Look. All of the above was even more true of when they took over with a massive default not of their making and the Ks were a remarkable unexpected success for 7-8 years. Now the thing is to compare that with Macri's first term of office when he inherited much less of the same kind of problems from the later and poor CK admin. So what is his record? Significantly worse.Cristina's last term was plagued with:
- Negative GDP growth
- Double-digit inflation
- Large fiscal deficits
- Exchange controls
- An increase in poverty
Are these the makings of a solid economic plan that will free people from poverty?
"But things are worse under Macri."
Indeed they are — the numbers don't lie.
So, the solution is to bring back someone who was an absolute disaster?
So your case that CK was an 'absolute disaster' is not proven as a judgement on Kirchenerismo over the whole period and is not looking so bad (not because of stupidity or nostaligia as you claim) but because M has made those poor performance years look better thjan they were because his have been worse and look like getting worse.
Once again I am struggling to see the logic of your case: you seem to say M has been worse than even late CK so we assume he needs replacing? Agreed.
So what are the prospects? Well we have candidates from all parties and the one who gains traction is Fernd and he is assembling a team. He may or may not be a CK clone in office if he makes it. The point is that Macri has so disillusioned the electorate in record time that a CK candidate becomes viable.
We might wish for another person or another administration but this is realpolitik and the electorate decide. What else is there?
Then the elephant in the argument is that the IMF will massively constrain what anyone can do.
Beyond that we need to agree to dissagree as you suggest.