(Editor's Note: The following opinion column does not constitute an endorsement of any political party or candidate on the part of Newsmax.)
Michigan Research polling shows that Kamala Harris has strong support only among highly educated voters, who back her 70% to 27%.
This mirrors Tim Walz's contempt for the popularity of Trump among those he deems less enlightened. He likened it to seeking heart surgery and not listening to the experts at the Mayo Clinic.
Common sense tells us to trust heart surgeons as experts because they succeed in more than 97% of their surgeries. In contrast, common sense also tells us not to consider left-wing economists promoting Harris as credible, given their poor track record.
Among college graduates, those with some college experience, and especially among those with no college education, Trump wins a majority — 74% to 25% in the latter group. This sentiment echoes JD Vance’s incredulity that voters would choose Harris over practical observations about the economy during Trump’s first term compared to the Biden-Harris term.
The upcoming election appears to be a clash between common sense and the perspectives of so-called experts.
In the wake of the 2016 election, predictions from many economists, including Paul Krugman, suggested that the stock market would crash and never recover. Yet, within hours, those predictions crumbled as the market welcomed Trump’s election with a rally, showcasing that these experts had misread the situation entirely.
Consider CNN’s reversal in stories within eight hours:
CNN, November 9, 2016, at 8:37 AM ET: Global markets drop as U.S. election results shock investors
It took less than 8 hours for it to become clear that Krugman and the other Trump-hating economists were clueless, as CNN led a story with, “That didn't take long. An overnight panic in global markets evaporated as Wall Street gave an emphatic welcome to President-elect Donald Trump,” with the headline reversal:
Wall Street welcomes Trump with a bang.
Over the next three years, Trump’s policies led to a stock market increase of 75%, culminating in a record high of 32,150 just before the COVID shutdown.
The Biden-Harris administration has since reversed many of Trump’s economic gains. Since that final day before the COVID shutdown, food prices are up 30%, housing prices nearly 40%, and gas prices surged from about $2.30 to nearly $5 per gallon.
These changes resonate deeply with everyday voters who feel the financial strain, contrasting sharply with the beliefs of many highly educated individuals.
Many liberals seem to believe that their educational credentials confer a superior understanding of political and economic issues. This was apparent during a recent exchange between Vance and Gov. Walz, where Walz framed the debate as one between blind adherence to expert advice and total ignorance.
Vance’s approach reflects reasonable skepticism: trusting experts can be warranted, but it’s prudent to question those who have repeatedly missed the mark.
If the economists’ warnings had held true in 2016, voters might heed their advice today. But since their predictions failed, many voters now view their opinions with skepticism.
If these economists operated in the private sector, they would have likely faced dismissal for their repeated failures; yet in academia, they continue to push their agenda.
Expertise has its place. For instance, economic modeling can determine the appropriate number of immigrants needed in various industries. However, common sense tells us that an open border can lead to exploitation by criminal organizations and drug trafficking, posing grave risks to public safety, including fentanyl deaths.
Similarly, while experts can estimate U.S. aid requirements for allies, common sense suggests that sending billions to a state sponsor of terrorism like Iran — especially after a chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan — could embolden extremist groups. Voters intuitively recognize these implications, and they often find the arguments of some academics — who advocate for concepts like 200 genders — simply a rejection of biological science.
An academic “expert” who seriously believes male prisoners in California suddenly “identify” as women is laughed off by any heterosexual man who instantly realizes he would say the same thing if that’s all it took to spend his prison sentence surrounded by women instead of men.
The upcoming election will highlight a critical divide: three-quarters of those with advanced degrees, often educated by liberal taxpayer-funded professors, support Harris and attempt to rationalize the current economic climate by comparing it to Europe.
However, this only underscores the need to reject an academic liberalism that has led to economic challenges across the Atlantic and not let them come here.
Ultimately, the 2024 election will determine whether America aligns more with common sense or with the academic elites who impose their perspectives as facts. Many academics resemble lawyers, who often start with a predetermined conclusion and cherry-pick evidence to support it.
In contrast, genuine experts — like doctors diagnosing illnesses — rely on concrete evidence and tangible outcomes, much like the everyday voter whose understanding comes from lived experiences rather than theoretical constructs in an ivory tower.
As we approach the ballot box this November, let's hope that common sense prevails.
John Pudner is president of Takebackaction.org, a nonprofit home for Americans seeking true political reform. The organization's conservative solutions include: working for voter integrity through steps like voter ID; stopping illicit foreign money via groups from impacting elections; and supporting innovations like Instant Runoff/Final-Five voting to take away the opposition's incentive to fund spoiler libertarian or pro-life candidates, that often allow progressive candidates to win with less than 50% of the vote. Read more John Pudner Reports — Here.