claims of Christianity.

She noticed that her approach wasn’t actually in the Bible. There was a different approach being demonstrated by Jesus, and later by his disciples.

She writes:

When Jesus called his first disciples, he taught truth and provided evidence (miracles) to support his claims, then he asked people to follow him (Luke 5:1–11). In fact, this was his method whenever he went into new regions (see Luke 4:14–44; John 4:7–26). People decided to follow Jesus not on blind faith or a subjective feeling, but based on the evidence they had seen and heard.[i]

Jesus also used evidence to assuage the doubts of even those who had been with him a long time. John the Baptist was Jesus’ cousin, who leapt in the womb during Mary’s visit (Luke 1:39–45), baptized Jesus in the Jordan River, heard God’s voice from heaven, and saw the Holy Spirit descend on Jesus in bodily form like a dove (Luke 3:21–22). Yet when John experienced unexpected suffering, he began to doubt.

Jesus didn’t respond as many do today, by insisting that John “just believe” or “have faith” or “prayer harder.” Rather, he responded with more evidence, saying, “Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them. And blessed is the one who is not offended by me.” (Matt. 11:2–6).

[…]At Pentecost, the apostle Peter offered signs and wonders, fulfilled prophecy, and relayed eyewitness testimony to persuade people from all over the Roman Empire that the most reasonable explanation for what they were seeing was not morning drunkenness, but a risen Messiah (Acts 2:1–41).

On his missionary journeys, the apostle Paul reasoned with the Jews from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that Jesus was the Messiah who needed to suffer and rise from the dead (Acts 17:1–3, 17). And he reasoned with the Gentiles from outside the Scriptures, making a case with their own accepted beliefs to convince them (Acts 17:17–34).

In fact, in describing his mission, Paul told the Philippians, “I am put here for the defense of the gospel” (1:7, 16). This word translated defense is the same word from which we get our English word “apologetics,” meaning to make reasoned arguments or to provide evidence as justification. Using this same word, Peter commanded believers to “always [be] prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you”(1 Pet. 3:15).

So, she decided to dump the testimony approach, and try the Biblical approach. But she had to change it a little bit, since she couldn’t perform miracles herself:

We are not eyewitnesses to Jesus’s life and resurrection, but we have the accounts of those who were. We don’t typically see miracles, but we have millennia of biblical scholarship and archaeology that provide reasons to believe the accounts are trustworthy. We don’t often hear God speaking audibly or see him parting seas, but we have significant scientific evidence that shows the universe had a beginning, and millennia of observation to confirm the scientific principle that everything that begins to exist has a cause.

I think a lot of Christians never move on from approach she described that wasn’t getting results. And there’s a reason for that – studying evidence is hard work. But I can tell you from my experience as a software engineer, there is no better way to convince other people to adopt your view than to show them working code that produces results. If they have a prototype, they will adopt your design. Similarly with Christianity. If you have evidence, then you will be persuasive.

When talking about spiritual things with non-Christians, always remember the joke about the two men walking in the woods who meet a bear. One man starts to put on his running shoes. The other man says “what are you doing? you can’t outrun a bear!” And the first man says “I don’t have to. I only have to outrun you”. It’s the same with apologetics. You don’t have to be William Lane Craig to talk about your faith to non-Christians. You just have to know more than your non-Christian opponent knows about evidence.

The way things are going these days with the public schools and the mainstream news media, this is actually pretty easy to do. One or two introductory books on the origin of the universe, the fine-tuning for intelligent life, the origin of biological information, the origin of body plans, the historical reliability of the New Testament, the minimal facts case for the resurrection, etc. will do the job. You might need another one on philosophical challenges like evil, suffering, divine hiddenness, etc. But we’re talking no more than 5 books, and you’ll be effective in the vast majority of your conversations. If you can only get one book, I like Sean McDowell and Jonathan Morrow’s “Is God Just a Human Invention?” best.

%d bloggers like this: